The death toll in Libya from the recent flooding is awful. A main cause was the collapse of dams, itself a warning to governments, elsewhere, including the UK and US, that have failed to adequately maintain infrastructure, as they preferred to spend money boosting paper asset prices, or on fighting wars in other parts of the world, to expand the influence of their own imperialist camp. Libya, of course, in 2011, was one example of such a war by “liberal interventionists”, and its consequences have been catastrophic for Libya, just as similar adventures, under the flag of “liberation from above”, as Trotsky, disparagingly, called it, in relation to the Balkans, have been catastrophic, in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and now repeated in Ukraine. Its notable that the imperialists who spent billions on bombs to rain down on Libya, in 2011, have been absent in providing funds following this disaster.
In 1912, when Balkan states engaged in liberation struggles against the Ottoman Empire, all of the same arguments used by liberals and social-imperialists, today, to justify their support for the actions of their own chosen camp of global imperialists, intervening, were rolled out. Russian liberals such as Miliukov, and Kirillovich, justified their support for Russian intervention in the Balkans, on the basis of overthrowing Ottoman rule, and oppression. Trotsky, on the ground, as a war reporter, rejected their arguments, and also their censorship of the reporting of the atrocities carried out by those interventionist forces.
The Russian liberal Ivan Kirillovich argued in the same way that social-imperialists, like those of the USC/AWL do today. He said, as they do,
“... we can't shut our eyes to the fact that what is involved here is the liberation of Slav people from Turkish rule. Not to sympathise with such a war, not to support it, would simply mean to support, indirectly if not directly, Turkish rule over Slavs.”
(The Balkan Wars, p 325)
Rejecting this idea that socialists and the working-class have the same shared goal as “liberal” or “democratic” imperialism, in overthrowing such oppression, Trotsky wrote, in response to Kirillovich,
“The emancipation of the Macedonian peasantry from feudal landlord bondage was undoubtedly something necessary and historically progressive. But this task was undertaken by forces that had in view not the interests of the Macedonian peasantry but their own covetous interests as dynastic conquerors and bourgeois predators...No, there is consequently no need to idealise the Turkish regime or the regime of Russia's village community in order to express at the same time one's uncompromising distrust of the uninvited 'liberators' and to refuse any solidarity with them.”
(ibid)
Yet, today, we hear the social-imperialists, whilst claiming to be “Trotskyists”, reject Trotsky's position, in favour of that of the liberal Kirillovic, as they tell us that imperialism, and the capitalist state, “defends workers' interests”! Trotsky noted, against such apologism, voiced by the liberal Miliukov,
“But it is not at all a matter of indifference by what methods this emancipation is being accomplished. The method of “liberation” that is being followed today means the enslavement of Macedonia to the personal regime in Bulgaria and to Bulgarian militarism; it means, moreover, the strengthening of reaction in Bulgaria itself. That positive, progressive result which history will, in the last analysis, extract from the ghastly events in the Balkans, will suffer no harm from the exposures made by Balkan and European democracy; on the contrary, only a struggle against the usurpation of history's tasks by the present masters of the situation will educate the Balkan peoples to play the role of superseding not only Turkish despotism but also those who, for their own reactionary purposes, are, by their own barbarous methods, now destroying that despotism...
Our agitation, on the contrary, against the way that history's problems are at present being solved, goes hand in hand with the work of the Balkan Social Democrats. And when we denounce the bloody deeds of the Balkan 'liberation' from above we carry forward the struggle not only against liberal deception of the Russian masses but also against enslavement of the Balkan masses.”
(ibid, p 293-4)
Today, the social-imperialists of the USC/AWL adopt the position of Miliukov, as they throw their support behind “democratic imperialism”, and its “liberation from above”, by raining down hundreds of tons of explosives on places like Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. In each case, much as in the past, as noted and criticised by Lenin and Trotsky, the so called “national liberation forces” it allies with, as the local allies of that imperialism, are themselves thoroughly reactionary, and anti-working-class. But, they, then, have to openly lie about the nature of those reactionary forces, much as the Stalinists did in relation to their alliance with the KMT, in China, prior to Chiang Kai Shek's coup, and slaughter of thousands of Chinese workers and communists. The extent of that, in the case of the AWL, in relation to Libya, was disgusting, as I set out, at the time.
