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

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.””

(Trotsky - Petty-Bourgeois Moralists and the Proletarian Party)

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.

When the civil war in Syria got underway, again with US imperialism financing and arming the jihadists of various groups, via the gulf monarchies, the AWL pursued a similar course, until such time as the role of ISIS became impossible for them to deny. In other words, they have gone from being opponents of idiot anti-imperialism, to being deceitful supporters of imperialism, to being open proponents of imperialism, including support for the fascistic forces that line up with it. A similar alignment could be seen in relation to Kosovo and the role of the KLA. They propose independence for Tibet, which actually means a return of the landlords and clergy, as ruling class and caste. Now, in Ukraine, they have lined up behind the corrupt Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian oligarchs and their state, as well as the Nazis of the Azov Battalion, in order to support NATO against Russia.

These opponents of idiot anti-imperialism have become the worst idiot anti-imperialists of all.

Back To Part 7

Idiot Anti-imperialism, The Falklands and Ukraine - Part 7 of 8

The Petty-Bourgeois Third Camp

When Trotsky, in the Program of Peace, talks about the independent third camp of the proletariat, he is talking about the situation in which there is a war between two bourgeois camps, such as existed in WWI, or as exists today in relation to NATO(Ukraine)-Russia. In such wars, the position of socialists is “The Main Enemy Is At Home”, and we give no support to either camp. As Lenin and Trotsky set out, using the argument of “self-determination”, for any of the combatant nation states, in such conditions, is necessarily, just a liberal deception to justify a policy of “defence of the fatherland”, or social patriotism. Its why the Bolsheviks dropped the formulation even of support for the right of self-determination, and put in its place support for the right of free secession.

Making clear that, in the case of the small states, such as Belgium, the issue could not be addressed via wars between bourgeois states, but only via socialist revolution, Trotsky notes,

“The independence of the Belgians, Serbians, Poles, Armenians and others is regarded by us not as part of the Allied war program (as treated by Guesde, Plekhanov, Vandervelde, Henderson and others), but belongs to the program of the international proletarian struggle against imperialism.”

(The Program For Peace)

When it came to WWI, of course, the position of both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks was to adopt the position of revolutionary defeatism. It is only after the February Revolution, that the Mensheviks changed their position, to one of bourgeois-defencism, a position that was supported by Stalin, Kamenev and Zinoviev, using arguments that are today copied by the social-patriots/social imperialists such as Paul Mason and the USC. Lenin fumed at these positions, and threatened to split the party unless this social-patriotic position was dropped. Trotsky notes,

“On the 17th of March, through friends in Stockholm, he wrote a letter filled with alarm. “Our party would disgrace itself for ever, kill itself politically, if it took part in such deceit ... I would choose an immediate split with no matter whom in our party rather than surrender to social patriotism ...” After this apparently impersonal threat – having definite people in mind however – Lenin adjures: “Kamenev must understand that a world historic responsibility rests upon him.” Kamenev is named here because it is a question of political principle. If Lenin had had a practical militant problem in mind, he would have been more likely to mention Stalin. But in just those hours Lenin was striving to communicate the intensity of his will to Petrograd across smoking Europe, Kamenev with the co-operation of Stalin was turning sharply toward social patriotism."

(Trotsky - History of The Russian Revolution, Chapter 15)

So, even though Lenin and Trotsky knew that backward Russia faced a similar situation as China that had been carved up by various imperialist powers, and was facing defeat at the hands of Germany, the most advanced industrial power of the time, they continued to argue a policy of revolutionary defeatism, that “The Main Enemy Is At Home”. And, of course, they were right. The policy of bourgeois defencism of the Mensheviks, and of Kerensky, led quickly to them losing support amongst the workers and peasants. The revolutionary programme of the Bolsheviks turned them from being a small minority into being the leading political force, winning majorities in the soviets in all the main industrial areas.

It enabled them to carry through the October Revolution, and create the world's first workers' state, albeit a workers state, in Lenin's words “with bureaucratic distortions”, as a consequence of the material conditions in which it was established. Now, the old formulation was no longer applicable. The main enemy is at home only when the ruling class is the bourgeoisie, and the state is a bourgeois state. Once the workers are the ruling class, and the state is a workers' state, even a bureaucratically deformed workers state, that is no longer true. The responsibility of the revolutionary proletariat is now to defend that state, in any war between it and bourgeois states.

But, for the petty-bourgeois moralists, it was precisely the superficial political regime that was significant, and not the underlying material reality of class relations, and class nature of the state. In the same way that they identified with “democratic imperialism” as against “fascist imperialism” so they set up a non-existent, perfect workers' state as the alternative to the reality of the workers' state existing in the USSR, much as the Narodniks had contrasted the reality of Russian capitalism, to the non-reality of some other, future, non-capitalist path of development, or against the fantasy of some previous golden age of the Russian peasantry. Comparing reality to some ideal fantasy will always result in the reality being rejected, and so it was for the petty-bourgeois moralists of the Third Camp led by Burnham and Shachtman.

They argued that, because the USSR did not measure up to their ideal of what a Workers' State should look like, it was not a Workers' State, not deserving of defence against imperialism. It did not take long before, that position led them not only to argue against defence of the USSR, but to argue that the “democratic” nature of western imperialism made it a lesser-evil than the dictatorship of Stalinism, and so to become open advocates for “democratic imperialism”. From there it was but a short step for Burnham to become a right-wing, neo-con warmonger, and for Shachtman to become a right-wing social democrat who supported the US invasion of Cuba and the Vietnam War.

The supporters of Burnham-Shacthman tried to claim that their petty-bourgeois Third Camp was a continuation of that Third Camp described above by Trotsky. But, those claims, typical of this trend, are founded upon bowdlerisation and the most egregious text and logic chopping. Trotsky himself certainly denied any such continuation.

“The very first “programmatic” articles of the purloined organ already reveal completely the light-mindedness and hollowness of this new anti-Marxist grouping which appears under the label of the “Third Camp.” What is this animal? There is the camp of capitalism; there is the camp of the proletariat. But is there perhaps a “third camp” – a petty-bourgeois sanctuary? In the nature of things, it is nothing else. But, as always, the petty bourgeois camouflages his “camp” with the paper flowers of rhetoric. Let us lend our ears! Here is one camp: France and England. There’s another camp: Hitler and Stalin. And a third camp: Burnham, with Shachtman. The Fourth International turns out for them to be in Hitler’s camp (Stalin made this discovery long ago). And so, a new great slogan: Muddlers and pacifists of the world, all ye suffering from the pin-pricks of fate, rally to the “third” camp!

(Trotsky - Petty-Bourgeois Moralists and the Proletarian Party)

Back To Part 6

Forward To Part 8

Idiot Anti-imperialism, The Falklands and Ukraine - Part 6 of 8

The Third Camp of the Proletariat

In his Programme Of Peace, written in 1916, Trotsky describes these principles in relation to wars between bourgeois states, such as those taking place at the time under the generic heading of World War I. In it is synthesised these principles that a) we are not proponents of national self-determination, but of the self-determination of the working-class, b) we are in favour of the greatest possible, voluntary association of states, and so of the working-class, and the consequent demolition of borders and nation states, c) in all wars, including those for national liberation, we are partisans only of the revolutionary proletariat, organised independently in revolutionary organisations so as to fight against the forces of bourgeois-democracy, as well as for national liberation (permanent revolution), d) the main enemy is at home, e) our solution to war is not pacifism, or the victory of one camp over another, but the victory of the proletariat, and the creation of Socialism, which is the only lasting guarantee of peace.

The peace program of the bourgeoisie, and of its apologists, Trotsky says, is a program actually of war, of the victory of one camp in the conflict over another. In Ukraine currently, the NATO imperialists programme for peace is a program of war, and the defeat of Russian imperialism, by Ukraine and its NATO backers. That is also the program of the warmongers on the Left, who have become partisans of the camp of NATO imperialism, such as Paul Mason, or those involved in the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign. The latter talk not about the Ukrainian working class, organised in independent revolutionary organisations, but only of “Ukraine”, or “the Ukrainian people”, as though these abstract concepts do not hide the existence of fundamental class divisions in Ukraine, and that what these abstract concepts actually mean is the Ukrainian ruling class, and its state, which is who is really fighting the war against Russia, and backed massively by the military might and economic power of NATO.

This use of abstract concepts such as “the people” is the usual method of the petty-bourgeois liberal who seeks to deny the existence of these class distinctions, in order to line the whole of society up behind the ruling class and its objectives on the basis of nationalist ideology. As Lenin put it, arguing against the petty-bourgeois moralists of the Narodniks,

“we have to conclude that a class-divided society is compatible with a non-class state, with a non-class nation, with individuals standing outside of classes.”

(Gems of Narodnik Project Mongering)

But, its quite clear that Ukraine is not a non-class state, nor nation, but is a bourgeois state and nation, which is backed by the global might of NATO imperialism, which is, and has been for more than a decade involved in a global economic and strategic conflict with China, as a growing economic and military competitor to NATO, and with Russia, which poses no real economic challenge to NATO, but which still has significant military, including nuclear arsenals. That war has been conducted via proxies, such as Iran and Syria, and contending forces within them, as well as by the usual route of trade wars. When the US and Russia, both became directly involved in the war in Syria, I pointed out that this was a qualitative change, opening the possibility of direct war between the two – WWIII. The war in Ukraine is not a war just between Russia and “poor little Ukraine”, in the way that WWI was justified by British and French imperialism as a war over “poor little Belgium”, but is a further qualitative development in that process of proxy war that is moving ever closer to all-out war between these two imperialist camps, a war that will inevitably become nuclear in short order, spelling the end of humanity.

