Re: A daring assumption (was Re: East Timor and all that.)

[Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

En relación a Re: A daring assumption (was Re: East Timor and a, el 21
May 01, a las 23:05, Alan Bradley dijo:

> > From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky
> > Please note that none of the above runs against the interests of the
> > Australian bourgeoisie, much to the contrary: expelling Holland from
> > Indonesia was a potential asset, as was demonstrated later by the
> > tragic events of 1965. This does not judge the honesty of the
> > militants and even leaderships of the organizations mentioned by
> > Greg. I am just putting the whole thing in a particular perspective,
> > which is the perspective of the Australian ruling class. Am I wrong?
> 
> "Interests" is a strange concept.  It is, of course, not the same as
> "policy".

Certainly not. But this is not the point at stake. What I was
remarking was that the (no doubt) honest anti-imperialism displayed by
the Australian Left during the period of the independence of Indonesia
was an anti-imperialism aimed at a NON-AUSTRALIAN colonial power.

You and Gary have been eager to point out that the Australian
bourgeois of the early 60s shared in principle in the colonialist
positions of the imperialist countries, but what I wanted to show was
that the whole movement did not run against the _Australian
bourgeoisie itself_ unless as a part of the global bourgeoisie, that
is at a level that the bourgeois would (a) fail to see, and (b) laugh
at if she or he could see it.

Why? Because vis a vis the colonized ones, the bourgeoisies in
imperialist countries always make a common front, but this common
front does not preclude (much to the contrary) struggles and potential
struggles between them to decide WHO will rule a specific area.

Thus, your...

> 
> The policy of the Australian state (with its Labor government) in the late
> 40s was in line with British policy at the time:  no decolonisations!
> 
> The Indonesian independence movement was of course part of a wave of such
> movements after WW2:  India, Burma, Vietnam, Korea, the Philippines,
> Malaya...  China too, I suppose, although it has special characteristics.

...is as accurate as pointless. And the following:

> To agree with your suggestion, we would have to say that it would have been
> possible to unpack the Indonesian case from its context.  

is simply wrong. I am putting the case in its FULL context. The
bourgeoisie never follows an _ideological_ line. Its ideology, much to
the contrary, is the expression of its own material necessities, and
this ideology includes, for example, an attitude of polite
understanding towards Leftists who are not stomping on her or his
feet.

It is a concrete class, and it is the concrete situation which, for
example, allows a bourgeoisie to be mild on anti-imperialists if they
oppose ANOTHER imperialism. Please read again the illuminating lines
on this that Lenin wrote on his _Imperialism_.

As to what follows,

> I suppose that it would be possible to say that tossing out the
> Dutch would be in the interests of Australian capital, but only if
> tossing out the French and British was as > well,

I am afraid that it is simply dodging the issue. I am NOT suggesting
that the Australian Left took a wrong position during the early 60s. I
stressed (on the mail that you are replying to) that what I was doing
was trying to see the issues from the concrete class situation of the
Australian bourgeoisie. Do you - or Gary- think that, in the case that
it was not the Dutch but the Australians who were occupying Indonesia,
the Left would have had such an easy ride? Or, to be more scathing,
any Leftist would have proposed -save for honorable exceptions, as it
happened in France- that Australia should leave Indonesia to itself?

A minor shark by the 60s (in fact, it is my impression that the final
coming of age of the Australian bourgeoisie might be dated in the late
60s, and it could be also related to the Viet Nam war), a shark that
needed other, larger ones, to keep the schools of tuna at hand's
reach. Yes, but a shark indeed. This is what explains the reasons why
(a) the Australian bourgeoisie did not support the independence of
Indonesia, and (b) it didn't repress too strongly the anti-
imperialist moves of its own Leftists.

Please see how far does the above put me from your 
 
> Thinking about it: what you are saying is that supporting part of
> one of the great waves of anti-imperialist struggle was somehow
> pro-imperialist.

Because this is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if the
support to the Indonesian fighters would have taken, from the
beginning, the shape of a movement to prevent Australian intervention
in Indonesia FOREVER, then the situation would have been more complex
for the Australian Left. The fact that this was NOT seen beforehand by
this Left, and the fact that this would REALLY have been a strong
problem for the Australian bourgeoisie, do not seem to enter your
field of view. Thus, it is reasonable that you conclude by stating
that

> OK, as it happened, the US benefited from the collapse of the European
> colonial empires.  After a fashion, Australia and New Zealand probably did
> too.  But does that somehow change the nature of the anti-imperialist
> struggles, or the solidarity struggles waged within the Imperialist states?
> 
> I think not.  The Australian working class did their duty.  They were not
> class collaborators.

I am not questioning the Australian working class in the sense you are
imagining. I tend to respect _every_ working class (even those who, in
my opinion, should be harshly criticized for their stances in 1945:
the Italian and French ones). But what I am questioning is the line of
ABSTRACT anti- imperialism that from time to time seems to be
broadcast from Australia. This line, in my humble and avowedly
uninformed opinion, may have deeper roots than supposed.


Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx