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

["Alan Bradley" <abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky
> 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.

Shared in principle?  Shared to the extent of sending troops to Korea,
Malaya and Vietnam.  Shared to the extent of going to war with Indonesia in
Borneo.  Shared to the extent of establish an airforce base in Malaysia.
Shared to the extent that at least some Australian troops were in a combat
situation for most of the period from about 1950-1972.

> 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?

Of course not.  The Australian bourgeoisie would have had much more at
stake.

> 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?

What you are asking is:  were the Communist Party of Australia complete
worms?  Or were they better than the French CP?

A fascinating question, which can't be definitely answered.  We are,
however, talking about the late 40s, which was the CPA's heyday.  I would be
inclined to cut them some slack.

> 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.

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.

This movement, in fact, was a direct struggle against the Labor Party.

> 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.

Of course, if there had been an independence movement in Papua New Guinea at
the time, the support that the Australian communists WOULD have given to it
would have solved our current debate without a doubt.  Alas, PNG nationalism
didn't really get going until the '60s.  The history of the left's response
to that is not actually something that I am particularly familiar with - it
was a very low-key struggle.  My impression is, in fact, that at least some
parts of the left were a little frustrated that there was so little struggle
to support.

Alan Bradley
abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx