discussion of this article

Arthur Bough said…

Dear Comrades,

Yet again demonstrating that they fear detailed debate on their ideas, especially udner conditions where they cannot appeal to tribal loyalty against a rival organisation as your own the AWL have again been engaging in Stalinist censorship of ideas tey find uncomfortable. Having only a couple of weeks ao rang me to ask if I would limit my posts to just 3 or 4 line with links to my own blog for longer pieces they continue to delete my posts to their Board even where they comply with that request.

The latest is in a reply I gave to the renewed debate over Iraq, in which some of your comrades have contributed, and specifically my reply to Clive Bradley.

That reply is on my blog here:http://boffyblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/awl-and-iraq.html

Sat 21, June 2008 @ 13:30

Arthur Bough said…

I have tried to contribute to the current debate between PR comrades and the AWL on the AWL Board, http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2007/04/02/%E2%80%9Creactionary-anti-imperialists%E2%80%9D#comment but even by posting my comments to my own blog with just a link to them on the AWL Board, I find the AWL just keep deleting my posts. I am posting my comments in relation to that discussion here therefore.Clive says,

It's true that the occupation has fostered sectarian division, boosted different sides of the civil war (though mainly the Shia side, if only by default) and what have you. The occupation has not played a progressive role. But festering poison is still not the same as all-out haemorrhaging (or something). Of course, we are against both. But we are not obliged to propose drastic catastrophe as the answer to chronic illness.

Or in other words, the ruling class's defeat is not necessarily out victory. We want their defeat. But if we lose sight of our overall socialist objectives, and see everything in terms of defeat or victory for Bush, I think we lose the plot.”

In China, even after Chiang had massacred Communists, Trotsky argued that in the event of an outright imperialist invasion it would be the duty of Communists to make common cause with the KMT against such an imperialist occupation. Of course, that didn’t mean that the Communists should submerge themselves organisationally or politically in the KMT. They maintain their own independence, but forge a common front against imperialism.

Of course, Clive is right that a defeat for imperialism is not necessarily a victory for the working class the point is who brings about the victory. But, the AWL are not prepared to develop a Programme that would allow workers to win that victory. Why because in reality they are opposed to the withdrawal of the troops. Why are they opposed to the withdrawal of troops? Because they have lost faith in the working class as an independent agent of change, and have thrown their lot in with bourgeois democracy and imperialism. For them the goal is no longer socialism, but the establishment of bourgeois democracy, with the socialist revolution to be postponed until some distant future.

My own position is pretty much identical to that of the AWL Minority. At least I thought it was until I saw some of the recent posts in the latest discussion by Dan Randall.

Having said, Dan says,

“Even in conditions where the organised working-class element is so weak and marginalised as to be almost invisible (which, actually, it never has been in occupied Iraq) the job of socialists internationally is ALWAYS to identify it and lend as much support and in whatever form we can.”

Which is quite correct. He goes on to say,

“Personally I wouldn't want the British anti-war movement - or any anti-war movement for that matter - to be the agency that forces the withdrawal of troops even if I thought this were possible. For Iraq to have anything like a democratic and secular - much less socialist - future, this task must be carried about by the Iraqi working-class on their terms and in such a way that they are able to impose themselves (socially and politically) on a post-occupation Iraq. THAT would be the victory.”

But this not only contradicts what he says above, but also compeltely undermines the Minoritiy’s whole argument. Lending as much support as possible to the Iraqi workers in their struggle against both the clerical-fascists AND against imperialism means, precisely, mobilising the working class in Britain and the US to defeat that imperialism. But more than that the reason the working class in the UK and US has to be mobilised to defeat that imperialism and foce its withdrawal from Iraq is not just for the sake of the Iraqi workers, but for the sake of ALL workers. We are after all supposed, as marxists, to see the working class not as some amalgam of national classes, but as a single international working class. That is the whole basis of proletarian Internationalism and Communism. Our Programme is not a series of National programmes as was the position of the Second International, but of a single Programme of World revolution. WE ow that duty of opposing to the hilt imperialism not just for the tiny Iraqi working class, but for its larger neighbours in Iran, in Syria and elsewhere who will be the next targets of that imperialist aggression if the British and US working class allow its activities to go unchecked. Dan’s position is not that of Proletarian Internationalism, but of national reformism, it is the politics of Social democracy. It flows from the same source as the AWL’s bouregois nationalist positions in respect of Kosova and Tibet.

