Friday, 6 November 2009

A Reply To "Dave" On The Politics of The SWP & Fighting Fascism

This post is a reply to "Dave" following on from a discussion we have been having here


”For those of honest mind please read the following article (Daly Mail vs the Nazi’s) in the current edition of socialist worker, I think it makes my point:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19454”


What point exactly is it making??? For one thing its confused. I think there actually has to be a debate about the nature of the BNP, as the Weekly Worker suggest. On the one hand, I have myself pointed to the fact that the BNP has within it many thugs, and you do not have to look far to find thuggish behaviour from BNP members. Until recently, I too stood by the classical view of the BNP as a fascist party. However, having read some of the articles in the WW recently, I am prepared to take a more open view. I think to be saying to people that this is a classic “Nazi” party, when it has NOT been going out in an organised way to smash up Left meetings or Trade Unions as the Nazis did, when it is speaking out vehemently, against groups like the EDL, who are engaged in such activity, could simply undermine the left, in the eyes of workers, who look at those statements and compare it with the reality and find a mismatch. Certainly, we can make the point that it is doing this in order to win electoral support, but does not the fact of how such a process changed the Front National – and in a different context Provisional Sinn Fein, or in yet another the way in which electoralism changed “Socialist” parties, and changes individual “socialist” politicians – cause us to engage in a more in depth analysis of what the BNP is?

At the same time the SWP’s position is thoroughly confused. At the same time as running such stories attacking the bourgeois press and bourgeois parties, it then puts the leading representatives, like David Cameron, of that same bourgeoisie, on its platforms, or attaches their names to its campaigns. It even advises people on demonstrations, it has called, not to attack the racists of UKIP! Trotsky referred to such bankrupt politics when he said that once you start down this road you always end up giving your support to, or going into alliance with, ever more reactionary politicians, because there is always some “greater evil”, measured against which these politicians are themselves the “lesser evil”.

What is more such politics reflect the fact that the SWP does not operate on the basis of class politics, but works on the basis of a world in which politics is compartmentalised. Over here there is “industrial politics”, over here there is “Anti-racism”, over there there is “Women’s Work” or “LGBT Work”, over here there is “Anti-Imperialism”. And what it does is to say different things in each area. When its working in the “Women’s Work” area, for example, it will promote itself as the champion of women’s rights. The same when it is working in the LGBT area it will be the greatest proponent of Gay and Lesbian rights and so on. But, when it is working on anti-racism it will refuse to pursue these issues, for example as it did in Bradford a few years ago over the question of grooming, and will even accuse others of Islamophobia, for doing so themselves. When it is working in the area of anti-imperialism, for example supporting the murdering mullahs in Iran or Iraq, it will refuse to challenge the fact that these same people are murdering socialists, trade unionists, women and gays and so on. The reason it does this is quite clear. Rather than locating its politics on the basis of class politics, it bases itself on “building the party”, and in each area of work simply says whatever it thinks that particular milieu wants to hear. It acts in accordance with your policy of “diplomacy”, subordinating its politics to the need to not upset possible recruits. But, what this “diplomacy” actually amounts to is nothing more than the kind of Opportunism that the adherents of the Second International were guilty.
The piece also is politically inadequate for another reason. It attacks – quite correctly – the racism of the gutter press (which for reasons I set out in my blog I don’t think necessarily DOES reflect the interests of the Capitalist class, which requires social stability, and cheap imported labour). But, it is arrant nonsense to suggest that the support for the BNP is based solely on the ravings of the Daily Mail, or the reactionary politics of mainstream parties. The BNP have been picking up workers votes, because many of the least well-off sections of the working class feel that they have been shat upon from a great height. They believe they don’t have jobs, decent houses, school places and so on, because of immigration. They are, of course, wrong, but simply telling them they are wrong is not enough. They need someone to provide them with a solution to those problems – a political solution.

But, and this was one of the main points I have previously made, it is quite clear that neither the UAF, nor the other anti-fascist organisations that base themselves on trying to build Popular Frontist opposition to the BNP can possibly provide such a solution. The SW article certainly offers none does it? The UAF etc. cannot offer such solutions precisely because doing so means advocating CLASS politics, and if the UAF did that then the David Cameron’s, the Teddy Taylor’s, and all the Bishops, all the bourgeois Nationalists who want to oppose the BNP by pretending to be better Nationalists would disappear in an instant.

“Imagine how they feel when you present your immigration ideas! Imagine what that does to the image of socialism in their eyes but you are correct not to pander to ignorance and the SWP are correct also.”

What on Earth are you talking about? How can my position of holding to a clear class politics and arguing against Immigration Controls cause any confusion? My position is clear. I see workers as the revolutionary class. It is the job of a Marxist to stick with the workers even where they hold reactionary ideas, precisely because the task is to divest them of those ideas. I do not make acceptance of my ideas a precondition for sticking with the workers, but I do insist on the need for Marxists not to abandon their ideas. Compare that with the sectarianism of the SWP over the LOR strikes, where they recognised that those who argue for “Import Controls”, and “British Jobs 4 British Workers” are “proponents of racism”, and on that basis refused to support workers in struggle against the bosses!!!!! In fact, one reason they did that – along with many of the other sects whose natural recruiting ground is amongst the petit-bourgeois, student and intellectualist milieu where having “right-on” politics in respect of racism is paramount – was precisely fear that they would lose support and potential recruits.

“I am not sure they do anymore actually. They have evolved into banter, that is my impression. Just like the jokes against the Germans.”

I think you are deluding yourself if you do not believe that these jokes were only possible because they took as their starting point entrenched stereotypes. Its rather like the bloke who said to me down the gym the other week that he was not a racist, and then went on to tell me that he’d been reading Obama’s book, and related that “his father was like all these blacks and couldn’t keep his dick in his trousers.” I suppose that’s just banter too!

“As I said shame some do not see through this sham!!!”

I think it’s a shame you are not prepared to consider whether more analysis is required.

“Your response to my Bakunin jibe was thoroughly confused. I will try to summarise as best I can my take on this immense topic.”

I’m not confused at all, its your politics that are confused, because you start from some principal, and then completely abandon it when it comes to its application!

”I do not agree with the pro imperialist position of the AWL for a variety of reason, but I think Marxists should have opinions on international matters.”

Who would disagree with that?

“Of course those opinions must be based absolutely on the interests of the class struggle. We should also distinguish a conflict between imperialists and those wars of domination by imperialists against weaker states.”

But, the SWP does not do that. On Ireland back in the 60’s it started from a thoroughly workerist position refusing to take on the National Question and British involvement, because it was unpopular amongst British workers at a time when bombs were going off. Then it completely changed course and became cheerleaders for the Provos. Its statements about “We are all Hezbollah Now”, i.e. we are all a bunch of clerical-fascists, have nothing to do with basing yourself on the class struggle and everything to do with basing yourself on trying to win recruits in its currently chosen milieu!

Moreover, what does imperialism against weaker states mean? Was Germany a weaker state when it had been occupied and placed under domination by Britain and the US, for example? Moreover, even having made this distinction what are the political conclusions that flow from it. I’ve given the quote from Trotsky about a war between Brazil and Britain. But, his more detailed position is illustrated by his position in relation to Japanese Imperialism and China. The SWP’s position on these issues is effectively that of Stalin. That is they subordinate their own politics in order to enter a Popular Front with bourgeois nationalist forces – “we are all Hezbollah”. Compare that with Trotsky who opposed submersion of the Communist forces in the KMT, whilst at the same time arguing for support for the KMT and Chiang Kai Shek against Japan. But, what did that “support” consist of. It consisted of offering to forge a military alliance against Japanese Imperialism, whilst maintaining the clearest political and organisational demarcation from the KMT, in fact, sharpening the criticisms of the KMT, pointing out that it could not be relied upon to fight a battle to the death with Japan, that it would turn on the workers and so on.

He was, of course, absolutely correct, because having used the Communists, just as the Stalinists and Communalists used the SWP in Respect, Chiang turned round and massacred the Communists, just as the Stalinists and Communalists turned on the SWP. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

”Marx allowed himself to have an opinion on the war between Germany and France that led to the Paris Commune and at the same time he tasked the international to “put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland”.”

But, Marx’s solution was not to submerge class politics in bourgeois Nationalism. Marx was a Centralist. He was only reluctantly in favour of the separation of the Irish and British workers in order to resolve this problem. Even then he favoured a federal Ireland and Britain in order to try to maintain the unity of the class. And start to finish, even though he was writing before the much fuller discussion of the National Question by later revolutionaries like Lenin, his solution was based on the working class providing the answer. Compare that with the SWP’s kowtowing to the reactionary politics of all kinds of clerical-fascists and bourgeois Nationalists at the expense of class politics.

”On the Second World War I agree with many of your factual observations but looking back after the event we should see the differences in the warring states and recognise that for many people this was seen as a ‘just’ war against the evils of fascism. Here I am not talking about the people who fought in the war but subsequent generations who look back with hindsight. So bringing this back to the debate in question I regard the word Nazi as synonymous with ‘evil’ Fascists and not ‘evil’ Germans.”

And I have said I disagree, but apart from that disagreement, I would suggest to you that the concomitant of that is to give credibility to the very idea that this WAS such a War. It is to give credence to the idea that there WAS a common cause between British Workers and British bosses against this evil Nazism. In going along with all the crap about trying to deny the BNP Nationalist symbols like the Spitfire and Churchill, the SWP does lend credence to the idea that there was something to be proud of in such an imperialist War, and does suggest that the Spitfire and Churchill were “ours”. But, of course, the job of a Marxist is to do the exact opposite, to shatter that myth. The SWP, cannot do it, because today in its Popular Frontist organisations it IS in bed with those very same bourgeois forces!!!

“I do not think Marx would have looked at this conflict and concluded that they were all as bad as each other so it didn’t matter what the outcome was. He often voiced his preference of sides in such conflicts.”

Firstly, Marx was writing prior to the world being divided into competing imperialist powers. Secondly, he was writing prior to the fuller discussion of the National Question by socialists at the beginning of the twentieth century. And yes, in any particular conflict Marxists have to take a view based on what furthers the interests of the working class. Lenin gives the classic example of that when he speaks about subordinating the bourgeois democratic freedoms that might be fought for in a small state to the interests of the workers in two larger states who might be dragged into a war, as a consequence of a struggle for those freedoms.

”To quote Marx verbatim “You see what a caricature he [Bakunin] has made of my doctrines! As the transformation of the existing States into Associations is our last end, we must allow the governments, those great Trade-Unions of the ruling classes, to do as they like, because to occupy ourselves with them is to acknowledge them.””

This has nothing to do with the argument you are trying to make. Of course, Marxists do not simply throw up their hands, and say what Governments do in International Affairs is none of our business! Who is suggesting that??? Of course, Marxists oppose Wars and so on, but Trotsky was, of course, correct, and Marx I’m sure would not have contradicted him, when he said that such wars may not be OUR wars, but we will have them unless we are strong enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish our own state, because at the end of the day control over the military flows from control of that state!

”Your interpretation of my position I think shows you do not look at these events with the class struggle in mind, as your absurd implication that I would support the USA against Vietnam shows. Actually the opposite would be true.”

But, given what you said in your previous post about not being neutral between “fascist” and “democratic” regimes, and what you have repeated above there is nothing absurd in that conclusion at all. It flows logically from your position. Was not the US a bourgeois democracy of the kind you see as a lesser evil compared to fascism. Was not North Vietnam a Stalinist dictatorship, and didn’t Trotsky describe Stalinism as differing from Fascism only in its greater brutality? As you approve of the “diplomatic” alliances between workers and bourgeois to fight fascism then why should that not include an alliance with democratic bourgeois from other countries prepared to help in fighting the good fight? That is the logic of your position even if you are reluctant to accept it.

”For example, I wouldn’t support an attack on Iran but I would welcome an end to the clerical dictators by an uprising within Iran, even if the outcome was a more liberal ruling class. This would allow us to establish better links with the advanced workers in Iran. An attack by the West would set back that possibility for generations.”