Even the warmonger and supporter of NATO imperialism, Paul Mason, recognises this fact. He talks in his latest missive about “Western arms supplies... and (widely assumed) US intelligence and electronic warfare support.” In other words, NATO imperialism is already massively engaged on the side of Ukraine, which is being used as a punch-bag in this proxy war, to soak up Russian attacks on behalf of NATO imperialism's larger, and longer term military strategic goals. Indeed, this distinguishes the Ukraine-Russia war even from the Argentina-Britain war over the Falklands, because in that war, although again, NATO stayed out of it, everyone knew that Britain was getting satellite information from the US.

As Trotsky writes,

“What is a program of peace? From the viewpoint of the ruling classes or of the parties subservient to them, it is the totality of those demands, the realization of which must be ensured by the power of militarism. Hence, for the realization of Miliukov’s “peace program” Constantinople must be conquered by force of arms. Vandervelde’s “peace program” requires the expulsion of the Germans from Belgium as an antecedent condition. From this standpoint the peace clauses merely draw the balance sheet of what has been achieved by force of arms. In other words, the peace program is the war program.”

(The Program of Peace)

But, the working-class does not need to align with either of these two warring bourgeois camps. Our aim is not to act simply as partisans of one national bourgeoisie against another, as the liberals and social-imperialists of the USC would have us do, but is rather to be partisans of the proletariat, which forms an independent third camp hostile to both the other two.

“For the revolutionary proletariat, the peace program does not mean the demands which national militarism must fulfil, but those demands which the international proletariat intends to impose by its revolutionary struggle against militarism of all countries.”

(ibid)

That the war in Ukraine really amounts to a war between two imperialist camps NATO on one side, Russia/China(?) on the other, is no surprise, because what it signifies, as Trotsky wrote back in 1916, is that the concept of national self-determination, for small or weaker states is a myth, a petty-bourgeois, romantic delusion, just as much as the potential for independence of small firms in a world of monopolies. It is why the proponents of Brexit are reactionary, petty-bourgeois dreamers. Poor little Belgium, itself, of course, had been a vicious colonial power, using the most vile oppression in Africa, and yet, in the world that had emerged, was just too small to survive.

“Capitalism has transferred into the field of international relations the same methods applied by it in “regulating” the internal economic life of the nations. The path of competition is the path of systematically annihilating the small and medium-sized enterprises and of achieving the supremacy of big capital. World competition of the capitalist forces means the systematic subjection of the small, medium-sized and backward nations by the great and greatest capitalist powers... The war uncovered and accelerated this process by introducing the factor of open violence. The war destroys the last shreds of the “independence” of small states, quite apart from the military outcome of the conflict between the two basic enemy camps.”

(ibid)

Lenin and Trotsky, based on Lenin's theory of imperialism, saw the world being divided in the same way it had been in the 19th century, into colonial empires, and annexed countries, but the reality of what Trotsky outlines, here, is that that world was ending, and the age of the huge multinational state was emerging, which was to be seen in the development of the EU, and similar blocs across the globe. Its again what makes Brexit such a utopian and reactionary venture, which already is tearing Britain itself apart, and sees it, on the one hand economically subordinated to the EU, and politically subordinated to the US, a condition that itself cannot be sustained.

The position and fate of Ukraine, today, is comparable to that of Belgium in WWI, and as Trotsky says,

“Belgium still groans under the yoke of German militarism. This, however, is but the visible sanguinary and dramatic expression of the collapse of her independence. The “liberation” of Belgium does not at all confront the Allied governments as an independent task. Both in the further progress of the war and after its conclusion, Belgium will become but a pawn in the great game of the capitalist giants. Failing the intervention of the third power – the revolution – Belgium may as a result of the war remain in German bondage, or fall under the yoke of Great Britain, or be divided between the powerful robbers of the two coalitions.”

(ibid)

Back To Part 5

Forward To Part 7

Idiot Anti-imperialism, The Falklands and Ukraine - Part 5 of 8

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.

Back To Part 4

Forward To Part 6

Idiot Anti-imperialism, The Falklands and Ukraine - Part 4 of 8

The Main Enemy Is At Home

No Falkland Islanders died as a result of the Argentine invasion, and the islands were home to just a few dozen people. There are tens of thousands of people living in the DPR/LPR, and in the last 8 years, more than 14,000 of them have died as a result of shelling and other military attacks by the Ukrainian military, and its allies amongst the Nazis of the Azov Battalion. Britain caused the deaths of thousands of soldiers arising from its war in the Falklands, nearly all of them young workers. Russia in invading Ukraine risks the loss of life of thousands more, not to mention the chance of an accident leading to a global nuclear war, and the extinction of humanity.

