Idiot Anti-imperialism, The Falklands and Ukraine - Part 2 of 8

Petty-Bourgeois Moralism & Anti-Imperialism

The position of a large part of the Left was not Marxist, but petty-bourgeois moralising, the same kind of Sismondism that Lenin had spent considerable time and effort attacking in his polemics against the Narodniks. Where Marxists see large-scale capital and monopoly as historically progressive, and the foundation of Socialism, the petty-bourgeois Left instead focused on an “anti-capitalism” that characterised it as “bad”, and, in the process, aligned itself with more reactionary forms of capital and sentiments. Demands such as UBI, which seeks to enable everyone to become some kind of self-employed artisan, or modern peasant producer, are of that kind. Where Marxism sees imperialism as simply the expression of the historically progressive fact of the need to form ever larger single markets and states, the petty-bourgeois Left focused on “anti-imperialism”, which meant giving support to the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie of less developed economies. The ideas of sovereigntism, and Brexit are, in fact, a rational conclusion of that mindset.

In 1982, in the documents I wrote, as part of the debate on the Falklands, I set out why this petty-bourgeois position of most of the Left, including the WSL Minority, which gave uncritical, and often unthinking, support for the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie of countries, on the basis of “anti-imperialism”, was wrong. The arguments in support of that “anti-imperialism”, that I critiqued, have since been termed “idiot anti-imperialism”, and, here, I want to set out why that term is apt, but why, ironically, some of those that opposed such “idiot anti-imperialism”, in relation to the Falklands, within the WSL Majority, and who have applied the same logic in other instances, have now adopted it themselves when it comes to backing Ukraine against Russia, which, in reality, means backing its bourgeois ruling class, its right-wing, corrupt government, and the Nazis of the Azov Battalion. They have gone from being opponents of “idiot anti-imperialism”, to then becoming “pro-imperialists”, and finally to becoming “idiot anti-imperialists” themselves!

The petty-bourgeois, moralising Left, in opposing imperialism, on the basis of “anti-imperialism”, in relation to the Falklands War, was guilty of a fundamental error. It assumed that Marxists always had to support “anti-imperialist” struggles of oppressed nations. There is no such requirement. We are revolutionary socialists, not bourgeois or petty-bourgeois nationalists. Our goal is the self-determination of the working-class, not of nations. Indeed, our goal is the dismantling of existing nation states and borders, not the creation of new ones. Our program and strategy is always focused on ensuring the furtherance of the interests of the proletariat, as an international class, and its complete independence from the bourgeoisie to that end.

Opposing Thatcher's War, did not mean supporting
the butcher Galtieri, the immediate enemy of
 Argentinian workers.

Opposing imperialism, in the form of a colonial power, does not at all require us to support the bourgeoisie or petty-bourgeoisie of the oppressed country, because, in line with our fundamental belief, as international socialists, that “The Main Enemy Is At Home”, the enemy of the workers and peasants, of a colony, is the bourgeoisie itself of that country. Certainly for the working class, as a whole, i.e. the world working class, the bourgeoisie of an oppressed country is as much a part of the global ruling class, and enemy of the working class, as is the bourgeoisie of an oppressor country. That is the fundamental conclusion of a Marxist class analysis founded upon the antagonistic relation between classes as against a nationalist analysis founded upon an antagonistic relation between different nations.

Marxists do not support liberation struggles
led by the representatives of previous ruling
classes, such as landlords, or
the "khans and clergy".

In fact, Lenin, Trotsky and the early Comintern set this out clearly in the Theses on The National and Colonial Questions. Far from having to support every national liberation struggle, as I pointed out back in 1982, Marxists give support, “only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations. The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form.."

(Lenin – Draft Theses On The National and Colonial Struggle)

Trotsky supported the liberation struggle
 against Japanese imperialism, in China,
 but only on the basis of supporting the
revolutionary workers and peasants,
 in their own independent political and military
organisations.  He vehemently opposed Stalin's
Popular Front with Chiang Kai Shek, and the KMT,
which resulted in the massacre of thousands
of Chinese Communists.

It was precisely on this basis that the division arose between Trotsky and the Left Opposition, against Stalin and the Right Opposition, in relation to the Chinese Revolution, and Stalin's advocacy of the Popular Front with Chiang Kai Shek's Kuo Min Tang. The Trotskyists opposed Japanese imperialism in China, but that opposition did not, at all, require them to give support to the Chinese bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie, whose interests were represented by the KMT. The Chinese workers and peasants needed to build a class alliance with the Japanese workers, in order to throw off the yoke of Japanese imperialism, not with their own bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie. A temporary and tactical military alliance with the KMT was allowable, provided only that the Chinese workers and peasants, organised in their own independent revolutionary parties, retained complete political and organisational separation from the KMT.

To talk, therefore, about “defending China” against Japanese imperialism, given the leading role that was played by the KMT, could have no other meaning than, in practice, subordinating the Chinese workers and peasants to the KMT, and the interests of the Chinese bourgeoisie, just as talk about “defending Argentina” in 1982, or “defending Ukraine”, today, can have no other meaning than defending the bourgeoisie and its state.

The only way any such defence can be proposed is if it is based upon a clear delineation of the proletariat from the ruling class, if the proletariat is organised independently and militarily to defend its own independent interests. What we defend is not the country/state, but the interests of the workers. The truth is always concrete, and so, when we talk about defence, or support, it must always be made clear that what is meant is this specific context of defence of and support for the struggle of the revolutionary proletariat of the oppressed nation, and not some abstract concept of nation or people, as the liberals do. Only if it is a workers' state, so that the interests of the workers are the same as the interests of the state, can Marxists be defenders of the state.

Back To Part 1

Forward To Part 3