Fw: Weekly Worker article

["Macdonald Stainsby" <mstainsby@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I send this along with neither endorsement nor comment.

>  Hey Mac -
>
>  Forward this to the Marxism list for me? It appeared in the 'Weekly
Worker'
> a while back and whilst I don't usually flaunt my articles about, I
want to
> clarify my position on imperialism which came under attack from just
about
> every corner. It's not illegal to forward articles.

*snip*
>
>  Owen
>
> ------
>
> The sparks of the Yugoslav revolution, it seems, have once more
re-ignited
> the debate over the questions arising from the 1999 imperialist
onslaught
> against Yugoslavia. Perhaps many comrades will find it a fruitless
exercise
> to continually rehash the old arguments that so divided
revolutionaries
> during the bombing. However, these are general questions of the
utmost
> importance about the positions we as Marxists should take towards
our
> imperialist bourgeoisie when Our Boys are in action.
> The position of the CPGB, as voiced through its organ, was of
revolutionary
> defeatism. As any student of Lenin will know, the leader of the
Bolsheviks
> himself declared this slogan with the outbreak of inter-imperialist
war in
> Europe in 1914. In effect, it called for the imperialist war to be
> transformed into a civil war - for the guns to be turned away from
the
> trenches and on to the ruling classes of Europe. This slogan was a
bitter
> pill for many Russian revolutionaries to swallow, including
Bolsheviks, but
> was vindicated by the revolutionary events of 1917-19, particularly
in
> Russia and Germany.
> So why indeed would I brand the CPGB¹s use of Lenin¹s slogan, of
> ³revolutionary defeatism², as regards the NATO war against
Yugoslavia, by
> another term that haunted Bolshie circles during World War I -
> social-chauvinism; or in other words, a capitulation to imperialism?
For a
> quite simple reason - the NATO war against Yugoslavia was not one
between
> imperialist states as a culmination of inter-imperialist rivalries.
It was
> an armed bombardment, rather than a war, directed by an armada of
> imperialist states against a semi colony, Yugoslavia.
> Comrade Mark Fischer, in his 12/10/00 polemic against ³rotten
politics² as
> regards military blocs, twice makes an absurd analogy between the
Milosevic
> regime and the Kaiser autocracy in Germany during World War I. This
is
> intended to demonstrate that those who called for the military
defence of
> Yugoslavia from imperialist attack are capitulating to the Serbian
> bourgeoisie as the social-chauvinists did to that of Germany those
decades
> ago, when a Marxist should have called for the revolutionary defeat
of both
> sides, as Lenin called for as regards Russia and Germany. Yet the
underlying
> reason for such a slogan was that countries such as Britain,
Germany,
> Russia, France and America were imperialist powers that oppressed
the entire
> world. Lenin described the war as one between slave owners to divide
up and
> grab more of the loot. Indeed, the Entente slogans were of
³liberty²,
> ³democracy², and of fighting against giant countries which trampled
over the
> rights of small ones (such as Belgium), even when they themselves
enslaved
> hundreds of millions in the colonies.
> In other words, the working class had no interest in the victory of
any of
> the imperialists, and instead should turn the guns aimed at their
fellow
> workers against the ruling classes who had plunged the world into
such an
> horrific war over loot.
> Of course, comrade Mark Fischer could cry, I am imprisoned in a time
warp to
> use such arguments. The colonial land empires are gone. Germany or
America
> have no colonies. Granted - imperialism has been forced to change
its form
> following the struggle of the colonial peoples against their
enslavement.
> Instead, the imperialist powers now own semi-colonies, which cover
the
> planet - in Latin America, Africa, Asia and now the former Stalinist
bloc
> (not least Russia, a country savagely raped by imperialism). The
demise of
> Stalinism served to considerably strengthen imperialism to a degree
not seen
> for decades. Perhaps one way to characterise the new movement that
has
> emerged against ³global capitalism² is as a protest against the
exploitation
> of the semi-colonies by the imperialist powers, focusing their fury
on
> organisations whose existence is to facilitate the domination of
Western
> capital, such as the IMF and World Bank. Apparently these young
protestors
> have a much better grasp of imperialism than do the CPGB, who seem
to
> believe it died altogether when the colonial form disintegrated.
> The finance capital of America in particular, but also of other
imperialist
> countries such as Britain, Germany and France, oppress the entire
world. The
> 1990s in particular saw a massive, concerted imperialist attack on
the
> semi-colonies, forcing them to open their markets to Western capital
through
> mass privatisation, resulting in huge unemployment and
impoverishment, and
> to reverse many of the gains the working class had won using IMF
austerity
> packages (e.g. education, health care, the Owelfare state¹, etc.).
Even
> Not-So-Red Ken Livingstone made the point earlier this year that
more people
> die each year as a result of international capitalism (aka
imperialism) than
> died in the Holocaust. An apt enough description of the murderous
oppression
> the imperialist countries inflict on the entire world.
> Yugoslavia, meanwhile, is not an imperialist power. Its finance
capital does
> not oppress the entire world. It has no semi-colonies in Africa,
Latin
> America or Asia. Put simply, it is the meagre remains of a country
that
> imperialism had a direct hand in destroying - not least German
imperialism.
> It has been economically besieged for a decade by the West. In other
words,
> the classic example of a semi-colony. For this reason, the war in
1999 was
> not one between robber barons, but rather an armada of murderous
robbers
> bombing a semi-colony under the banner of humanitarianism.
> Many comrades on reading this will perhaps be outraged by my
analysis of
> Yugoslavia because of the national oppression it committed within
its
> borders. Clearly its semi-colonial character does not render it
incapable of
> what was seen throughout the 1990s in Kosovo, culminating in a
brutal
> counterinsurgency operation which triggered civil war in 1998, and a
savage
> attempt to suppress the right of Kosovar national self-determination
> (similarly the former Abyssinia oppressed Eritrea when under the
onslaught
> of Italian imperialism). This right we as Marxists uphold, though
not at the
> expense of opposing our robber barons - our own imperialist
bourgeoisie.
> The refusal of the CPGB to militarily defend Yugoslavia has more to
do with
> moralism than with a scientific basis. As the editions of the Weekly
Worker
> during the bombing demonstrate, they succumbed to the outrageous
claims of
> imperialist propaganda and provided its readers with a weekly diet
of the
> ³genocide² occurring in Kosovo at the hands of Yugoslav military
forces, a
> diet that its readers could have had daily elsewhere if they so
desired by
> reading the Daily Mail. (Meanwhile, they remain silent about the
permanent
> expulsion of 300,000 non-Albanians by their friend, the KLA). That
this
> genocide has since been proven to be an elaborate falsification by
NATO¹s
> propagandists is probably irrelevant, but in the most simple of
terms, the
> CPGB comrades were morally outraged at the civil war in Kosovo and
felt that
> military defence would be collaboration with a genocidal regime.
> Which brings us back to the 1930s, when Italian imperialism invaded
> Abysinnia. The centrist leadership of the Independent Labour Party
found
> itself under the attack of Leon Trotsky when it refused to defend
Abysinnia
> on the basis that the war being played out was between two
dictators,
> Mussolini and the Abysinnian Emperor. They were correct that the
Abysinnian
> regime was an absolutist monarchy presiding over a prison house of
nations,
> severely oppressing the Eritreans. But the ABC of Leninism means
that we
> unreservedly defend an oppressed nation from imperialist attack,
regardless
> of the political character of its regime. Could it be argued that
Trotsky¹s
> military defence of Abyssinia meant that he was opposed to a
revolution
> against the autocracy by its workers and peasants?
