Not National Self-Determination But Workers Self-Determination
The reasons that socialists had no requirement to “defend Argentina”, or create an Argentinian Support Committee, let alone give their backing to Galtieri's war can be summarised as follows. Firstly, Argentina, itself, was not likely to be the subject of a British attempt to annex it, or colonise it. Secondly, even if the nature of any conflict were of that type, the responsibility of socialists is to oppose the oppressor state, not to support the ruling class/regime of the oppressed state. Had Britain actually, attempted to annex or colonise Argentina, we would not only oppose Britain's war, but we would support the Argentinian workers in fighting to resist it.
We give our support only to the struggle of the oppressed workers and peasants, which requires that they be independently organised “and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations”. Only on that basis would we call for support for Argentina. Thirdly, even if Argentina's claim to the Falklands had been legitimate, and even if the Falkland Islanders themselves expressed a desire for national self-determination as part of Argentina (the opposite of what they desired), if the implementation of that right would lead to a war between Argentina and Britain, dividing the workers of these states, then socialists would oppose it. And, of course, the opposite applied. The right of the islanders to self-determination, that Britain claimed to be upholding could not justify a war between Britain and Argentina, which would result in the workers of both large nations being brought into conflict.
“Does recognition of the right of nations to self-determination really imply support of any demand of every nation for self-determination? After all, the fact that we recognise the right of all citizens to form free associations does not at all commit us, Social-Democrats, to supporting the formation of any new association; nor does it prevent us from opposing and campaigning against the formation of a given association as an inexpedient and unwise step.”
(The National Question In Our Programme)
And,
“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.”
(The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up)
The fact that Argentina was a dictatorship, and Britain a bourgeois-democracy was irrelevant to any of these considerations, both being simply masks that the bourgeoisie picks up and discards, dependent upon which suits its needs best at any one time. However, a consideration of the nature of Galtieri's regime, and of other regimes that sections of the Left have supported, on the basis of their “anti-imperialist credentials”, is important in understanding the label “idiot anti-imperialism”. When Trotsky gave his interview with Fossi, and used the example of a war between Brazil and Britain, he was living in Mexico, and had agreed not to become involved in the country's politics. Otherwise, he might have used Mexico for his example. The Bonapartist regime of Cardenas had nationalised British oil wells in Mexico, and Britain had responded in normal threatening, gun boat diplomatic manner. A war between the two could have been possible.
Mexico did have a growing labour movement, and all the arguments that Trotsky outlined in relation to Brazil would have applied to Mexico. Indeed, it is this significance of the labour movement that was one factor in the bourgeoisie, in Mexico, looking to Cardenas, and in Brazil to Vargas, just as it was the strength of the labour movement in Argentina, in 1982, that was a factor in the ruling class having looked to Galtieri. Had Britain invaded Argentina, as opposed to just confronting the Argentine military on the Falklands, then the issue would have been the independent organisation of that working-class in Argentina, and its war against annexation by Britain. But, that was not the case, in terms of a war fought just on the islands, a war that, in large part, had been created because, on one side, Galtieri sought to rally Argentinians around the flag, at a time when he was being challenged by the Argentinian labour movement, and on the other, Thatcher sought to do the same, as her economic policies were in tatters, with mass unemployment, and rising opposition amongst the British working-class, threatening her government.
So, let us think of other occasions of oppression by large states, and the position of oppressed states. An obvious recent example is NATO's attack on and occupation of Iraq. Socialists clearly had a responsibility to oppose NATO's attack, and occupation/annexation, despite the fact that Iraq was run by a brutal dictator, and had itself engaged in predatory and expansionist activity and wars, for example, against Iran, and Kuwait. As Lenin put it,
“If we do not want to betray socialism we must support every revolt against our chief enemy, the bourgeoisie of the big states, provided it is not the revolt of a reactionary class. By refusing to support the revolt of annexed regions we become, objectively, annexationists. It is precisely in the “era of imperialism”, which is the era of nascent social revolution, that the proletariat will today give especially vigorous support to any revolt of the annexed regions so that tomorrow, or simultaneously, it may attack the bourgeoisie of the “great” power that is weakened by the revolt.”
(ibid)
Again, reactionary class, here, is to be distinguished from the political regime. It does not mean fascist as against, bourgeois-democratic, but, for example, feudal as against bourgeois. So, socialists not only opposed the NATO war, but “must support” the revolt against it. However, the question then arises, what the content of this “must support” actually means. Does it mean, for example, that socialists “must support” that rebellion in the shape of the regime of Saddam? After his demise, did it mean “must support” a rebellion led by the reactionaries of the various jihadist groups?
As, the quotes from The Theses On The National and Colonial Questions clearly show, obviously not. And, these further quotes from it indicate that even more clearly,
“the need for a struggle against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward countries...
the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.”
It is clearly not possible to be waging a struggle against the clergy and Pan-Islamism, at the same time as supporting a “liberation” movement that is comprised entirely of such elements, or even just dominated by them!
The only rebellion that socialists are bound to support is the one undertaken by a revolutionary proletariat and peasantry, even if conducted on the basis of a temporary alliance with other class forces. So, for example, socialists in opposing the NATO invasion of Iraq, would make clear that such opposition implied no support for the regime of Saddam, and that we supported a struggle by the Iraqi labour movement to resist the occupation, even if that required a tactical military alliance between it, and other Iraqi class forces, but only on the basis that the former retained its political and organisational independence from them, as its class enemy. But, the petty-bourgeois Left, was all over the place when it came to Iraq.
No comments:
Post a Comment