That is exactly what the Stalinists proposed in their stages theory, and upon which they advocated the Popular Front. But, as I said, if this liberal bourgeoisie can be allied with in this way, then why not the liberal bourgeoisie of Britain and the US. Those who have taken your argument to its logical conclusion such as the Labour Friends of Iraq, argued precisely that, and like you pointed to the fact that we should not have been neutral between a victory for “democratic” Britain as against “Fascist” Germany in WWII. The AWL, whilst not completely taking the argument to its logical conclusion like LFIQ, at the same time, argue that this democratic imperialism was trying to establish some form of bourgeois democracy, in Iraq, as it had done in Germany and Japan. They too argue that this will allow “better links with the advanced workers in Iraq”. It is, of course, all nonsense, but it is far more consistent nonsense than the argument you are trying to make.

9 comments:

  1. Arthur,

    Here is part 1

    Firstly it is dishonest to post your reply as a main article and is a real abuse of Blog power. The casual reader will take all my statements out of context and into the context you placed them here. How very much in character!

    Now let’s just rewind here for a minute. My whole point about your claim that the SWP are “Proponents of racism” is that this is a sectarian smear because it is an inflammatory remark designed to cause offence and hostility. This coming from a man who wants to rid the left of sectarianism! If you choose that worthy mission you have to be made of the ‘right stuff’ and Boffy is sadly lacking the skills to accomplish this goal. On the contrary he causes more sectarianism and reinforces the divide.

    So our argument over whether the Nazi party is linked to fascism or Germany or the stuff about Spitfires is all academic. As I said previously, there are ways and means to criticise, the constructive way or the sectarian way. Boffy chooses the latter.

    Now the UAF are an organisation that naturally developed from the rise of fascism, they provide an immediate temporary solution. They are like the trade unions of anti fascism and like trade unions they can’t solve the ultimate problems. But communities have to defend themselves against these fascists! And socialists should show them some solidarity.

    I will let Arthur’s first comment in response to the SWP Daily Mail article stand as testimony to this mans inherent dishonesty. As you read keep in your mind this is coming from a man on a mission to rid the left of sectarianism!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Part 2

    “What on Earth are you talking about? How can my position of holding to a clear class politics and arguing against Immigration Controls cause any confusion?”

    Firstly I didn’t say anything about causing confusion. But actually it probably will. You have to remember that this was said in the context of you working as a LP activist and so while the party have an official policy, here you come spouting the exact opposite. The confused workers will be thinking, is the LP for immigration control or not! Why is this man offering views totally in contradiction to the party he represents? Is this man a fool they will ask?

    “I think you are deluding yourself if you do not believe that these jokes were only possible because they took as their starting point entrenched stereotypes.”

    What? I said they have evolved into banter from their racist origins. Can you not see a difference between jokes by Aussies against the English and jokes by the English against Pakistanis?

    ”I think it’s a shame you are not prepared to consider whether more analysis is required.”

    When analysis is done with its eyes closed then I plead guilty.

    “Moreover, what does imperialism against weaker states mean? Was Germany a weaker state when it had been occupied and placed under domination by Britain and the US, for example? Moreover, even having made this distinction what are the political conclusions that flow from it. I’ve given the quote from Trotsky about a war between Brazil and Britain.”

    Well if we look at the context you put this position re Brazil and Britain in, we can see it was to argue why we shouldn’t support an attack on Iran, because it was an Imperialist state vs a non Imperialist state. But is Iran a non Imperialist state? And if not then your argument goes out of the window. But I will come to my class position later.

    I agree with your points on the KMT, I don’t see what you are trying to prove here. In fact most of your wrath seems to be against the SWP and not my position.

    “He was only reluctantly in favour of the separation of the Irish and British workers in order to resolve this problem.”

    Reluctant or not once the decision was made it was full on!
    And it is in full contrast to your so called orthodoxy.

    “The SWP, cannot do it, because today in its Popular Frontist organisations it IS in bed with those very same bourgeois forces!!!”

    Dear me. What delusions!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Part 3

    "Marxists oppose Wars and so on, but Trotsky was, of course, correct, and Marx I’m sure would not have contradicted him, when he said that such wars may not be OUR wars, but we will have them unless we are strong enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish our own state, because at the end of the day control over the military flows from control of that state!"

    Marxists recognise that wars are an inherent feature of capitalism, so they are not OUR wars. But Marx and Engel’s looked at a conflict, analysed it and then had opinions on which would be the best outcome for the movement. They didn’t just sit there saying give peace a chance. Moreover, they often anticipated when wars may break out, e.g. they predicted a conflict between Germany and Russia in the late 19th century and guess what, they didn’t want the Russians to be victorious. (This was before Germany was ruled by fascists and before Russia was ruled by Communists).