In the Falklands, the WSL Majority argued that there was no basis to support Britain's war, because, whatever might be the rights or wrongs about the right of the islanders to self-determination, that right could not outweigh the interests of the working-class, and the struggle for Socialism. The interests of workers, and socialism are not served by a war between bourgeois states, in which it would be workers who would be asked to line up behind their own bourgeoisie, on both sides, and who would be pitted against each other to fight and die for a cause in which they had no interest, because their real interest is to oppose their own ruling class.

But, that same argument applied in respect of Argentina too. The WSL Minority pointed to an argument put by Trotsky, as part of an interview with Mateo Fossa in which he states that, in a war between Britain and Brazil, Brazil having a fascist dictator, he would still be on the side of Brazil, because the terms “democracy” and “fascism” are merely masks used by imperialism, each of which can be discarded when required, and that, if Britain defeated Brazil, it would simply impose a dictator to its liking, not democracy. The main purpose of this argument, however, by Trotsky, was to illustrate the duplicity of the arguments of the social-patriots, at the time, which tried to portray the coming world war as one between democracy and fascism.

Taking into consideration all of Trotsky's other writings, and the content of his response, here, and the position of Lenin and the Comintern on the national and colonial questions, it is clearly false to interpret Trotsky statement that “I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain”, simply at face value. If this had been an actual theoretical article by Trotsky, he would, undoubtedly have elaborated the points already discussed, and central to his theory of permanent revolution, that what he means by “on the side of”, is that he would support the resistance of the Brazilian workers and peasants, organised in their own independent revolutionary units, and it would be this, if successful, that would be the basis of “a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship.” 

(In fact, illustrating Trotsky's point about it not being a war between democracy and fascism, in 1942, Vargas took Brazil into the war on the side of "democratic imperialism"!)

All of his writings in relation to the Popular Front in China, in Spain and elsewhere lead to no other interpretation, because otherwise he would be arguing for the Brazilian workers to abandon their own independent organisation, to form a Popular Front with Vargas, in which case he knew that the consequence of that would be their demobilisation, and ultimately their destruction at the hands of Vargas as had happened in China and Spain.

In other words, it would be the same as saying, I am opposed to Britain in this war, but that opposition in no way should be interpreted as meaning support for Vargas, just as revolutionaries would say, we are opposed to Japanese imperialism in China, but that does not mean that we support the Chinese bourgeoisie or the KMT; we oppose Hitler, but that does not mean supporting “democratic imperialism”; we oppose Franco, but that does not mean we support the Popular Front; we oppose Thatcher's war in the Falkland's, but that does not mean we support Galtieri; we oppose Putin's war against Ukraine, but that does not mean we support the Ukrainian bourgeoisie, its state or the Azov Battalion.

A version of the WSL Minority position is given, in relation to Ukraine, by Jim Denham, in the current "Solidarity", paper of the Alliance for Workers Liberty, yet Denham was part of the WSL Majority back in 1982.  He puts the question in the typically two-campist terms of the lesser-evilist, and proponent of "My enemy's enemy is my friend", by responding to the social-pacifist position of the SWP and others, by asking "Oppose the invasion, but don't fight it?"

It is a particularly stupid way of framing the question, because it begs many more questions, not least, who is it addressed to?  If addressed to British workers, then its quite easy to oppose Putin's War, without supporting Zelensky's War also.  If its addressed to Ukrainian workers, then as in WWI, the position of Marxists, of revolutionary defeatism, based upon the principle of "The Main Enemy Is At Home", does not at all preclude the workers fighting any such invasion, but simply asserts that they do not stop fighting against their own ruling class and state in order to do so!  But, Denham is not talking about Ukrainian workers being organised in their own revolutionary units engaging in such a struggle, but is talking about throwing support solely behind Zelensky, the Ukrainian oligarchs and state, and the Nazis of the Azov Battalion.  Its them not revolutionary workers that he seeks to have NATO provide military backing for, as though it required any encouragement from social-imperialists of the like of the AWL to do in the first place.

To conclude opposition to one requires support for the other is the method of lesser-evilism, or “my enemy's enemy is my friend”. It is not the method of Marxism. We refuse to have to choose the lesser-evil of these contending bourgeois camps, because we always, instead, choose the independent, third camp of the proletariat. That is the point made by Trotsky in his Program For Peace.

“What is a program of peace? From the viewpoint of the ruling classes or of the parties subservient to them, it is the totality of those demands, the realisation of which must be ensured by the power of militarism. Hence, for the realisation of Miliukov’s “peace program” Constantinople must be conquered by force of arms. Vandervelde’s “peace program” requires the expulsion of the Germans from Belgium as an antecedent condition. From this standpoint the peace clauses merely draw the balance sheet of what has been achieved by force of arms. In other words, the peace program is the war program. But that is how matters stood prior to the intervention of the third power, the Socialist International. For the revolutionary proletariat, the peace program does not mean the demands which national militarism must fulfil, but those demands which the international proletariat intends to impose by its revolutionary struggle against militarism of all countries. The more the world revolutionary movement unfolds ’the less do the peace questions depend on the purely military position of the belligerents, the less becomes the danger that peace conditions may be understood by the masses as war aims.”

In the case of the Falklands War, the example of Trotsky's statement, in relation to Brazil, was even less relevant. There was no likelihood that Britain was going to actually invade Argentina, as was possible, in the 1930's, in relation to Brazil. Britain was only going to take back the Falklands, with any additional military action, such as the sinking of the Belgrano, possibility of air strikes against Argentinian airfields, being part of a military campaign to deny it the capacity to counter-strike. In fact, the same has been the case with Russia's occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where it did not go on to occupy Georgia; its occupation of Crimea; and now the DPR/LPR. So, even the question of Argentinian workers needing to organise, independently, to defend themselves against British occupation did not arise.

Back To Part 3

Forward To Part 5

Idiot Anti-imperialism, The Falklands and Ukraine - Part 3 of 8

Learn To Think

Another example of this is given by Trotsky, in a different version and context, in his 1938 article “Learn To Think”. In it, Trotsky discusses what the attitude would be in a war between a fascist Italy, and bourgeois-democratic France, and where, in the context of a liberation struggle by Algeria, Italy sought to weaken France, by sending arms to the Algerians. The workers in both Italy and France, uphold the principle that “The Main Enemy Is At Home”, and so continue their struggle against their own governments, however, the Italian workers would not seek to prevent arms being sent to the Algerians, even making an exception to any strike to do so, if necessary, whereas the French workers would seek to block arms being sent to French troops trying to suppress the Algerians. But, Trotsky also makes clear that this is not all.

“Does this not signify, however, that the Italian workers moderate their struggle in this case against the fascist regime? Not in the slightest. Fascism renders “aid” to the Algerians only in order to weaken its enemy, France, and to lay its rapacious hand on her colonies. The revolutionary Italian workers do not forget this for a single moment. They call upon the Algerians not to trust their treacherous “ally” and at the same time continue their own irreconcilable struggle against fascism, “the main enemy in their own country”. Only in this way can they gain the confidence of the rebels, help the rebellion and strengthen their own revolutionary position.”

In other words, what this really amounts to is the Italian workers making clear to the Algerian workers and peasants that it is they that are providing them with this support, and not the fascist Italian government, which has its own predatory ambitions. As Trotsky says, he framed it in this way specifically to illustrate that it is not a matter of whether it is imperialism in a fascist or democratic mask that is decisive. It could have been applied the other way around, with a democratic France offering aid to an Italian colony in rebellion, for example, Libya. The French workers would likewise have warned the Libyans not to trust “democratic” France, which had its own predatory ambitions. That is fully consistent with Trotsky's arguments in relation to the Balkan Wars, where he argued that any involvement by the big powers, however much they claimed it was to bring about liberation, was to be opposed, because it was, in reality, about their own ambitions. Again, its important to note that Trotsky, whilst talking about this supply of arms under workers control, does not talk about an actual military intervention, over which there can be no such workers control.

Had it been the case that Italy were proposing an actual military intervention in Algeria, in support of its “liberation”, then the Italian workers would have had to oppose it. As Trotsky put it in opposing such interventions in the Balkans,

“Democracy has no right, political or moral, to entrust the organisation of the Balkan peoples to forces that are outside its control – for it is not known when and where these forces will stop, and democracy, having once granted them the mandate of its political confidence, will be unable to check them.”

(The Balkan Wars)

And that is the case, whether those intervening in the name of such “liberation from above” are fascist imperialists or democratic imperialists. Socialists could not look to democratic-imperialist Britain to liberate the Falklanders from the occupation of the fascistic Argentine regime, because they had no control over it, and never can exercise control over the capitalist state.  It is relevant in the case of the Russian interventions in South Ossetia, Crimea, and DPR/LPR, on the same basis, just as it applies to opposition to NATO intervention in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and so on.

