Re: AUT: Re: Palestione, Israel and other ghettoes

["Tahir Wood" <twood@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_82DE0C27.7A1B3D00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



>>> s_h_hamilton@xxxxxxxxx 10/29/02 07:08AM >>>

If the idea of the SACP making a military bloc with
the ANC to achieve permanent revolution in South
Africa ten years back is absurd, because the SACP is
bourgeois and workers' revolutions can't be effected
by bourgeois actors, then how much more absurd is your
offering of the SACP-ANC post-apartheid government as
a model for the Palestine in the immediate future?=20

Tahir: First, it is more than an SACP-ANC government because it includes =
other figures such as Gatsha Buthelezi, the leader of a righwing party. =
But secondly, the positive thing that this regime exhibits is a transformat=
ion on the racial and cultural level. Povery, for example, and the gap =
between rich and poor have actually increased since 'liberation'. In =
addition the racial reconciliation may be temporary, as it was in =
Zimbabwe; we have no way of knowing right now. We also have to remember =
that in the case of Palestine the two-state strategy of the PLO is a =
relatively recent one. The earlier demand, for the dismantling of the =
regime in Israel and its replacement, was more similar to the ANC one. The =
two-state strategy is kind of like the ANC demanding independence for the =
former bantustans. The independent Palestinian state can never be anything =
other than an abomination - it will be economically dependent in the =
extreme and will only hang together through repression. What exactly is =
its purpose?Furthermore it leaves the Israeli state untouched and =
legitimised.

If the Bolsheviks betrayed the Russian workers with
capitalist policies, why would the Palestinians
workers benefit in the short term from independence
under a capitalist government?

Tahir: They would not benefit at all for reasons mentioned above.

As far as I can see, there are only three basic
approaches to revolution in economic semi-colonies
with cross-class national liberation movements. =20
The first is the Stalinist one, which involves a
political bloc of classes (and often, these days, a
call on UN intervention) to establish a 'new
democatic' capitalist government in order to
strengthen the workers and peasants for a real,
anti-capitalist revolution in the future. Thiago is a
representative of this stagist approach.=20

The second approach, which I argue for, is that of
permanent revolution, which wants the workers to make
a 'military' alliance with the national bourgeosie
only to defeat imperialism, and then to turn the
defeat of imperialism into a socialist revolution, a
revolution which must be spread to many other
countries to be successful in the long term.=20

Tahir: You may present this as permanent revolution, but the way you =
describe it is actually maoist. That "turn the defeat of imperialism into =
a socialist revolution" is just hocus pocus magical thinking. What on =
earth can it mean in practice?

The third approach, which Harald and Peter J argue
for, says that the whole idea of a bloc of any sort
with other classes and a national liberation struggle
is wrong, and that a revolution has to take place
across a whole region or even the whole world to be
successful anywhere.

Tahir: Yes, but you don't represent this kind of view fairly. You omit the =
fact that the forces that would drive such a strategy would not be seeking =
state power for themselves; they would simply be pushing the bourgeoisie =
into further and further reforms without taking responsibility for any of =
them. Why should proletarians ever do the work of the bourgeoisie for =
them?=20

This is actually the view, not yours, which sees 'permanent revolution' as =
a seamless process of struggle that does not step back in admiration and =
wonder at the point where 'national liberation' has been achieved and then =
take up a role in polishing and protecting this wonderful new achievement. =
The struggle surely continues, in order to break this new creation (of the =
bourgeoisie, that is; it is not ours). For me, the confusion in these =
debates about imperialism and 'national liberation' always turns on this =
issue. There is no such thing as the defeat of imperialism without the =
defeat of capitalism. Therefore there are no two stages. There is only the =
pushing of the bourgeoisie into further reforms, i.e. defeats and =
retreats. It is very important to remember that reform is something that =
they do under pressure from the class; we take no responsibility for those =
reforms.=20

Therefore even if a secular, democratic Palestine in place of Israel could =
be achieved (by the bourgeoisie I must stress), a real achievement, we =
would immediately struggle against that too. If there are any stages, then =
they are quasi-infinite in number.