    "As you approve of “diplomatic” alliances between workers and bourgeois to fight fascism then why should that not include an alliance with democratic bourgeois from other countries"

    I don’t think the North Vietnamese were fascists but liberators. And anyway there are other factors in play when viewing such international conflicts.
    Let me give an example, take the dreadful killing of the 5 soldiers in Afghanistan this week. One of the victims sisters posted on the internet, “I hate all Afghans and especially the ones who shoot and run away”. This is the kind of poison and hatred that conflicts of this nature produce. It is why an attack on Iran would be a disaster, among other reasons. Now you attack me for proposing to ally with the liberal bourgeois but I do not say this. All I say is that a victory for them would make it easier to ally with the Iranian workers!!!
    An attack on Iran would be calamitous.

    Lets me give you the extended quote from Marx on the Irish issue,

    "And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.
    This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.
    Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland."


    As I said you have a black and white view of these complex issues, nothing like the intricacies of Marx himself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “Dave”, Methinks thou dost protest too much.

    “Firstly it is dishonest to post your reply as a main article and is a real abuse of Blog power. The casual reader will take all my statements out of context and into the context you placed them here. How very much in character!” ..

    In your last comment in the previous thread you said,
    “I think the central debate has run its course.”
    I agreed, which is why I said that it was now best to deal with the other items of debate within the context of another thread! You went on to say,
    “I will just say that…” and completed your main argument about my supposed sectarianism. I therefore, replied only to that final point. I can see nothing untoward in such an approach whatsoever. You say,
    “The casual reader will take all my statements out of context and into the context you placed them here.”

    But, not only did I put a link to this thread from the previous one, but began this one with a statement saying that it arises out of the previous one, and gave a link to it. There is nothing in this post that would have been different had it been posted as several comments to the previous thread, which had been my original intention. Anyone who had wanted to check the quotes I gave from you for their context would have to have looked them up. They have to do no more nor less now!

    I think now it is becoming clear exactly who it is that is attempting to avoid discussion of actual political arguments and put in its place the use of smear tactics and diversion.

    As for dishonesty I am the one writing in my own name. I am not the one sitting at home on a Sheffield Council estate adopting numerous persona in order to write all the crap you pour forth on various sites. The only reason I’ve played along with you here is to have a bit of fun, and because some of your questions enabled a discussion of some important points.

    ”Now let’s just rewind here for a minute. My whole point about your claim that the SWP are “Proponents of racism” is that this is a sectarian smear because it is an inflammatory remark designed to cause offence and hostility.” ..

    This was your central argument in the previous thread that you previously said had “run its course”! Now, as with your first statement that attempts to avoid discussion of the political issues you return to your own smear.

    “This coming from a man who wants to rid the left of sectarianism! If you choose that worthy mission you have to be made of the ‘right stuff’ and Boffy is sadly lacking the skills to accomplish this goal. On the contrary he causes more sectarianism and reinforces the divide.” ..

    Please, “Dave”, tell me where I said this? I have made no such claim. In fact, I am happy to adopt the position set out by Engels when he said,

    ”….It is far more important that the movement should spread, proceed harmoniously, take root and embrace as much as possible the whole American proletariat, than that it should start and proceed from the beginning on theoretically perfectly correct lines. There is no better road to theoretical clearness of comprehension than "durch Schaden klug tererden" [to learn by one's own mistakes]. And for a whole large class, there is no other road, especially for a nation so eminently practical as the Americans. The great thing is to get the working class to move as a class; that once obtained, they will soon find the right direction, and all who resist, H.G. or Powderly, will be left out in the cold with small sects of their own.”..

    If the SWP, and the other sects wish to continue to plough their own furrow outside the Workers Party that is up to them, they will end up just as Engels said they would. I am happy to simply follow the above advice and stick with the workers in their Party.

    ReplyDelete
  5. “So our argument over whether the Nazi party is linked to fascism or Germany or the stuff about Spitfires is all academic. As I said previously, there are ways and means to criticise, the constructive way or the sectarian way. Boffy chooses the latter.”..