But it also udnermines the whole of the Minorities position. Elsewhere Dave Broder (and I do wish Sacha Ishmail would not keep using Dave’s username) reported on the strike action of US dockers. He related it to the AWL’s predecessors position in respect of Ireland showing how the position now on Iraq contradicted that. Dave was absolutely correct. What is the AWL’s position in respect of action by US and British workers against the Occupation? Logically, even if we take Dan’s position above it would mean they must OPPOSE the action of the US dockers as being reactionary as supporting the clerical-fascists in Iraq against the workers. Why? Because such action undermines the fight of imperialism against those clerical-fascists, a fight even Dan does not want to obstruct! In other words we have exactly the position the Stalinists adopted in WWII. They argued that workers in the West should not confront imperialism, because the USSR was on the same side. If Dan does not want workers in Britain or the US to fight imperialism then he udnermines the Minorities position entirely, because the only conclusion to be drawn from that is that he like Clive and the Majority sees the Occupation as fulfilling a progressive role in combatting the clerical-fascists.

I disagree with PR’s position too as I have outlined on previous occasions on the AWL Board. Therec an be no question in my mind of arguing for victory to the “Resistance” whoever they may be, because they do not constitute any more a progressive force than does the Occupation. On principal there is no reason why the working class organisations could not form a bloc with such forces for specific purposes, for example a military strike. In practice I think such a bloc is impossible, because of the politics of the clerical-fascists. I have, however, suggested given the commencement of Class war against Sadr’s Jacobin forces by the Iraqi bouregosiie and their imperialist backers, the workers organisations could propose a United Front to those forces for the protection of the workers and plebeian masses, around a programme of Action similar to that proposed by Trotsky in France. See: http://boffyblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/class-war-erupts-in-iraq.html Such has the potential of appealing to those plebeian layers attracted to Sadr, and thereby winning them away in the same way that Trotsky suggested the Marxists should do in Italy under Mussolini.

Sat 21, June 2008 @ 16:57

Arthur Bough said…

I have posted this quote from TRotsky to the AWL Discussion on Iraq. It will probably be deleted so I post it here, as you may also find it useful. TRotsky was writing against ultra-lefts who opposed his position of the USSR retaining the Chinese Eastern Railroad, arguing that such was "imperialist". He argues that this should mean they call for workers to mobilise such imperialism.

In fact he says such a position is correct viz actual imperialism.

"Quite so: as against imperialism it is obligatory to help even the hangmen of Chiang Kai Shek." Writings 1929 p270. See:http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1929/09/fi-b.htm

I have to say I am at a loss to understand Clive Bradely's latest offering where he says that provided the National Liberation Movement is some unified movement, it is the job of socialists to simply hand the state over to it. TRotsky was quite happy to argue that in the face of imperialist agressin against China socialists should support Chiang Kai Shek, but such support dd not mean submerging themselves in the KMT, which actually was far from being an homogenous Movement itself. But such support as against imperialism was to be seen alongside the demands for opposition to the KMT itself. He argues elsewhere in Writings 1932 that where there was a demand by students and peasants for arms to the KMT to fight imperilialism it would be ulra-left nonsense to oppose such calls, because such not only udnermined the KMT when they failed to respond, but such arming in the given circumstances was the only place they could obtain the arms to fight imperialism, and those arms were also the necessary requirement to also fight the KMT ultimately.

In fact his comments are most appropriate here:

"In order to arrive at a real national liberation it is necessary to overthrow the Kuomintang. But this does not mean that we postpone the struggle until the time when the Kuomintang is overthrown. The more the struggle against foreign oppression spreads the more difficulties the Kuomintang will have. The more we line up the masses against the Kuomintang the more the struggle against imperialism will develop.

At the acute moment of Japanese intervention the workers and the students called for arms. From whom? Again from the Kuomintang. It would be a sectarian absurdity to abandon this demand under the protext that we wish to overthrow the Kuonintang. We wish to overthrow it but we have not yet reached that point. The more energetically we demand the arming of the workers the sooner we shall reach it."