--=_82DE0C27.7A1B3D00
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="TEXT.htm"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT: 8pt MS Sans Serif; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px; MARGIN-TOP: 2px">
<DIV><BR><BR>&gt;&gt;&gt; s_h_hamilton@xxxxxxxxx 10/29/02 07:08AM
&gt;&gt;&gt;<BR><BR>If the idea of the SACP making a military bloc with<BR>the
ANC to achieve permanent revolution in South<BR>Africa ten years back is absurd,
because the SACP is<BR>bourgeois and workers' revolutions can't be
effected<BR>by bourgeois actors, then how much more absurd is your<BR>offering
of the SACP-ANC post-apartheid government as<BR>a model for the Palestine in the
immediate future? </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Tahir: First, it is more than an SACP-ANC government because it includes
other figures such as Gatsha Buthelezi, the leader of a righwing party. But
secondly, the positive thing that this regime exhibits is a transformation on
the racial and cultural level. Povery, for example, and the gap between rich and
poor have actually increased since 'liberation'. In addition the racial
reconciliation may be temporary, as it was in Zimbabwe; we have no way of
knowing right now. We also have to remember that in the case of Palestine the
two-state strategy of the PLO is a relatively recent one. The earlier demand,
for the dismantling of the regime in Israel and its replacement, was more
similar to the ANC one. The two-state strategy is kind of like the ANC demanding
independence for the former bantustans. The independent Palestinian state can
never be anything other than an abomination - it will be economically
dependent&nbsp;in the extreme and will only hang together through repression.
What exactly is its purpose?Furthermore it leaves the Israeli state untouched
and legitimised.<BR><BR>If the Bolsheviks betrayed the Russian workers
with<BR>capitalist policies, why would the Palestinians<BR>workers benefit in
the short term from independence<BR>under a capitalist government?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Tahir: They would not benefit at all for reasons mentioned above.<BR><BR>As
far as I can see, there are only three basic<BR>approaches to revolution in
economic semi-colonies<BR>with cross-class national liberation movements.&nbsp;
<BR>The first is the Stalinist one, which involves a<BR>political bloc of
classes (and often, these days, a<BR>call on UN intervention) to establish a
'new<BR>democatic' capitalist government in order to<BR>strengthen the workers
and peasants for a real,<BR>anti-capitalist revolution in the future. Thiago is
a<BR>representative of this stagist approach. <BR><BR>The second approach, which
I argue for, is that of<BR>permanent revolution, which wants the workers to
make<BR>a 'military' alliance with the national bourgeosie<BR>only to defeat
imperialism, and then to turn the<BR>defeat of imperialism into a socialist
revolution, a<BR>revolution which must be spread to many other<BR>countries to
be successful in the long term. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Tahir: You may present this as permanent revolution, but the way you
describe it is actually maoist. That "turn the defeat of imperialism into a
socialist revolution" is just hocus pocus magical thinking. What on earth can it
mean in practice?<BR><BR>The third approach, which Harald and Peter J
argue<BR>for, says that the whole idea of a bloc of any sort<BR>with other
classes and a national liberation struggle<BR>is wrong, and that a revolution
has to take place<BR>across a whole region or even the whole world to
be<BR>successful anywhere.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Tahir: Yes, but you don't represent this kind of view fairly. You omit the
fact that the forces that would drive such a strategy would not be seeking state
power for themselves; they would simply be pushing the bourgeoisie into further
and further reforms without taking responsibility for any of them. Why should
proletarians ever do the work of the bourgeoisie for them? </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>This is actually the view, not yours, which sees 'permanent revolution' as
a seamless process of struggle that does not step back in admiration and wonder
at the point where 'national liberation' has been achieved and then take up a
role in polishing and protecting this wonderful new achievement. The struggle
surely continues, in order to break this new creation (of the bourgeoisie, that
is; it is not ours). For me, the confusion in these debates about imperialism
and 'national liberation' always turns on this issue. There is no such thing as
the defeat of imperialism without the defeat of capitalism. Therefore
there&nbsp;are no two stages. There is only the pushing of the bourgeoisie into
further reforms, i.e. defeats and retreats. It is very important to remember
that reform is something that they do under pressure from the class; we take no
responsibility for those reforms. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Therefore even if a secular, democratic Palestine in place of Israel could
be achieved (by the bourgeoisie I must stress), a real achievement, we would
immediately struggle against that too. If there are any stages, then they are
quasi-infinite in number.<BR><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>

--=_82DE0C27.7A1B3D00--


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---