> What made the CPGB¹s slogan even more absurd, of course, was that
the
> onslaught against Yugoslavia in 1999 was not actually a war, but
rather
> bombing raids by an armada of nations facing no attack. Bombs were
being
> dropped thousands of metres from the ground, and the only shots
being fired
> against the aggressor countries were anti-aircraft fire that only a
couple
> or so times hit a plane. Two NATO soldiers died in the whole war,
and that
> was an accident when testing out helicopters in Albania. This was
not a case
> of hand-to-hand combat, or of Yugoslavia fighting back against the
> imperialist countries. To call for turning the guns against ones own
ruling
> class in the NATO countries was a meaningless abstraction; there was
no
> question of the war being any sort of midwife for revolution in the
West.
> What further makes the CPGB¹s slogan of revolutionary defeatism a
> social-chauvinist fudge is that they fully celebrate Yugoslavia¹s
defeat at
> the hands of imperialism because it supposedly precipitated
revolution.
> However, they warn of the catastrophe that would have occurred had
NATO lost
> - the logic of which leads to the conclusion that the CPGB supports
the
> Orevolutionary midwife¹ NATO against OSerbian chauvinism¹ - as
comrade
> Darrell Goodliffe of the CPGB explained on the UK Left Network email
list.
> Comrade Darrell claims it would have caused a ³strengthening of
illusions²
> in Serbian chauvinism, which would ³not only....have increased the
misery
> and suffering of the Kosovars but of the Serbian working class², and
then
> lapses into absurd philisophical idealism by arguing that the NATO
> countries¹ proletariat ³could be led to the conclusion that
chauvinism
> works, after all it has inflicted a defeat on the mighty NATO.²
According to
> this abandonment of materialist analysis, a victory of Palestinian
> ³chauvinism², for example, would therefore be disastrous since it
would only
> strength Israeli chauvinism!
> In fact, a victory for a ruling class in war always strengthens
their
> position at home, and, au contraire to Darrell¹s arguments,
increases
> chauvinism. The 1982 Malvinas War was the most striking example,
whose
> British imperialist victory against Argentina was a catastrophe for
the
> workers¹ movement, tying the hands of the working class with
chauvinism and
> so allowing Thatcher¹s regime to continue its offensive.
> The summary of Comrade Fischer¹s position is made when he proudly
claims
> that ³the CPGB calls for the revolutionary defeat of both sides.² As
though
> an armada of aggressor imperialist states can be equated with a
besieged
> semi-colony! Such a slogan would only have been correct in the case
of a war
> between two imperialist - or robber baron - states, such as Germany
and
> France, which oppress the entire world.
> It is also perhaps surprising that the CPGB take the events of
October as a
> vindication of their misquoted slogan. Did it signify the conversion
of an
> imperialist war into a civil war? No, since Serbia is not an
imperialist
> state, and a civil war implies a struggle between the classes for
the state
> itself. And indeed, the war in which a ³revolutionary defeat² is
supposed to
> have taken place ended over a year ago.
> Furthermore, the CPGB¹s celebration of the Yugoslav revolution
should be put
> into context. This uprising did provide real opportunities. The
working
> class rose in their thousands, gave birth to strike committees and
seized
> the means of production. However, the new regime that was catapulted
into
> power can receive no support from Marxists, being an utterly
reactionary
> bourgeois government with a programme of mass privatisation to open
up
> Serbia¹s markets to Western capital, which inevitably will
impoverish
> workers and peasants alike. The CPGB does not appear to be calling
for the
> working class to break from this regime and seize power of the
state, and
> instead is apparently providing political support for Kostunica¹s
new
> regime.
> Unfortunately, to conclude, it is not just on Yugoslavia that the
CPGB have
> a reactionary position, but on other questions ranging from Zimbabwe
to
> Ireland. Reformist and centrist factions - for example, the
Bennites - had
> politically healthier positions on all such questions than the
subjectively
> revolutionary CPGB. Such an argument has led to myself being
denounced as
> reformist - then so was Lenin when he savaged the German and Russian
> ³Marxist² social-chauvinists whilst praising the struggle of the
reformist
> ILP in Britain against the war, even when recognising it was not on
a
> Marxist basis.
> Perhaps the politics of the CPGB are really more rotten than mine?