Permanent Revolution

Wladek Flakin on Wed 25, June 2008 @ 15:14

Wladek Flakin — 2008-06-25 15:14:02

As was to be expected, the Sparts have shown that this heroic action by the dockers was in fact just a maneuver to bolster support for the Democratic Party: http://spartacist.org/english/wv/916/ignote.html

Arthur Bough on Thu 26, June 2008 @ 17:24

Arthur Bough — 2008-06-26 17:24:32

This quopte from Trotsky shows why opposition to imperialism is important, and why even the kind of passivity in respect of imperilaism of the AWL cannot be accepted.

"If we are to do nothing to weaken the imperialist allies of the Soviet Union through the class struggle, that means naturally that we must strengthen the confidence of the people in their rule. What will we do then, when French, Belgian, Czechoslovakian militarism, buttressed by its own proletariat, turns, in the course of the war – a perfectly understandable and possible development – to direct their weapons against the Soviets? To delude ourselves with the idea that, in such a case, we can strongly oppose them, is madness. The great masses do not make such sharp turns. The power which we have helped militarism to gain, will not be so easily wished away. In such a case, we would have put ourselves into the position of being not only passive but active agents in the destruction of the Soviet Union."

In other words, if you simply wash your hands of fighting imperialism as the AWL propose then you say to workers by your lack of opposition "look Imperialsm can act progressively". IN so doing you mislead and miseducate the class, and it is no wonder then that the class will then believe tat imperialism should be free to intervene elsewhere, for example in Iran or Syria, or as in the example above to attack a Workers State.

The Stalinists used that method to defend the USSR, the AWL use it for the stated urpose of defending the tiny Iraqi working class, in doing so they put the working class as a whole in jeopardy from that same imperialism.

The action of the dockers shows the way forward as Dave Broder of the AWL Minority argued. He also showed in these posts why the AWL's posiiton on this in respect of Iraq contradicts the position they or at least Sean Matgamna took in relation to Ireland and the position of the IS.

See:http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/03/03/swp-and-british-troops-ireland-1969#comment-16217

and

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/03/03/swp-and-british-troops-ireland-1969#comment-16227

and

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/02/24/thoughts-working-class-internationalism#comment-16231

I have asked the AWL Majority to answer the quesion implicit in Dave's argument here in respect of the docker's action, but as is their wont they simply deleted my posts rather than reply. In response to that question by one of your comrades they replied with weasel words. Clive Bradely says of course they support strike action, but does not tell us how they reconcile that with the entire purpose of that strike action to be to bring about a situation they not only oppose, but believe to be reactionary because it would lead to the destruction of the Iraqi working class.

The question is when will the AWL Minority demand answers to these questions, when will they ask the question I asked, which is what happened to Dan Randall's proposal for the development of a programme to develop the Iraqi workingc lass so that it can assume the role the majority says it is in favour of i.e. to be able to be strong enough to defeat both the Occupation and the "Resistance"? When will the AWL Minority begin to ask questions about an organisation that proceeds on the basis of rudeness and disloyalty even against its fomer members by simply censoring and deleting their comments rather than engaging in serious debate over them?

Arthur Bough on Thu 26, June 2008 @ 17:27

Arthur Bough — 2008-06-26 17:27:54

I proposed the following questions for the AWL Majority to answer. They replied by deleting the post. Perhaps your comrades could ask the questions.

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

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."

bill j on Thu 26, June 2008 @ 20:18

bill j — 2008-06-26 20:18:23

A slight quibble. Marx said "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."

He didn't say that philosphers were wrong to intepret the world, but that this interpretation must lead to change. The AWL interpret the world - not in order to change it but to justify the occupation of Iraq by imperialism.

All the reams of virtual ink they expend doesn't change that fact.

Therefore if they were consistent (they're not but who cares?) they would oppose the strike as a reactionary blow against the occupation they support.

Arthur Bough on Thu 26, June 2008 @ 22:43

Arthur Bough — 2008-06-26 22:43:22

I think Marx was saying "Enough of the interpreting already, let's change things." I don't know that the AWL justify the Occupation as such, even if that is the consequecne of what they say, but that they do not in reality oppose it. They claim to want it to go by the hands of the workers, but fail to bring forward any kind of program or strategy by which the workingc lass could achieve that. As I said Dan Randall proposed developing such a Program, but as far as I can see its been killed.

Consequently, even in terms of the AWL's stated position that they oppose calls for the Occupation to leave tehy should as you say oppose any actual calls for action that would bring that about. They will not do that ebcause that would mean confronting workers here at home with the actual consequence of their politics. Logically, they should be as committed to scab on such a reactionary strike (in their terms) as they would in relation to a strike for say racist goals.

But, as I have pointed out elsewhere this is not the only incidence of this. They argue for instance in favour of defence of state capitalist property in the UK, for example the NHS, the Tube etc. Yet, half the AWL characterise the USSR and other Stalinist states as State Capitalist too, but they do not argue for defence of THAT state capitalist property. It is symptomatic of Opportunism.

jason on Sun 29, June 2008 @ 23:43

jason — 2008-06-29 23:43:49

A great session. It shows how persistent, long-term pateint political work can build an important political strike which also had a direct effect in Iraq with dockworkers at two southern ports staging a walkout/work stoppage.

Wladek on Tue 01, July 2008 @ 14:42

Wladek — 2008-07-01 14:42:24

The RSO from Austria translated this article and put in on their web site:

http://sozialismus.net/ue_texte/us-dockers-gegen-krieg.html

Arthur Bough on Wed 02, July 2008 @ 21:47

Arthur Bough — 2008-07-02 21:47:11

I have been following the contributions of comrades Jason and Bill on the AWL Discussion Board with interest on the question of Iraq. I note they still have not answered the question of what their position would have been over the Dockers vote and action. Of course, I would have liked to participate in that discussion, but the AWL now delete all of my posts there. As I have just e-mailed to one oft heir comrades it appears the AWL now know they have lost this argument, and can only now resort to Healyite gangsterism and Stalinist censorship in order to stymie the debate they so repeatedly say they welcome.

Of course they allow Jason and Bill to post because even the Minority oppose the positions of PR - indeed I oppose most of the formulation myself, but they know they can appeal to TRotskyist tribal loyalty over reasoned argument as their response. They no doubt welcome me positing here for that reason too now they have prevented me responding to them on their own Board. C'est la vie, the Stalinists used the same tactics when TRotsky was forced to respond to them in the bourgeois media.

Grace on Wed 23, July 2008 @ 18:37

Grace — 2008-07-23 18:37:08

http://michael-owen.cudiba.info http://wellington-2.gabimku.info http://mountain-hardware.epasir.info http://stevensville.doqagje.info http://class-62.ejisoj.info http://phones-11.eqexaky.info http://colleges-2.gupacef.info http://photos-35.eqexaky.info http://granite.emykab.info http://big-98.ejysali.info http://east-haddam.emewugi.info http://web-36.edoahfe.info http://monica-bellucci.epasir.info http://west-39.gabimku.info http://rosholt.ewufieh.info

http://eniyra.info