A false application of the argument given by Trotsky, here, is used by Oakland Socialist, in the US.  He compares Ukraine, today, with Algeria in Trotsky's example.  That is clearly false, because Algeria was a French colony, whereas Ukraine is an independent capitalist state.  Indeed, not just an independent capitalist state, but one that has put itself firmly in the camp of NATO imperialism, which provides it with massive military and intelligence support, including satellite intelligence, cyber warfare undertaken against Russia, a huge economic warfare conducted against Russia, and any country that does not oppose it, as well as a massive propaganda war conducted by western media.

A more appropriate comparison in that regard would be the situation of a weak capitalist power such as Russia, in 1914, up against the might of Germany, as the world's most developed industrial power.  Germany sought to conquer Russia, and to take territory from it.  Using the arguments of the social-patriots, today, in relation to Ukraine, socialists should have argued for the defence of Russia.  Did they?  Absolutely, not.  In 1914, even the majority of Mensheviks argued that "The Main Enemy Is At Home", and so for opposition to a defencist position.  

The Mensheviks changed their position after the 1917 February Revolution, and argued for bourgeois defencism, as did Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev.  But, Lenin fumed at this social-patriotic position - the same position that the social-patriots argue today in relation to Ukraine.  In The History of the Russian Revolution, Trotsky quotes the many frantic telegrams that Lenin sent, saying that he would split the party rather than accept this social-patriotism.

The point that Trotsky is making in Learn To Think, is that we do not determine our position on the basis of putting a minus sign wherever our opponents put a plus sign.  We do not operate on the basis of either lesser-evilism or "My enemy's enemy is my friend."  But that is exactly what Oakland Socialist and all the other social-patriots and social-imperialists do in relation to Ukraine, and so end up becoming idiot anti-imperialists, when it comes to opposing Russia.

In the same way that the third campists of the SWP, previously, on the basis of their opposition to US imperialism, saw enemies of the US (Hamas, Hezbollah etc.) as being their friend, so now, the third campists of the AWL, and their cothinkers, like Oakland Socialist, on the basis that they see Putin as their enemy, see enemies of Putin, such as Zelensky, the Ukrainian oligarchs, and the Azov Batallion as their friends, and so line up behind them, with their abstract calls for standing with "Ukraine", "the people of Ukraine", and so on, rather than with the revolutionary Ukrainian proletariat.

It fails to distinguish between classes, and the forces that socialists support in such struggles.  As is set out in the Theses On The National and Colonial Questions, we do not support such struggles, in the abstract, but only the concrete struggle of the revolutionary proletariat organised independently within it.  We do not support such struggles in the abstract, where they amount to struggles of previous ruling classes, or of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie, within which the revolutionary proletariat has no independent role or existence.

In China, the workers and peasants were organised in their own revolutionary parties and military units, but the policy of Stalin liquidated them into the KMT, just as Stalin allowed the KMT to join the Communist International. The result was inevitable, as Trotsky had predicted, on the basis of the Theory of Permanent Revolution, and as Marx and Engels had set out on the basis of their experience of the Revolutions of 1848. The bourgeoisie, having used the workers and peasants as foot soldiers, for its own interests, but seeing them as an enemy, turned on them, slaughtering thousands of Chinese Communists in Shanghai in 1927. The same tragedy was to result from the repeated application of the Popular Front strategy in Spain a decade later.

In 1982, Argentina claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Isles, claiming Britain had stolen them more than a century earlier. The claim was bogus, but irrelevant. Its not the job of socialists to act as arbitrators of global bourgeois property claims, but only to defend the interests of the global working class. The inhabitants of the islands, saw themselves as British, and rejected the idea of becoming part of Argentina. Argentina invaded, and occupied the islands, and Britain then launched its war to remove the Argentine forces. Today, the DPR/LPR occupy the same position as the Falklands. The majority Russian inhabitants of these republics rejected domination by a Ukrainian state, which they saw as oppressing them, much as had majority Russian populations in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Crimea. Many such situations exist, as a result of the legacy of Tsarism and the intermingling of populations, and manipulation of borders over centuries.

Trotsky, makes the same point, in relation to Czechoslovakia, prior to WWII.

“Intolerable social and political conditions must exist for citizens of a "democratic" country to be seized by a desire for fascist power. The Germans of the Saar in France, the Austrian Germans in the Europe of Versailles, the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia felt themselves citizens of third rank. "It will not be worse," they said to themselves. In Germany, at least, they will be oppressed on the same basis as the rest of the population. The masses prefer under these conditions equality in serfdom to humiliation in inequality. The temporary strength of Hitler lies in the bankruptcy of imperialist democracy.”

(Phrases and Reality)

In 2014, the DPR and LPR, sought autonomy, following the coup in Kyiv of that year, which many of the ethnic Russians in Ukraine saw, as being a NATO inspired attempt to undermine Russian influence in Ukraine, and which meant an oppression of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. I predicted much of what has transpired, back in 2014.