    You are sounding like a broken gramophone record. You keep repeating this slur, but I have now disproved it several times. But, you are right that the question of whether the word Nazi is identified solely with German Fascists or Germans as a whole, is academic. I said so myself. The point is that the argument, which tried to attack the BNP by denying them the symbols of Nationalism associated with the Second World War, is itself based on Nationalism. Trying to claim the Spitfire, and Churchill AGAINST the BNP, in itself requires identifying yourself with those images and characters. The whole point is that, of course, the bourgeoisie can do that, because the Second World War WAS an imperialist War, and Churchill was a leader of the main imperialist power in that war. But, socialists should not then, and should not now fool the working class into believing that this war was anything else, should not then, and should not now fool them into believing that they had anything in common with Churchill, and do not now have anything in common with his modern day equivalents!!!! To do anything other, is precisely to argue not from a socialist, but from a Nationalist perspective!!!

    “Now the UAF are an organisation that naturally developed from the rise of fascism, they provide an immediate temporary solution. They are like the trade unions of anti fascism and like trade unions they can’t solve the ultimate problems. But communities have to defend themselves against these fascists! And socialists should show them some solidarity.” ..

    Trade Unions arose as spontaneous creations of the working class. They were indeed attempts by workers, struggling with something new, to deal with their immediate situation. The UAF is by no means a spontaneous creation of workers! The UAF is the deliberate creation of the SWP!!! An organisation, which claims to be in the tradition of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg, and, therefore, an organisation that has a scientific method, which analyses the world in which it exists, and draws up programs and tactics to deal with it. Nor is the fight against fascism a new problem that such organisations have to struggle with understanding. We have a huge volume of analysis and advice on how to fight fascism going back over 70 years. Indeed, there have been “anti-fascist” organisations in existence continually since the 1970’s when they were established to fight the National Front.
    As for showing solidarity who is saying any other. To the extent that the UAF or any other anti-fascist organisation mobilises against the fascists I will support them. But, I will not simply accept the inadequate politics of such organisations, no Marxist should, Marx certainly would not.

    “I will let Arthur’s first comment in response to the SWP Daily Mail article stand as testimony to this mans inherent dishonesty. As you read keep in your mind this is coming from a man on a mission to rid the left of sectarianism!!!!” ..

    “Dave”, you should tell us what is dishonest here.

    “Firstly I didn’t say anything about causing confusion.”..

    Here is what was said,

    I commented,

    “Which only causes confusion and disillusion in the minds of workers when they see socialists in alliances with such people” i.e Tories. To which you responded,

    “Imagine how they feel when you present your immigration ideas!”..

    This was a direct response to the above, which you had quoted!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. “But actually it probably will. You have to remember that this was said in the context of you working as a LP activist and so while the party have an official policy, here you come spouting the exact opposite. The confused workers will be thinking, is the LP for immigration control or not! Why is this man offering views totally in contradiction to the party he represents? Is this man a fool they will ask?” ..

    Firstly, the above argument suggests that workers have to be complete morons. They are not. Every socialist has the experience of being a member of a Trade Union, and finding themselves at odds with the official policy of the union. The Marxist does not say, “I will have to go off an set up my own union sect so that I can argue for what I believe because otherwise the workers will be confused”! The Marxist says openly to workers whose union this is, and, therefore, whose policy this is, “I think this policy is wrong, but I am a good working class democrat, I will accept it, and try to convince you that I am right, so that we can change the policy.”

    25 years ago, when I was a member of a LP Branch that was extremely right-wing, I went out at election time, and canvassed more than anyone. When workers said to me, ”the Labour Councillors here are useless”, I said, “I agree with you, but the answer is not to stay at home, or to vote for the even worse candidates of the Tories or Liberals. The answer is to come along and join with those of us who are trying to change that.” Me and another couple of members in the Branch did that for three months solid. We recruited around a dozen people, some of them TU activists who themselves later became Councillors.

    Now, you might say that the same thing applies to standing on the same platform as Tories. But it doesn’t. The LP, despite its politics, despite the nature of its leaders, remains a Workers Party. The Tory Party, The Liberal Party, and certainly UKIP are not. They are outright bosses’ parties. When we seek to make alliances, those alliances are not alliances of politicians, but of classes, or class fragments. Workers cannot make an alliance with the bourgeoisie to fight fascism, precisely because fascism is merely one form of Government that the bourgeoisie adopts to meet its needs!

