Why yes they are!
Bob Pitt runs a website called Islamophobia Watch and is in or allied closely w/ the UK SWP.
As LDT said revolutionaries must defend a fascist Brazil vs. a bourgeois democratic democratic Britain. http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938/1938-liberation.htm
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/404/propagandism.html
Weekly Worker 404 Thursday October 18 2001 Sectarian propagandism Bob Pitt argues that it is perfectly principled for socialists to defend the Taliban against imperialism
Ian Donovan utilises the thoroughly dubious concept of "reactionary anti-imperialism" in order to justify a 'plague on both your houses' attitude towards the current war being waged by US and British imperialism against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (Weekly Worker October 4). His arguments are confused, incoherent and based on a sectarian method which renders him incapable of understanding what is going on in the world, let alone doing anything to change it.
Ian quotes a section of the 'Preliminary draft theses on the national and the colonial questions' from the Second Congress of the Communist International in 1920, in which Lenin emphasises "the need to combat pan-islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the position of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc". It is hardly surprising that Lenin should propose such a policy for the Comintern, which aimed to build a worldwide organisation of workers' parties on a secular basis. But is Ian really asking us to conclude that, in the event of a pan-islamic movement taking power in a small, underdeveloped country and then coming under attack from a major imperialist state, Lenin would have advocated that revolutionaries should remain neutral in that conflict or called on communists in the small, undeveloped country to work for the defeat of their own government? In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you cannot be serious.
It is apparently OK for Ian to quote this passage from the revolutionary archives, along with another one from Lenin about "not supporting the struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism", in order to clinch his argument that "for communists there can be no question of 'defending' the Taliban". But those of us who might be inclined to cite contrary passages from the writings of prominent Marxists are condemned in advance as "quotation-mongers" and "biblicists". Ian predicts sneeringly that texts such as Trotsky's comments on the attitude socialists should have adopted towards the Italian attack on Abyssinia in 1935 will be "dusted off" in order to provide authority for an anti-imperialist, defencist line on the current war against Afghanistan. Well, let's oblige him.
The example of Italy's invasion of Abyssinia is far from irrelevant, given that the regime in that country - a feudal monarchy headed by the emperor Haile Selassie - was just about as "reactionary" as you could get. The leaders of the Independent Labour Party in Britain, arguing that socialists could not be for the victory of such a government, took a neutral position on the war. Trotsky's response was withering: "If Mussolini triumphs, it means ... the strengthening of imperialism and the discouragement of the colonial peoples in Africa and elsewhere. A victory of the Negus [Haile Selassie], however, would mean a mighty blow not only at Italian imperialism but at imperialism as a whole, and would lend a powerful impulsion to the rebellious forces of the oppressed people. One must really be completely blind not to see this" (emphasis added).
This position, of seeing the victory of oppressed countries over their imperialist oppressors as progressive, irrespective of the political character of the political leadership in the oppressed country, was an elementary principle for Trotsky. Writing in 1938, he remarked in passing: "We shall not even dwell on the fact that in the event of a national war waged by the bey of Tunis against France, progress would be on the side of the barbarian monarch and not that of the imperialist republic." Not for him the formalistic notion of "reactionary anti-imperialism".
One would expect Ian to argue that Trotsky was fundamentally mistaken on this point, and that his position amounted to "supporting the struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism". However, Ian doesn't do this. Rather, he shifts his ground and argues that, since the world has changed and the leading capitalist powers no longer possess formal colonial empires, such old-style anti-imperialism is no longer appropriate.
This seems to me to be a pretty flimsy argument. As Ian himself concedes, imperialism has not ceased to exist - the major capitalist states continue to dominate the world, even if they pursue their economic, political and military-strategic objectives by means other than direct colonial conquest. By such methods - which include financing and arming brutal dictatorships, systematically bombing countries whose governments defy the will of the US, imposing economic sanctions in an attempt to bring recalcitrant regimes to their knees - the US ruling class has devastated the lives of millions across the globe. Why then should it be that a victory by "reactionary" anti-imperialist forces over the world's major oppressor power has lost all progressive content?