The fact, that the pro-Russian Yanukovich was democratically elected in 2010, and was undemocratically removed by a coup, and that the US played a significant role in financing and facilitating that coup, is not in doubt. The new Ukrainian government sought to militarily deny the breakaway republics administrative autonomy, even after it had agreed to do so, as part of the Minsk Agreements to end the fighting. The Ukrainian government, supported by the Nazis of the Azov Battalion, which were incorporated into the Ukrainian armed forces, continued to shell DPR/LPR continuously after 2014, and to wage ground based military incursions to try to make them submit to rule from Kyiv, just as Argentina had done in relation to the Falklands.

If we apply Trotsky's argument in “Learn To Think”, Russian socialists would not seek to block arms from Russia to the breakaway Republics, but would warn the people there that Russia was doing so only for its own predatory reasons. They would seek to ally with them on that basis, making clear their joint interests as against both the regime in Kyiv and in Moscow. Similarly, the revolutionary workers in Ukraine, would not only make clear their support for the right to free secession of the breakaway Republics, but they would seek to block arms to the Ukrainian troops, and their Nazi allies, shelling the breakaway republics. On that basis, they would seek to forge unity with the workers of the breakaway republics, on the basis of their shared opposition to the government in Kyiv, which would also create the basis for unity with the Russian workers, by undermining the arguments of Putin.

Back To Part 2

Forward To Part 4

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

Arrest The Royal Tyrants!

Last week Paul Mason, on Newsnight, detailed some of those who next week have apparently been invited to attend the Royal Wedding. At a time when Britain is involved in yet another War to bring "Democracy" to other parts of the world, its Royal Family - itself the very antithesis of the principle of Democracy - are busy bringing their fellow Monarch's to Britain.

Whilst Britain is once again waging war against tyranny in far flung parts of the globe, Britain's Royal Family, whose ancestors made their mark by being the most vicious group of bastards amongst a generally vicious, murderous bunch of thievs and ne'er do wells that made up the Feudal Aristocracy, are busy bringing some of the world's worst tyrants to Britain.

Paul highlighted one of them. The King of Swaziland. He will be bringing around 50 of his entourage to stay at the Dorchester where a room will set you back £450 a night.

Meanwhile, back in his country, the average person has to survive on just $2 a day! The Government has just arrested trhe country's entire Trade Union leadership, and broken up a protest of 1,000 people with tear gas and water cannon.

One of the people commenting on Paul's blog wrote, "If, thirty years ago, Gaddafi had married into the Senussis and been proclaimed King of Libya, he might well have an invitation to the Royal Wedding too.".

And, of course, the King of Swazi will not be the only Absoluet Monarch and tyrant invited to or attending the wediing. The King of Bahrain is likely to be there, as is the King of Saudi who has just sent 1,000 troops to Bahrain to put down the democracy protests there.

In fact, many of the tyrants will be from countries that are still in the 21st Century, still essentially pre-capitalist societies, still mired in feudal medievalism. Every socialist should want to see them swept away, even if the only way that could happen was as a result of a modernising Imperialism moving in, and achieving that task. But, of course as pointed out before there is little chance that will happen. Unlike Colonialism, which had an incentive to spread itself around the globe, with feudal Landlords simply extending their landholdings and Rent collecting to foreign parts, and Merchant Capitalists making profits in the normal way by unequal exchange, modern Imperialism based on industrial, productive Capital has no incentive for that.

Colonialism could operate through a version of the feudal state simply transposed on to another country. But, efficient exploitation of a modern industrial working-class requires more than that over the longer-term. That is why modern Imperialism, whilst its prepared to leave the provision of its necessary raw materials to those previuous Mercantilist arrangements, and may station outposts in strategic positions, when it comes to actually investing any serious amounts of productive Capital requries at least some minimum level of development to already have occurred. It requires a certain degree of infrastructure to be in place, even if only in selected zones near to ports etc. It requires something approaching a modern Capitalist State prepared to uphold the Rule of Law. It needs a large enough working-class that is educated and trained to at least a minimum standard. That is why this modern Imperialism has focussed its attention on a relatively small group of economies, and has no interest in modernising large areas of the world. Only the working-class as part of developing a global socialist economy will be able to carry through that task.

So for the foreseeable future there will remain many of these countries suffering this backwardness, even whilst the absolute Monarchs and other tyrants that rule over them live a life of lavish luxury and excess. For now we can show our support for the poor inhabitants of those countries by doing what we can.

When their rulers come to Britain next week, we should have our own snatch squads ready to carry out citizens arrests upon the criminals amongst them. The bosses and the worthies of the British establishment are quick to want to bring Gaddafi to trial at the International Criminal Court - and socialists should want that too - but they seem rather more reticent about bringing some of these other criminals - friends of our Royals - to book, even though some of them are even worse criminals than Gaddafi. Even they will not implement the Rule of Law in bringing them to book, we should.