But, the reality of their socialist-imperialism, conflicts with their attempts to continue to claim a connection to Trotsky, which means, in turn, not only must they lie about the class nature of the reactionary forces with which they align, but they also have to lie about the position of Lenin and Trotsky too, in a most grotesque manner, and on an industrial scale. The whole of Trotsky's position, in relation to the Balkan Wars, as I have set out in Lessons of The Balkans, was to oppose these positions of social imperialism, and liberal interventionism, and, yet, the AWL have quoted Trotsky in support of their position. As they have frequently done, however, the quote they provide is logically and physically chopped to suit their line, in a way that, plainly, makes Trotsky appear to be saying the opposite of what he actually wrote!
To justify their support for social-imperialism's wars of intervention, the AWL, quoted Trotsky, in such a way as to make it look as though he was arguing that Marxists could not sit idly by whilst tyrants committed atrocities against their populations, or those of countries under their domination – though unsurprisingly, as Zionists, they do not advocate such “liberation from above” on behalf of Palestinians suffering under the tyranny of the Israeli state. They used this quote, from his writings on the Balkan Wars,
“An individual, a group, a party, or a class that ‘objectively’ picks its nose while it watches men drunk with blood massacring defenceless people is condemned by history to rot and become worm-eaten while it is still alive.”
Taken on its own, and in the context the AWL used it, of supporting liberal intervention, this appears to suggest Trotsky, also, arguing that, because we seek to end such atrocities, we should not oppose any forces that bring about such a result. But, the opposite, was the case. As already indicated, in the above quotes, Trotsky opposed vigorously any such intervention, and in order to have dug out this quote, the AWL must have known that, and yet, butchered it, to suit their current position. In fact, this quote from Trotsky, was not calling for intervention, or even being agnostic about such intervention, but was actually criticising the atrocities being committed by the interventionist forces, and their allies, and was criticising the fact that the reports, sent by him and others, describing those atrocities, were censored by the liberal media, in Russia! Trotsky was attacking those positions implemented by liberals like Miliukov, whose modern equivalents are those like the AWL.
Trotsky wrote, in response to Miliukov,
“You have frequently, both in the columns of the press and at the tribune of the Duma, assured the Balkan allies – that is to say, the dynasties and dynastic cliques ruling in the Balkans – of the unaltered sympathies of so-called Russian society for their campaign of 'liberation'.”
(ibid, p 285)
It is the same kinds of “dynastic cliques”, i.e. the Ukrainian oligarchs, that the USC/AWL is aligned with today, under cover of the same arguments about national liberation, as part of its support for imperialism. Trotsky continued, noting Miliukov's recent visit to the Balkans,
“Did you not hear during your travels – it must be supposed that this would be of interest to you – about the monstrous acts of brutality that were committed by the triumphant soldiery of the allies all along their line of march, not only on unarmed Turkish soldiers, wounded or taken prisoner, but also on the peaceful Muslim inhabitants, on old men and women, on defenceless children?” (p 285-6)
And making clear exactly who and what he is criticising, Trotsky continues,
“Would you not agree that a conspiracy of silence by all of our 'leading' papers.... that this mutual agreement to keep quiet makes all of you fellow travellers and moral participants in bestialities that will lie as a stain of dishonour on our whole epoch?
Are not, in these circumstances, your protests against Turkish atrocities – which I am not at all going to deny – like the disgusting conduct of Pharisees: resulting, it must be supposed, not from the general principles of culture and humanity but from naked calculations of imperialist greed?”
Its impossible that, the AWL, whose leading members I know well, and who are intelligent people, having read this, simply misunderstood it. Yet, they quote this fragment, on its own, out of context, in a way that makes it say the opposite of what Trotsky was arguing, to support their line of backing liberal interventionism! A look at the remainder of the quote, makes that clear. The full quote from Trotsky, reads,
“An individual, a group, a party, or a class that ‘objectively’ picks its nose while it watches men drunk with blood massacring defenceless people is condemned by history to rot and become worm-eaten while it is still alive.
“On the other hand, a party or the class that rises up against every abominable action wherever it has occurred, as vigorously and unhesitatingly as a living organism reacts to protect its eyes when they are threatened with external injury – such a party or class is sound of heart. Protest against the outrages in the Balkans cleanses the social atmosphere in our own country, heightens the level of moral awareness among our own people. The working masses of the population in every country are both a potential instrument of bloody outrages and a potential victim of such deeds. Therefore an uncompromising protest against atrocities serves not only the purpose of moral self-defence on the personal and party level but also the purpose of politically safeguarding the people against adventurism concealed under the flag of ‘liberation’.”