It might seem unlikely that the mighty US military machine could possibly suffer defeat at the hands of the ill-equipped Taliban. However, remembering the fate of the Soviet armed forces in the 1980s, if the US sends ground troops into Afghanistan such an outcome can by no means be excluded. Millions of people throughout the 'third world', and in the Arab and muslim countries in particular, would celebrate such a defeat. It would inspire all of those opposing imperialist oppression throughout the world and have a salutary effect on the US ruling class, making it less ready to attack small, apparently vulnerable countries in the future. One must really be completely blind not to see this.
Ian's attitude towards the September 11 attacks in the US is coloured by the same contemptuous dismissal of anti-imperialism. It is because they recognise the existence of a mass anti-imperialist sentiment across the third world, and the need for socialists to get a hearing among those holding such views, that groupings such as the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Labour Party, while making it clear that they oppose terrorism and deplore the loss of civilian lives, have avoided using the word 'condemn' in relation to the September 11 events. Ian denounces this as a "liberal [sic] tendency to simply tail third world nationalism".
He should read the article by Farooq Tariq of the Labour Party Pakistan, 'Why Pakistan peasants won't condemn New York carnage', in the Socialist Outlook 'Stop the war' supplement [an edited version of this article was also carried in Weekly Worker September 20 - ed]: "Six days after the Tuesday attacks on American cities," the writer recounts, "it seems that generally many are happy and feel pride that at last someone has done the job they should be doing. It shows an utter hatred of American imperialism among the general masses ...
"One villager told me that the incident of America is like a peasant getting up in a village to fight against the feudal lord with no weapons. No one in the village ever thought of fighting against the feudal lords before. But when this peasant wins the fight, peasants in the whole village will be very happy. America is a big feudal lord of the world which has lost the fight at the hands of someone without any resources, and we must celebrate. Whenever I raised the issue of innocent Americans losing their lives, the normal reaction was: yes, we sympathise, but what about those millions of Palestinians, Sudanese, Vietnamese and others who have lost their lives at their hands?"
Because this sort of mass anti-imperialism fails to condemn terrorism when it is directed against an oppressor state, because it is sometimes influenced by militant islamic fundamentalism, in short because it lacks commitment to the sort of 'civilised' values upheld by western self-styled Marxists like Ian, he believes that it lacks any progressive features. According to this view, the masses will be permitted to enter into struggle against imperialism only once they have abandoned their 'backwardness' and adopted a socialist ideology which measures up to Ian's own rigorous standards. He would call this principled revolutionary politics; I would call it racist arrogance.
Does this mean that socialists should attempt to organise an anti-war movement around slogans such as 'Victory to the Taliban' or even 'Defend Afghanistan, defeat US imperialism'? No, it doesn't. The best contribution that Marxists in Britain can make to the defeat of imperialism is to build a mass movement with the aim of mobilising public opinion against our own government's participation in the assault on Afghanistan. This means working with trade unionists, Labour Party members, CND supporters, Greens and others, few of whom will agree with a defencist position in relation to the Taliban forces fighting against the US. The most appropriate slogan for such a movement is 'Stop the war'.
But Ian will have none of it. He accuses anti-imperialists of trying to build a movement against the war "on the political foundations provided by pacifists and reformists, to whose politics they generally defer in practice". Of course, Ian may well be rushing around his area of south London energetically building a mass anti-war movement on firm revolutionary foundations - on the basis of "preparations for the overthrow of capitalism itself", as the October 11 issue of the Weekly Worker recommends. Then again, it could just be that his idea of contributing to the building of an anti-war movement is to write lengthy articles polemicising against other sections of the far left and perhaps appear on the occasional demonstration selling his organisation's newspaper.
Ian's method may be a travesty of revolutionary politics, but it does at least have the merit of consistency. Just as he refuses to take sides in a bloody war waged by the world's leading imperialist power and its allies against a small oppressed country, so he abstains from the task of building an effective movement against that war in his own country. Ian would call this method Marxism; I would call it sectarian propagandism.
-- Michael Pugliese