Do you not agree with this argument then:
"To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complicated than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to refuse beforehand to manoeuvre, to utilize the conflict of interests (even though temprorary) among one's enemied, to refuse to temporize and compromise with possible (even though temporary, unstable, vacillating and conditional) allies - is this not ridiculous in the extreme" - From Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder, Chapter 8 'No Compromises'
>>While the struggle of a people internally is probably the most decisive
>>factor, apartheid would have gone on for another 10 years but for the
>>international sanctions, especially those of the US banks.
>
>
>In the end sanctions were part of a process which allowed for the cutting of
>a highly unsatisfactory deal in South Africa. The masses who carried
>forward the struggle were specifically marginalised by a strategy which
>placed the initiative in the hands of elites and Western governments.
Of course it was an unsatisfactory deal, but it brought bourgeois democratic rights to the black population of South Africa. With the South African army still in existence what other solution can marxist analysis propose?
I am not quite sure which country you are based in at the moment but what would have been your alternative strategy, and why would it have ended apartheid quicker?
>>And we just have the example of East Timor, from which the Indonesian army
>>has been compelled to withdraw as a result of IMF sanctions. Why should the
>>same not happen for Chechnya?
>
>
>It depends what you expect for Chechnya. If you want some sort of slightly
>modified form of oppressive regime and extended Western influence in the
>region then UN/IMF/Nato intervention are probably just the ticket. I don't
>believe that will offer any long term respite from the kind of barbarism
>going on there.
As a democrat, let alone anything else, I would like people not to be expelled from their homes for the colour of their skin, their religion or their language.
>>I find this style of argument inaccurate and unproductive. I have already
>>made clear that neither I nor anyone I know is wanting to give carte
>>blanche to the west. So why use a phrase about hitching yourself to the big
>>power bandwagon?
>>
>
>You cannot influence these people.
So all the campaigning by various anti-apartheid movements was useless?
>What on earth is this global civil society? We don't share this asumption.
It seems not. What are you doing here? Looking for proletarian jewels among the dross? Aren't there richer seams to be mined from your point of view?
>
>>There is a large boureoisified working class which merges through the
>>educated working class with the intelligentsia, and comprises 90% of the
>>population. It has quite strong democratic prejudices. Like people should
>>not be driven from their homes because they are muslims.
>
>I think your prejudices are showing.
I should hope they are.
>On Trotsky and sanctions:
>
>Trotsky was opposed to calls for other imperialist countries to impose
>sanctions on Italy. The point is not to encourage reliance on forces which
>merely have an interest in making the world sufficiently stable to allow for
>the resumption of exploitation.
Could we have the direct quote please, so it is possible to compare it with the Lenin above? There is nothing in the Lenin quote about encouraging *reliance* on the temporary allies.
Chris Burford
London