Trotsky’s hypothesis of supporting a ‘fascist’ Brazil against the British empire is problematic - Trotsky was obviously using the term ‘fascist’ in loose conventional terms as a synonym for a nasty dictatorship - ie, in the sense that liberals and pacifists would understand it, in order to offend such people - and not in a Marxist sense. Because, of course, Trotsky believed that fascism was a phenomenon of imperialist countries, not of underdeveloped countries. The remainder of comrade Pitt’s article is just a load of shallow demagogy, and vicarious enthusing for the nationalism of various butcher regimes. All his repetition of the well known horrors of the US-led military campaigns and sanctions against Iraq produce not a single political reason why Iraqi leftists and workers should ‘defend’ their own government in a war with the imperialists. The few such leftists that survive with any serious revolutionary commitment tend to have the opposite view - to be defeatists - and rightly so! He dismisses the similar views of reputable Afghan and Pakistani leftists by quoting a xenophobic rant from Abdul Haq, a mujahedin warlord and CIA tool (whose death even at the hands of the Taliban is no loss), about how the Afghan people should unite against ‘foreigners’, and tries to pass that off as a progressive sentiment. And even more strange is the comparison comrade Pitt makes between the struggles of the Vietcong, and of Fidel Castro’s July 26 Movement, against US imperialism. It is rather odd for comrade Pitt to argue that wars by the bourgeois or pre-bourgeois ruling classes of formally sovereign states have a democratic content, by such an analogy. Both those struggles involved movements from below that overthrewsuch ruling classes, and made some sort of attempt to build a post-capitalist order. In both cases, the United States, as the guardian of the capitalist status quo, intervened to defend the ruling classes, and in both cases failed. We of course oppose these counterrevolutionary actions of imperialism. However, this is an irrelevant analogy. What comrade Pitt is really saying is that if, for their own reasons, the corrupt pre-revolutionary regimes of Batista and Thieu had provoked some kind of conflict with the imperialists to stay in power, the Vietcong and Castro, and the masses they represented, should have fallen into line behind them and refrained from taking advantage of their difficulties to overthrow them. Sorry, but we disagree. The fact that the likes of Castro and Ho Chi Minh might indeed have been suckered by such an eventuality does not make it right. Finally, comrade Pitt’s complaint that I mis-cited his position on the 1999 Balkan war is a bit odd, since simple logic and consistency would seem to dictate that if he believes that the ‘anti-imperialist’ war of the Taliban is progressive, on the same basis he must also believe that the war of the Serbian regime against imperialism to hold onto Kosova was also progressive. My recollection is that he did have that consistency. If comrade Pitt finds this embarrassing in retrospect, then fine. One suspects that he will end up finding his current positions similarly embarrassing in years to come. Anti-Taliban equals pro-imperialist Liz Hoskings’ letter to the Weekly Workerprovides an opportunity to demonstrate further the bankruptcy of the conceptions about ‘anti- imperialism’ held by much of the left (November 1). The opening of her letter indeed reveals much: in place of a political argument against my views, one instead gets a rather infantile smear that in refusing to support Afghanistan’s Taliban regime in the current war, one thereby must be a supporter of imperialism. This is an apolitical method of argument that does the left no favours - at best it lowers us to the level of the least politically competent elements in bourgeois politics and it recalls in form the notorious statement of George W Bush, that “those who are not with us are against us”, which appears to brand even bourgeoiscritics of US imperialism’s current military campaign as being on the side of the ‘terrorists’. Comrade Hoskings’ ‘left’ echo of Bush’s McCarthyite sentiment is of course not derived from imperialism. Rather it is derived from an ‘orthodox Trotskyist’ political tradition that failed to break from partially degenerated, partially Stalinised ‘Bolshevism’. This tradition has produced a number of comic-opera miniature Stalin-type figures running ersatz ‘Bolshevik’ cults, and it seems that comrade Hoskings has picked up from it this Vyshinky-like method of branding those who dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy as supporters of imperialism. Without any evidence, aside from the technique of Stalinist amalgam: ‘Trotsky is against Stalin; Hitler is against Stalin; therefore ...’ (‘the CPGB are against the Taliban; Bush is against the Taliban; therefore …’). Notwithstanding this method of polemic, her letter does contain political arguments that have a wider significance. Comrade Hoskings produces a series of statements that could have come out of a Stalinist manual of class collaboration, to provide a justification as to why the oppressed masses of Afghanistan should support their own governments in wars like the current one. She argues that “the fact that direct colonial rule is no longer considered to be economical for the imperialist bourgeoisie does not mean that they do not exert influence by other methods. Cuba was never a formal colony of the United States, yet I am sure nobody on the left will dispute the hold of US imperialism prior to 1959. “And who helped bring in the murderous Pinochet regime in Chile? Comrade Donovan’s argument is weak indeed when one actually looks at and studies the current polices of imperialism. Stating that underdeveloped countries are now ruled directly by their own bourgeoisie is of no help to his argument either. Has he never heard of the term ‘comprador’? Clearly not.” For an argument that manages to quite spectacularly miss the point, this takes some beating. No-one has ever denied that the imperialist bourgeoisie exerts massive influence in third world countries ‘by other methods’ than direct colonialism. Indeed, this is precisely why it is utterly futile and pointless for the masses to support their own ruling class in a so-called ‘war against imperialism’.Any such struggle between the ruling class of a backward capitalist country that possesses state independence and the imperialists themselves cannot by definition harm a hair on the head of the imperialist world system while the ruling classes of both sides remain in power. Such wars are necessarily about matters in which the working class has no direct interest, such as territorial aggrandisement, who will be the dominant regional oppressor, or other such matters. If the ruling class of the less developed country wins, the result, as with any victorious national ruling class, will be its consolidation in power, and thereby the consolidation in power of yet another agency of the imperialist world system. Conversely, the victory of the advanced country or countries means the consolidation of the regime of the imperialist bourgeoisie at home, fundamentally against its own proletariat. This is why we have to be for the defeat of both sides in such wars. The most that can be achieved without a revolutionary victory of the proletariat on either side is an adjustment of the relationship of forces betweendifferent ruling classes, withinthe framework of the imperialist world system. The working class has no interest in merely modifying the relationship of forces between different ruling classes in a world that remains dominated by the monopoly-capitalist (imperialist) world system. The only circumstances where the working class has an interest in taking a side in such struggles is where the denial of formal state independence by direct colonial rule produces a deep sense of national oppression that cripples the ability of the proletariat to crystallise as an independent class: ie, an illusion of a common ‘national interest’ between the oppressed masses and ruling classes that amounts to a formidable obstacle to class consciousness among the oppressed proletarian, semi-proletarian and/or peasant masses. We support these genuine national liberation strugglesas a special case, in order to win at least a formal national equality, and thereby destroyillusions that a common interest exists between the oppressed masses and their local rulers, and that real equality of peoples can be won within the current world order. But to support the wars of long-established independent states in the current post-colonial, imperialist-dominated world, purely on the basis of the existence of diffuse ‘anti-imperialist’ sentiments among the masses in the absence of a concrete, tangible (as opposed to purely metaphysical) aim that benefits the independentinterests of the masses againsttheir rulers, amounts to class collaboration. Such wars cannot destroy any material obstacle in the form of colonial occupation to working class politics - our support merely makes the working class an appendage of every reactionary butcher who would like to carve out a bigger place for themselves within the existing imperialist world order. Comrade Hoskings asks if I have ever heard of the term ‘comprador’? Certainly, and I have heard all kinds of advocates of class collaboration use this term to excuse their aspirations for blocs (‘military’ or ‘political’) with those wings of the ruling classes who claim notto be ‘compradors’. Comrade Hoskings talks about Cuba. But it is rather odd for her to do so - it is certainly true that in a limited way Cuba managed to break temporarily with the political influence and rule of imperialism. It did so by becoming assimilated into the Soviet bloc, a formation based on a historically unviable social form that for a comparatively short period claimed to embody a ‘socialist’ alternative to capitalism. The fact that Cuba had to uproot capitalism itself to break, even temporarily, from imperialist domination, is hardly proof that struggles led by outright bourgeois, pre- capitalist or even arguably pre-feudal ruling classes can do the same. Or does comrade Hoskings think it is? Perhaps she thinks that mullah Muhammed Omar (or Osama bin Laden) will become the next Castro and take the ‘Cuban road’? The outraged reference to the role of the imperialists in bringing Pinochet to power is indicative of problems with her own perspective, not ours. Recent history has of course shown that for those such as comrade Hoskings, today’s reviled and loathed comprador can become tomorrow’s prosecutor of an ‘anti-imperialist’ war. One can think of several examples - Saddam Hussein springs to mind immediately, as do … Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Outrage over the crimes committed by such loathsome, ultra-reactionary butchers becomes, to people with comrade Hoskings’ kind of politics, transformed into ‘military support’ - with the attendant soft peddling of their crimes. The moment they take some action against the imperialists on whose behalf they were mistakenly assumed to be mere ‘compradors’, out come the declarations of ‘unconditional military defence’ (but of course no politicalsupport whatsoever). The fact that they remain exactly the same anti-working class butchers the day after they fall out with the imperialists makes not one jot of difference to such comrades. Indeed, the example of Pinochet is instructive. Comrade Hoskings’ then ultra- orthodox Trotskyist associates took no public position on the house- arrest of Pinochet when he was held under a Spanish extradition warrant for over a year by the Blair government. But there is an unmistakable logic in calling for the defence of every butcher regime that rules an underdeveloped country. Most of the left that operates within the same framework as comrade Hoskings ducked this question and sought to avoid addressing it, but a few of the more eccentric elements drew the logical conclusion: the demand to free Pinochetin the name of ‘self-determination’ for Chile. This certainly has a logic to it. And of course, in the event that a falling out between the Pinochet regime and imperialism had led to war, comrade Hoskings and her co-thinkers would have been forced to become … ‘military’ supporters of the gorillasthemselves. Comrade Hoskings theorises her position as follows: “Communists are against the right of the imperialist bourgeoisie to dominate undeveloped nations. When a semi-colony such as Afghanistan is attacked by imperialism, it is our duty to defend it. This means giving military support to any indigenous forces that are fighting against the imperialist troops, regardless of the political shade of those forces.” But this is completely anti-Marxist. Marxism, after all, is about the class struggle … which class rules? Comrade Hoskings’ perspective could be summed up as ‘Who cares which class rules?’ Even Stalinists generally try to disguise their class collaboration with phrases about the ‘progressive’ nature of the ruling class forces they are supporting! In reality, of course, imperialism does not “dominate” Afghanistan through Stealth bombers, cruise missiles, or even ground troops - they are only auxiliaries - it does so though the social and economic bonds that exist between the imperialist bourgeoisie and the rulers of allunderdeveloped capitalist and pre-capitalist countries. And those bonds continue to exist despitefallings out over episodic questions of who will be the politically dominant oppressor in a particular region. They can only be broken by the coming to power of a force that consciously seeks to uproot capitalism and replace it with socialism on an international scale. The idea that workers and peasants can ‘fight imperialism’ under the leadership of undoubtedly the most overtly reactionary regime on the planet is fantastic - and by its absurd nature discredits this dogma more than anything I could write. In this regard, comrade Hoskings’ attempt to paint the ‘anti-imperialist’ sentiments of the section of the Pakistan masses who support islamic fundamentalism as ‘progressive’ merely exposes the underlying liberalism not only of herself, but of much of the left who share her views. Sorry, but thesemasses are not, in the main, hostile to ‘global capital’ at all - except from the standpoint of defence of traditional tribal society and the landlords and mullahs. All evidence points to the fact that the influence of the fundamentalist elements is strongest in the areas of Pakistan that are least urbanised, least industrialised, least proletarianised, and most under the thumb of pre-capitalist economic forms. It is in the major cities, where there is a real, if tenuous, working class movement, and where secularist and semi-secularist forms of bourgeois politics are strongest, that the support for the fundamentalists tends to be weakest. Comrade Hoskings’ homily - along the lines of ‘We must not be sectarian towards the anti-imperialist sentiments of the masses; if only we are less contemptuous of their views we can turn them in a progressive direction’ - is completely devoid of class analysis. Which is hardly surprising, since her views, like those of comrade Pitt, are a variant of Menshevik ‘two- stage revolutionism’. Comrade Hoskings asks the CPGB “a practical question”. In a nutshell, she demands to be told how “the Afghan masses can somehow take advantage of the imperialist onslaught in order that they can defeat the Taliban. One wonders how they can do this while US bombs are raining down on them.” In one sense, this is a very important question, and in another sense, a very silly one. It is an important question in the sense that precisely howrevolutionary defeatism can be implemented in anycountry involved in modern warfare, when everything from carpet-bombing to even the possible use of nuclear weapons by either state or irregular forces, are possibilities in a serious armed conflict. Even in classical inter-imperialist wars, there is no ‘one size fits all’ method of implementing ‘revolutionary defeatism’. How were the working class inhabitants of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for instance, supposed to implement ‘revolutionary defeatism’, when concretely, the defeat of their ‘own’ imperialist country coincided exactly in time and space with their own annihilation? What one can say, however, is that revolutionary defeatism is a political perspective: the working class (and its allies among the broader oppressed masses) refuses to subordinate its own struggle to the war effort of its oppressors, even though that struggle may (and likely will) cause the war effort of its ‘own’ ruling class to fail. However, the question is silly insofar as it implies that any such perspective is utopian while Afghanistan is being bombed. The answer is in principle quite simple; but in practice it is as complex as anywhere else in the world. The oppressed masses of Afghanistan, while they were under the weight of the grotesque Taliban tyranny, should have continued to struggle against the Taliban regime, taking whatever advantage they could of that regime’s military difficulties with the imperialists. Look at Herat, where the inhabitants rose up and drove out the oppressor. They should not subordinate their struggles to the war effort of the Taliban. On the contrary they should be aware that any victories in struggle they are able to win will inevitably hasten the defeat of the Taliban, and they should welcome that and work towards it. Conversely, military setbacks for the regime will inevitably weaken it, and make it easier to struggle against it effectively, and should therefore also be welcomed. There is no other meaning to ‘revolutionary defeatism’, and frankly it is disingenuous to imply that it is any more difficult a perspective in Afghanistan than anywhere else.
<URL: http://www.worldsocialist-
cwi.org/publications/Afghanistan/afghanchp6.html
>
Afghanistan, Islam and the Revolutionary Left
Previous Conflicts
By Peter Taaffe
Trotsky on Ethiopia and Brazil
<sNIP>
-- Michael Pugliese
"Without knowing that we knew nothing, we went on talking without listening to
each other. Sometimes we flattered and praised each other, understanding that
we would be flattered and praised in return. Other times we abused and shouted
at each other, as if we were in a madhouse." -Tolstoy