See:http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/10/strategy.htm

This is completely at odds with the AWL's position which is first defeat the clerical-fascists (read Chiang) then fight imperialism.

Sat 21, June 2008 @ 20:05

Arthur Bough said…

Along with your comrades I have been trying to discuss with the AWL their position on Iraq on their Board. Again I find that they are now deleting my posts willy-nilly with basis whatsoever, which seems to be a tactic both to remove posts which ask uncomfortable questions, and to disrupt my arguments. Its notable they do this to me, but not apparently to your comrades, and I think the reason for that is clear. Firstly, as an ex member of Socialist Organiser, and no longer a member of any organisation its more difficult for them to appeal to tribal loyalty in place of an argument. Secondly, my position is almost identical to that of the AWL Minority so in arguing against me they have to also argue against their own comrades.

I was very surprised at the response of Clive Bradley in this regard. I have known Clive for a long time and always found him a decent guy. But his latest response in simply refusing to engage in debate over the issues, and instead to resort to accusing me of mendacity and sectarianism shows that they are having real problems defending their position, and even decent comrades are led to have to adopt the kind of rudeness and disloyalty that other AWL comrades seem to have as a trademark of their politics. For my part I will continue to simply argue the case without such emotional responses.

I posted the following on the AWL's Board asking them some simple questions. At least I thought they were simple for honest politicians, but their response was not to reply, but to delete the post. Instead then I am posting it here, perhaps your comrades might want to pursue the questions, as I am sure any attempt on my part to do so will only result in the posts being deleted again.

Some Simple Questions for the AWL on Iraq

1) Were you a US docker how would you have voted? Would you have broken the strike? If not why not?

2) Do you REALLY believe that if the working class mobilises around a demand for the defeat of the Occupation, that the Occupation will immediately leave?

3) IF not then isn't your statement that a call fo such a mobilisation means IMMEDIATE Civil War, simply scaremongering and a diversion?

4) Martin says that the Occupation is driving towards the installation of a Bonaparte. Do you beleive this Bonaparte will also be conducive to the Labour Movement,or better or worse than your speculatons about Civil War?

5) Martin says the labour Movement should oppose these plans of imperialism, but that doesn't mean supporting the clerical-fascists. Agreed, at least politically. But how can you oppose the plans of imperialism WITHOUT calling for it to leave. You are left with a pathetic plea to imperialism toa ct how you want it to act, not how it is required to act. What possible reason do you have for believing that is possible? By what means do you propose to bring it about?

TRotsky wrote,

"Where and when has an oppressed proletariat “controlled” the foreign policy of the bourgeoisie and the activities of its arm? How can it achieve this when the entire power is in the hands of the bourgeoisie? In order to lead the army, it is necessary to overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize power. There is no other road. But the new policy of the Communist International implies the renunciation of this only road.

When a working class party proclaims that in the event of war it is prepared to “control” (i.e., to support) its national militarism and not to overthrow it, it transforms itself by this very thing into the domestic beast of capital. There is not the slightest ground for fearing such a party: it is not a revolutionary tiger but a trained donkey. It may be kept in starvation, flogged, spat upon it – it will nevertheless carry the cargo of patriotism. Perhaps only from time to time it will piteously bray: “For God’s sake, disarm the Fascist leagues.” In reply to its braying it will receive an additional blow of the whip. And deservingly so!" See: href=http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/06/french.htm Writings 1934-5

6) The Majority say they are in favour of the Iraqi working-class defeating both imperialism and the "Resistance". Good. Dan Randall before the last AWL COnference proposed developing an Action Plan for Iraq. Again Good. Doesn't the majorities stated aim require such a Programme if it is to be achieved? Why 5 years into the US Colonial rule of Iraq has such a programme not been developed? What has happened to Dan's proposal?

The AWL has spent a lot of time trawling through the writings of bouyregois strategists and given us long journalistic accounts of what it beleives might happen. As Marx said our task is not to interpret history, but to change it. That requires a strategy for action. The AWL's speculations, however, have only providde the basis for a Programme of inaction. AS TRotsky put it, "We are for a strategy of action--not for speculation."

Thu 26, June 2008 @ 13:11