The Petty-Bourgeois Third Camp & Idiot Anti-Imperialism
When it came to Iraq, on the one hand, the Third Campists of the SWP, who had been petty-bourgeois moral opponents of imperialism, in every such struggle for decades, felt bound to support any opposition to the NATO occupation, from whatever source. Given that the only real opposition being undertaken was coming from the various jihadists, that meant directly allying themselves with the reactionary mediaevalists, against imperialism, which, in reality, meant allying themselves with an even bigger immediate enemy of the working-class than was represented by imperialism itself. Standing behind one faction of jihadists was Iran, where the regime itself was controlled by such reactionary elements, and directly the main enemy at home of the Iranian workers. That is a classic example, of the meaning of “idiot anti-imperialism”.
On the other hand, amongst those that had been my former comrades within the WSL Majority, back in 1982, a development had occurred, as they had converted from being Cannonites, to themselves being advocates of the petty-bourgeois Third Camp of Burnham and Shachtman, which was an indication of a wider petty-bourgeois degeneration of this group, which was moving rapidly to the Right, in the manner of their mentors, who had become Cold War Warriors, and supporters of the US war in Vietnam, and, in Burnham's case, political theorist of the neo-cons. Some of them became initiators of the so called Euston Manifesto group, which, like Paul Mason, today, argued that the second world war was a war of democracy against fascism that socialists should have supported, and so, as, now, advocates of “democratic imperialism”, supported NATO's invasion against the dictator Saddam. Paul Mason makes pretty much the same argument, today, for support of NATO against Russia. They had gone directly from being opponents of “idiot anti-imperialism” to being simple “pro-imperialists”, and the collapse into becoming prominent Blairite SPAD's, and other such shills went along with it.
The rest of that former WSL Majority, now residing under the name Alliance For Workers Liberty, did not make the leap so directly, but, in reality, perhaps, thereby, more dishonestly. They argued in relation to Iraq, that whilst they were not in favour of the NATO invasion and occupation, and so did not, like the EMG, argue for it, nor did they see any requirement to argue against it, as the consequence of it, the removal of Saddam, was one that socialists desired also. The dishonesty of this argument is fairly obvious. It essentially accepts the pro-imperialist argument of the social imperialists in WWII, and of the EMG that “democratic imperialism” is fighting the good fight of opposing fascism, dictatorship and so on, but unlike the EMG, it wants to wash its hands of any responsibility for the bad consequences of such actions. It is essentially Proudhonist in nature wanting to take the “good” side of phenomenon, whilst rejecting the “bad”, as though these are not inextricably linked. As such, it is also fundamentally idealist rather than materialist, and a reflection of the collapse into Burnhamite petty-bourgeois idealism and moralism.
Similarly, it argued that, having occupied Iraq, and given that, if it left, the only forces that would fill the vacuum were those of the jihadists, it was not possible to argue for those troops to leave, because that would mean arguing for a consequence that socialists did not desire, i.e. the installation of a reactionary Islamist regime. This is interesting, because in a recent online discussion on self-determination, in relation to Ukraine, one of the AWL's leading, though dim, lights, Jim Denham, argued that support for self-determination did not depend upon us liking the government concerned. However, as the above illustrates, they were, indeed, prepared to deny self-determination for Iraq, if it meant it was going to have a government of Islamists.
Indeed, they had been happy to see the self-determination of Serbia denied by NATO when it launched its war, and ripped Kosovo away from it, as they were prepared to see the self-determination of Libya denied by NATO. In fact, in the debates over Iraq, in 2003, they argued that, given what transpired in India/Pakistan on independence, they would have been prepared for its self-determination to have been further denied, by retaining the colonial presence. That was also their position in criticising the withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan, last year.
By contrast, in the 1980's, they had no such difficulty in demanding the defeat and withdrawal of the USSR from Afghanistan, even though the inevitable consequence was going to be its take over by jihadists, led by Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban! This is, in fact, symptomatic of the fact that, as idealists and subjectivists, their positions and arguments continually zig and zag in a series of contradictions, as they choose the arguments to fit the positions they adopt in each particular situation. As Trotsky described in relation to Burnham and Shachtman,
“In his recent polemical article against me, Burnham explained that socialism is a “moral ideal.” To be sure, this is not so very new. At the opening of the last century, morality served as the basis for the “True German Socialism” which Marx and Engels criticized at the very beginning of their activity. At the beginning of our century, the Russian Social Revolutionaries counterpoised the “moral ideal” to materialistic socialism…
The petty-bourgeois minority of the SWP split from the proletarian majority on the basis of a struggle against revolutionary Marxism. Burnham proclaimed dialectic materialism to be incompatible with his motheaten “science.” Shachtman proclaimed revolutionary Marxism to be of no moment from the standpoint of “practical tasks.””