    “What? I said they have evolved into banter from their racist origins. Can you not see a difference between jokes by Aussies against the English and jokes by the English against Pakistanis?” ..

    It depends. If jokes by Aussies against the English were part of say an attempt to connect “wingeing poms” with the idea of complaining about infringements of Civil Liberties, or was being used to attack the “British Disease”, of Trade Union militancy, then no, there is no difference. In the same way I do not think socialists should have anything to do with fostering Nationalist sentiment based on WWII, for the aim of attacking other Nationalists.

    “When analysis is done with its eyes closed then I plead guilty.”..

    The only person with their eyes closed appears to be you. The WW have been conducting an open debate on the BNP, and how to treat it. The SPEW have done something similar, and are calling for the “No Platform” position to be re-considered, and even the SWP, now appear split over whether they should put people up to debate against the BNP in media interviews etc.

    ReplyDelete
  7. “Well if we look at the context you put this position re Brazil and Britain in, we can see it was to argue why we shouldn’t support an attack on Iran, because it was an Imperialist state vs a non Imperialist state. But is Iran a non Imperialist state? And if not then your argument goes out of the window. But I will come to my class position later.”..

    Its questionable whether Iran is imperialist or not. It is certainly sub-imperialist. It is certainly expansionist. It exports Capital, it uses its Capital to gain influence in Afghanistan, it uses its military power and resources to expand its influence in the region through its backing of Hamas and Hezbollah, and of Shia groups in Iraq. It occupies a part of Kurdistan. For all these reasons it is at least as “imperialist” as was say backward Tsarist Russia.
    But, that in a sense is besides the point because, your argument is in effect the same as the Palestinian Trotskyists against whom Trotsky polemicised, because they argued, as you do here, that Britain and the “democracies” were a lesser evil. If that is your position then you should have been in favour of a British victory in WWII. That is the clear implication of what you have said. But, the further implication of that is that Trotsky was wrong in his reply to the Palestinians. That is this “democratic imperialism” seeks to spread “freedom and democracy” around the world, and so when it confronts an undemocratic regime like Iran, it is actually progressive. It will establish democracy as it did in Germany, Japan, and now Iraq. On the basis of your argument it is irrelevant whether the country it goes to war with is imperialist or non-imperialist, all that matters is whether it is “democratic” or “dictatorial”.

    “I agree with your points on the KMT, I don’t see what you are trying to prove here. In fact most of your wrath seems to be against the SWP and not my position.” ..

    You have, of course, given who you are, not set out any position other than to defend the SWP!

    “Reluctant or not once the decision was made it was full on!
    And it is in full contrast to your so called orthodoxy.”
    ..

    “Dave”, your writing style is showing again. How is what Marx says in any way different to what I have said?

    “The SWP, cannot do it, because today in its Popular Frontist organisations it IS in bed with those very same bourgeois forces!!!”..

    “Dear me. What delusions!” ..

    What delusions? In Respect it subordinated itself to bourgeois communalists, to Asian businessmen, and to Stalinists. In Stop The War, it subordinates its politics to similar elements, to bishops and other such bourgeois liberals, and in the UAF it subordinates itself once again to similar forces, it has David Cameron as a sponsor, and even Teddy Taylor for God’s sake, and it puts Liberal Councillors on a platform in Leeds, at the very moment when the very same Tory/Liberal Council is engaged in a vicious attack on its workers. Who is deluded here???

    “Marxists recognise that wars are an inherent feature of capitalism, so they are not OUR wars. But Marx and Engel’s looked at a conflict, analysed it and then had opinions on which would be the best outcome for the movement. They didn’t just sit there saying give peace a chance.”..

    Nor do I. In actual fact, it’s the SWP and their Stop The War front organisation that adopts the “Give Peace A Chance” option. My position is rather that of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky of opposing such pacifism. See: Proletarian Military Policy .

    ReplyDelete
  8. “Moreover, they often anticipated when wars may break out, e.g. they predicted a conflict between Germany and Russia in the late 19th century and guess what, they didn’t want the Russians to be victorious. (This was before Germany was ruled by fascists and before Russia was ruled by Communists).”..