(ibid, p 293)
And, that position of Trotsky remained until his death. When, in the 1930's, the Stalinists adopted the same position that the AWL/USC adopt, today, of allying with “democratic imperialism”, Trotsky continued to oppose it. He wrote, in 1939, for example,
“Imperialism camouflages its own peculiar aims – seizure of colonies, markets, sources of raw material, spheres of influence – with such ideas as “safeguarding peace against the aggressors,” “defence of the fatherland,” “defence of democracy,” etc. These ideas are false through and through. It is the duty of every socialist not to support them but, on the contrary, to unmask them before the people. “The question of which group delivered the first military blow or first declare war,” wrote Lenin in March 1915, “has no importance whatever in determining the tactics of socialists. Phrases about the defence of the fatherland, repelling invasion by the enemy, conducting a defensive war, etc., are on both sides a complete deception of the people.” “For decades,” explained Lenin, “three bandits (the bourgeoisie and governments of England, Russia, and France) armed themselves to despoil Germany. Is it surprising that the two bandits (Germany and Austria-Hungary) launched an attack before the three bandits succeeded in obtaining the new knives they had ordered?”...
If revolutionary and progressive movements beyond the boundaries of ones own country could be supported by supporting ones own imperialist bourgeoisie then the policy of social patriotism was in principle correct. There was no reason, then, for the founding of the Third International.”
The social-imperialist position adopted by the AWL and other liberals, to justify their support for imperialist intervention across the globe, did not even achieve the limited liberal, bourgeois goals they set for themselves. Afghanistan, where US imperialism, and its allies, sought to overthrow the soviet backed regime, did not initiate a period of bourgeois national revolution, but the reactionary rule of the Taliban, and role of Osama Bin Laden, who the US had supported. Before Bin Laden engaged in the attack on the US, in 2001, he proved useful to the US again, as a go-between with the criminal gangs of the Kosovan Liberation Army. The US used the KLA to stir up ethnic tension in Kosovo, which provoked a response from the Serbian government, to defend Kosovan Serbs, which gave the pretext for US intervention in Kosovo. But, again, that has not resolved, but intensified, conflict in Kosovo, and in the Balkans, in general.
The same was true of NATO's intervention in Iraq, in Libya and in Syria. After Bin Laden used his base in Afghanistan, to plan and execute the attack on the US, it provoked the US to again intervene in Afghanistan, but the result was not any kind of bourgeois-democratic, national revolution, and certainly no basis for any kind of proletarian revolution, via a process of permanent revolution, but simply further chaos and misery, destruction, with the inevitable withdrawal of the US, and resurgence of the Taliban. Imperialist intervention, failed to provide anything positive, for Libya, as it removed Gaddafi, and led the country into chaos, and endless civil strife. Trotsky wrote that the Balkans should have been a prosperous region, and yet was wrecked by the “liberation from above”. Libya, with its large oil reserves, and location, also had the potential to be a prosperous nation, but the removal of Gaddafi, by the “liberation from above”, instead, ruined it.
The regime of Gaddafi was awful, but, like other economies in MENA it was being drawn into the sphere of the EU, which no doubt caused some concern for US imperialism, as its European rival could steal a march on it, in an oil rich and strategically important area of the globe. Like other such economies, it had a path to economic development, but, that path has now been blocked for the foreseeable future, and even its basic infrastructure, has fallen into disrepair, as shown by the collapse of these dams, and subsequent tragedy. Its impossible to say that had Gaddafi not been removed by the “liberation from above”, such a tragedy would not have happened, and socialists have no reason to defend Gaddafi, but, what is clear is that the destruction inflicted on the country by imperialism, supported by the social imperialists and liberal interventionists, certainly has contributed to it.
There is a lesson too, there, for workers in Ukraine. In the US, Biden's political regime is, itself, now, under review for corruption. Biden has spent billions of Dollars to fight the war in Ukraine, whilst US infrastructure is in need of significant repair and renewal. At the same time, Biden has intervened to block strikes by US dockworkers and rail workers, fighting cuts in their real wages, as inflation has soared. The failure of Biden and the Democrats to protect the interests of US workers, as with the attacks on workers by other such elements, like Macron in France, has opened the door again to petty-bourgeois reaction. Biden looks set to lose the election to Trump. With Zelensky failing to make any significant progress against Russia, despite the vast amounts of weapons provided to his army, by NATO, Trump, as President, is likely to cut and run, much as the US did in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, leaving the Ukrainians to deal with the mess that imperialist ambitions have left in its wake.
No comments:
Post a Comment