On this last point, its interesting that the AWL, which long ago abandoned materialism and Marxism, in practice, for this idealism and moralism, looks to be setting the basis for its own formal abandonment of Marxism.
What it also reflects, is that, like their mentors Burnham and Shachtman, they have become simply apologists for US imperialism, and its allies, be it Israel, or the feudal Gulf Monarchies. What is worse, in lining themselves up behind US imperialism they have also shown that they are prepared to line up behind and act as apologists for the reactionary forces allied with it, the same kinds of reactionary forces that the SWP and other petty-bourgeois moralists lined up with on the basis of anti-imperialist struggles against the US. In Libya, in 2011, the AWL refused to oppose US and other imperialist intervention against Gaddafi, even though a large part of the ground forces involved were provided by the US allies from the feudal Gulf Monarchies. The inevitable consequence of Gaddafi's overthrow was going to be that, at best, the country fell into the hands of a clerical-fascist regime, and at worst that it became torn apart by warlordism. So, did that lead the AWL to argue as they had done in Iraq? No. Its leader Sean Matgamna wrote,
"Is the NTC led by unsavoury elements? Yes. Are Islamists involved in the revolution? Yes. But what do you expect? If you wanted to wait indefinitely for a revolution that was spontaneously socialist, in a country with no freedom of speech, no kind of independent labour movement, no civil society - you'd be waiting a long time."
The phrase “involved in the revolution” was just weasel words, because nearly all those involved were Islamists, backed by Special Forces units provided by the Gulf Monarchies. In another comment, at the time, from an AWL member, this involvement by the feudal gulf monarchies was even described as being the way that bourgeois-democracy was being introduced! In one of these discussions, Attila The Stockbroker had compared the AWL's support for the role of jihadists in Libya, to its opposition to Hamas in Palestine. The AWL's Lisa Radley responded,
"That's not a bad parallel. After all, the Islamism of Hamas doesn't stop us supporting the Palestinians, so the Islamism in some parts of the Libyan uprising shouldn't stop us supporting their overthrow of Gaddafi."
But, as I wrote at the time,
“But, of course, this is NOT a parallel. Of course, Marxists can support the Libyan masses desire for freedom, just as we can that of the Palestinians, but what is being compared here is not that, but the AWL's support for the Libyan "rebels", not the Libyan masses!!! The rebels are no more the equivalent of the Libyan masses, than is Hamas of the Palestinian masses. The whole point of a Marxist response to such situations is to make precisely that distinction, and to argue for support for the "truly revolutionary" elements as Lenin put it, as opposed to the merely reformist, bourgeois democratic, and certainly the clerical-reactionary elements! In fact, as Lenin and the Comintern made clear, it is our job to oppose these latter elements as part of developing the truly revolutionary forces, and primarily the working class forces in such situations. To the extent that we "make an alliance" with any of these other forces for a specific objective, it is purely tactical, and temporary, and does not at all remove from us the duty to continue to maintain strict separation from them, and to continue the sharpest criticism of them.
The AWL, most certainly did not do that. It has acted to promote the "rebels", as truly revolutionary forces, and to play down its reactionary nature throughout, in a way it has never done in relation to Hamas, for instance.”
And, they continued to apologise for the role of the clerical-fascists in Libya, denying their significance, as they carried out pogroms against black Libyan workers for example. They wrote,
"No-one's claiming things will be perfect now. We don't "support" the NTC. We've written (in the current Solidarity) about the battle the Libyan people now face against neo-liberal economic policies and, yes, Islamism. Things aren't so sewn up as you imply; the idea that "the flag of Al-Qaeda flies over Benghazi", as if ultra-Islamists have taken full control in Libya, is just untrue."
Was it, really?! If a struggle against neo-liberal economic policies were all that Libyan workers had needed be worried about since 2011, they would indeed, think themselves lucky, as against the reality of a descent into social chaos, warlordism, and clerical-fascist reaction! Similarly, reminiscent of Miliukov's denial of atrocities committed by the liberators from above in the Balkans, described by Trotsky, the AWL minimised the atrocities committed by imperialism in its massive bombing campaign and its month long siege against Sirte.
These opponents of idiot anti-imperialism have become the worst idiot anti-imperialists of all.
No comments:
Post a Comment