Of course, we shouldn't expect the ICC to be impartial either. Like all other parts of the international Capitalist State order, its there to serve the interests of the bosses. But, for now we cannot bring these tyrnats before a Workers Court for trial, and even bringing these tyrants before a bouregois court would send a strong message to the people they oppress. We could send them a furher reminder of how to deal with those tyrants by reminding them of how we did it in the past.

What better time than on the day of the wedding than to remember Guy Ffawkes, who is remembered for trying to blow up Parliament, but was trying to blow up the King. Or they could remember the contribution made by Oliver Cromwell in removing a King's Head, or the French bourgeois revolutinaries, who consistent with Capitalist methods, industrialised the process via the Guillotine.

Postal Strike Is On - Support The Posties

In a live TV news Conference, the UCW has set out its case for going ahead with the strikes, set to begin at Midnight tonight. They have demonstrated that responsibility for the strikes rests firmly with the Management of Royal Mail, whose boss, Adam Crozier, apparently vetoed, the wording of a deal his own Managers had agreed, last night. Responsibility also lies with the Government, which has failed to call an intransigent management to account. But, lest we forget, whilst at least Gordon Brown was calling for conciliation, in Parliament today, the Blue in Tooth and Claw Tories have again showed that they remain the same old crew of class warriors for Capital they have always been, as their boss Cameron, bayed for the blood of posties for daring challenge the power of Capital. In my post yesterday, I wrote that I did not think that the strikes were the best tactic, I still don't, but that is besides the point now. The battle has begun, and every Marxist, and self-respecting Trade Unionist has to mobilise 100% to support the posties who face a determined class enemy.

But, the question of tactics still remains. For now the spearhead will be the strike. But, it seems clear that this management is not going to simply fold, and if the Government is standing behind them, that is even less likely to be the case. This is just the start of the battle. In recent months, workers, faced with similar situations, have rediscovered methods of struggle that have not been seen in Britain for some time. The workers at Visteon and at Vestas occupied their factories. Given the situation facing the posties where one result of the strikes is the shifting of business already to private communications firms, the tactic of the Occupation could be a good start, especially as Royal mail, appear to be trying to break the strike through the employment of large numbers of casual staff.

The UCW is a strong well organised union with many capable activists. If they were to elect rank and file committees in each workplace, and then occupy, turning out the Management, then these Workers Committees could place each workplace under Workers Control. The workers could demonstrate that they can run the business more efficiently than the present incompetent Management. Rather than losing business through strikes, an Occupation and the placing of the business under Workers Control could ensure that the Mail continued to flow winning the support of workers for their actions on a wide basis.

The UCW, in its press conference, stated that, in a discussion with Mandelson, some time ago, he admitted himself that the Royal Mail Management was incompetent. His solution was to suggest its privatisation, and that it be placed in the hands of the TNT management. But, for the working class, the return of State Capitalist business to private Capitalist business is no solution. We want to go forward to Workers Ownership and Control, not backwards to private Capitalism. If the Government believes that the current management is incompetent, if it believes that the State cannot efficiently run the Post Office - and as Marxists we have every reason to agree with that assessment - then the Government should do the obvious thing and allow the Royal Mail workers themselves to run the business, it should hand over the business to them! An immediate occupation of Royal Mail buildings would be a good place to start, in demanding such a solution.

The Visteon workers were able to win their dispute through Occupation, though victory only meant maintenance of the status quo, that is the workers continue to be wage slaves creating profits for the firm's owners. In Argentina, scores of factories have been occupied by their workers, who then turned them into Co-operatives, owned and controlled by the workers themselves, and have turned them into profitable businesses, benefiting the workers and the communities in which they are located.

The workers, at the Zanon factory, in Argentina, recently were assigned official ownership of the factory they have been occupying and running as a Co-operative now for several years. Throughout the world there are more workers employed in Workers Co-operatives than are employed in Multinational Companies. Not only CAN workers run their own enterprises, but they can and do run them more efficiently than can the Capitalists, that is part of our reason for being socialists.

It is time that the working class stopped simply accepting solutions which keep it contained within the existing system of property ownership and property relations, which mean that it is continually faced with the kind of struggle faced by the posties now. We need to begin to take over the means of production, and begin to develop the society of the future today.

If posties began to occupy the Post Offices and Sorting Offices and Depots, they would be a good way towards achieving such a transformation. If the working class physically supported them in that in the way the Labour Movement supported the Visteon and Vestas workers, they could begin to place the Post Office straight away under the Control of the working class, and ensure that it worked to meet our needs.

The old slogans should ring out Occupy, Organise, Kick The Bosses Out.