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 22
May 01, a las 23:46, Alan Bradley dijo:

> > From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky
> > ...the Australian
> > bourgeois of the early 60s shared in principle in the colonialist
> > positions of the imperialist countries...
> 
> Shared in principle?  Shared to the extent of sending troops to Korea,
> Malaya and Vietnam.  Shared to the extent of...

Clerical mistake. Shared _as a matter of principle_. Sorry.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> OK, so what is "a movement to prevent Australian intervention in Indonesia
> FOREVER"?  A movement to overthrow Australian capitalism?  Hilarious.

Well, that might have been hilarious indeed (please note the
conditionals). But that is not what I was thinking of. I was thinking
of a strong movement of support by the militants, while at the same
time a strong movement against any Australian intervention abroad
(Korea, and so on) focused on (I am raving here, since I do not know
the essentials of Australian law and political scenario), for example,
a movement to pass a ban on Australian expeditions outside the
frontiers of the country. The world would be a far better place if the
Americans, for example, had to stick to that law, wouldn't it? Maybe
the same runs for the Asia-Pacific region with Australia. You had the
Japanese precedent handy, didn't you?

>  The movement that did exist was a product of the balance of forces
> within the Australian working class.  Remember, the Labor Party was
> the government at the time, and the majority of the union
> leaderships were composed of their supporters.

Yes, I knew that. And this is precisely why I believe that a
principled position on intervention would have been more effective
than one might admit now.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> How concrete should our anti-imperialism be?  Australian communist seamen
> served as couriers for the Indonesian independence movement.  Australian
> communist soldiers helped organise independence movement meetings during the
> last days of the Second World War, when the leaders of the movement were
> prisoners in Australia.  The Dutch warships that were excluded from Australian
> ports were directly involved in the fighting.

Oh, Alan, don't take me wrongly. I am not questioning the DEPTH of the
involvement, nor the personal compromise of thousands of Australian
workers.  What I am advancing is the idea that IN THE FIELD OF THE
IDEAS this activism was not matched by an equally bold assessment of
the consequences of the fact that Australia already was an imperialist
nation. That is why I see all that involvement as ABSTRACT, not in the
common sense notion of "abstract" but in its historico-political, that
is philosophic, dimension.

And, by the way, I am afraid I am completely against your assesment of
what should the Australian Left have done with a PNG secessionist
movement in the 40s or 50s. But we have already exchanged bombshells
on this, haven't we?

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx