>Kelley wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > <big inhale><big exhale> aahhhhhhhhhhhh. i love the smell of revolutionary
> > defeatism in the morning!
>
>Let's keep our jargon straight. "Revolutionary defeatism" referred to
>the working class refusing to support it's own bourgeosie in World War
>I. Except for Rosa & Karl, Debs, the IWW, & Lenin & friends, no one
>followed that course. To see a contemporary analogy to revolutionary
>defeatism, look up stuff by Stan Goff (whose own son is in the
>paratroopers in Iraq.)
consider this: http://rwor.org/a/v24/1148-1150/1148/ba1148.htm
"Revolutionary defeatism means that, for people in an imperialist country--or in any country where the government is carrying out an unjust war, a war of domination and plunder, a reactionary war that serves only to fortify oppression, or to replace one oppressive power with another--you must put special emphasis on opposing your own government in that war, even if the enemy of your government in that war is equally reactionary. It means that you must refuse to support your government in such a war and, beyond that, YOU MUST HAVE A BASIC ORIENTATION OF WELCOMING THE SETBACKS AND DEFEATS OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AND MAKING USE OF THEM TO BUILD OPPOSITION TO YOUR GOVERNMENT AND ITS REACTIONARY WAR, in accordance with and guided by the objective of making revolution right within your own country and contributing all you can to the international revolutionary struggle. But revolutionary defeatism does not mean that you should actually support the enemy of your government if that enemy and the war it is waging is equally reactionary. Obviously, this can be complicated, and in order to correctly apply this orientation it is necessary to make a concrete analysis of the concrete situation while remaining firmly grounded in basic principle."
is that not what Chuck is up to? I think, though, that the below description more accurately describes the positions you've been taking, no? while you don't call for Iraq to win, what you call for is turning Imperialist war into Civil war against the bourgeoisie? Or, have I seriously misunderstood your position and confused it with Yoshie's position, which I recently pointed to in the archives? I apologize if I'm mistaken here. Here's the relevant quotes"
"The Russo-Japanese War broke out in 1904. Lenin immediately called for a victory of Japan. He regarded Japan as the incarnation of capitalist progress over Tsarist reaction.1 On 14 January 1905 he expressed his delight at the fall of Port Arthur. He regarded 'progressive', 'advanced' Asia as having dealt an irreparable, blow to old, 'reactionary', 'backward' Europe. The Japanese bourgeoisie was carrying out a 'revolutionary' task, at which the international proletariat could only rejoice.
Lenin was not alone in holding this opinion. Nearly all the parties of the Second International shared it, as did an important faction of the Russian bourgeoisie, which hoped that revolutionary changes would result from a military defeat of Tsarism. Moreover, this viewpoint was fundamentally a return to the old viewpoint' of Marx and Engels. In their time they had hoped for the victory of the young bourgeoisie in struggles against pre-capitalist classes. They had believed that the proletariat should regard the young bourgeoisie as allies, even when it was organising and fighting for its own interests.2 We also know that Marx and Engels regarded Russia as 'the greatest reserve of reaction', the centre and bastion of counter-revolution in Europe."
<...>
To be sure, it is not by chance that the term was used again after six years of eclipse, in an article in Communist International immediately after Lenin's death, which blandly mentions the past divergences between, Lenin and Trotsky. Thereafter, 'revolutionary defeatism' was systematically advanced as a principle of 'Leninism' as against 'Trotskyism'.14 In August 1928 the Sixth Congress of. the Communist International adopted the 'Theses on the Struggle Against Imperialist War and the Tasks of the Communists': these theses declared:
'The proletariat fights when there is a war between imperialist states. Its viewpoint is one of defeatism towards its own bourgeoisie. It seeks to transform the imperialist war into a civil war against the bourgeoisie. The proletariat of the imperialist countries adopts the same principled position in relation to a war of oppression directed against a national revolutionary movement and especially against colonial peoples. The proletariat must act in the same way if there is a revolutionary war with imperialists threatening the workers' dictatorship.' 15 http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/backiss/Vol1/No3/RevDeft.html
Also, I think the issue that Lenin adhered to--turning an imperialist war into a civil war as a way to advance revolution--is what chuck is up to:
http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/backiss/Vol1/No3/RevDeft.html
kelley