    Not wanting one side to win is not the same as seeking victory for the opposing side. I’ve explained this to you in the past in another context.

    “I don’t think the North Vietnamese were fascists but liberators.”..

    Cannot fascists be liberators too? Many peoples in South-East Asia welcomed the Japanese Imperialists as liberators. Many peoples in Eastern Europe at first welcomed the Germans as liberators. Certainly the Sudetan Germans welcomed Germans as liberators. But, of course, the “liberation” in each of these cases meant as much in terms of the freedom gained by those liberated, as did that of the South Vietnamese!

    “And anyway there are other factors in play when viewing such international conflicts.”..

    Then you should say exactly what because your example below has nothing to do with this.

    “Let me give an example, take the dreadful killing of the 5 soldiers in Afghanistan this week. One of the victims sisters posted on the internet, “I hate all Afghans and especially the ones who shoot and run away”. This is the kind of poison and hatred that conflicts of this nature produce.”..

    And you don’t believe that the many-fold greater losses of life that occurred in WWI and WWII, had an even greater effect in producing poison and hatred???? Wars that again today are being evoked and raked over on Remembrance Day! Yet, its you that wants to key into all those feelings of hatred, so evoked, all of the Nationalist claptrap, the defence of Churchill and so on, in order to mobilise it against the BNP! In actual fact, as the First World War demonstrated, wars can have also the opposite effect, depending upon the way in which Marxists have related to the class. Russian soldiers at the front, turned their hatred towards the Tsar, and appealed to the German workers as comrades, and that was largely due to the extent to which Bolshevik soldiers had won their respect, and gained influence. We see a similar thing now in relation to Afghanistan. The task of Marxists is to key into the very real concerns of workers about the things that young men and women from their communities are being asked to do, their concerns about the inadequate equipment that is provided to them to keep them safe, and their concerns about the dangers to their own lives arising from terrorism etc. It is precisely to deal with those genuine and rational concerns that Marxists seek to provide real solutions, and to demonstrate the falsity of the solutions provided by the bourgeoisie whether in its liberal or Nationalistic and fascist garb. It is precisely for those reasons Marxists developed the Proletarian Military Policy.

    “It is why an attack on Iran would be a disaster, among other reasons. Now you attack me for proposing to ally with the liberal bourgeois but I do not say this. All I say is that a victory for them would make it easier to ally with the Iranian workers!!!”..

    Yes, you do. In your current persona, you defend the Popular Frontist politics of the SWP in allying with bourgeois forces against the BNP! If that is your position for fighting fascism here, then there is no reason for adopting a different position in Iran!

    ReplyDelete
  9. “An attack on Iran would be calamitous.”..

    I agree, it would. So were the attacks on Nazi Germany, yet you seem to think that was okay, because Britain was a “lesser evil”. Moreover, the logic of your position would be that the workers and liberal bourgeois in Iran should simply join forces with “democratic imperialism”, so that such an attack could be focussed simply on removing the regime. In that case there is no reason why an attack should be calamitous. Of course, that will not happen, because the Iranian workers have the good sense to understand that they do not have the same interests as the liberal bourgeoisie, beyond the immediate removal of the current regime, and that as soon as the liberal bourgeoisie had achieved its aims it would knife the workers in the back.

    Your extended quote from Marx only further speaks against you, because what Marx is setting out clearly here is the extent to which Britain’s role as an Imperial power leads to Nationalistic sentiments amongst the workers that binds them tighter to the ruling class. Marx’s call is for a determined struggle against such Nationalism, its ideas, and its symbols. Put that in the context of the current debate, and Marx is agreeing with me in the need for Marxists not to drape themselves in the flag for whatever reason, but to fight against the illusions and ideas that flow from it. To fight against the idea that the Second World War was a war against fascism rather than an imperialist war, to fight against the idea that the Spitfire and other death machines used to fight that war, and to subjugate millions around the globe, are in any way “ours”, and most certainly to fight against the idea that an anti-semitic, anti-working class, Colonialist like Churchill was on “our” side.

    That is what I have been arguing, and what in your current persona you have been railing against, in your attempt to pose as defending the SWP.

    ReplyDelete