Re: Victory to the Taliban? (was Re: Malvinas

["Lou Paulsen" <wwchi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Xxxx Xxxxxx <xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>However, I think it's unrealistic to demand of British Marxists that they
>call for a victory for Argentina, which is what, I think, Louis and others
>are suggesting just as it would be unrealistic to expect American Marxists
>now to call for victory to the Taliban. As a demand it would have no
>resonance whatsoever and would serve only to isolate Marxists from the
>working class.
>
>> If Trotsky knew that sects in his name sought neutrality
>> between the second most powerful imperialist nation and a country
>> that had been on the receiving end of financial, military and
>> diplomatic subversion for over a century in the name of "socialism",
>> he would have let them have it with both barrels.
>
>Fine then. In a conflict between the most powerful nation on earth and one
>of the poorest nations on earth should Marxists call for victory to the
>Taliban? If so then why have I yet to hear that call from Louis or the
>others on this list, or any other Marxist groups for that matter?
>
>[...]

>Well, what do you think? Should the slogan "victory to the Taleban" be
>raised?


Of course we are in favor of the defeat of the US/other imperialists' drive
for global plunder and domination, which means that we favor the victory of
Afghanistan.  That's just obvious.  It's more even than the 'revolutionary
defeatism' doctrine which was promulgated for INTER-IMPERIALIST wars.  Lenin
never actively favored the victory of Germany over Russia, but he WOULD have
actively favored the victory of Morocco over France (as he said) or
Afghanistan over the US today, because it's just a clear case of supporting
the oppressed nation against the oppressor.  That's completely clear.
Period.  As Anthony says.

But you are confusing the question of what stance we take - what side are we
on - with the question of what slogan we will select in order to have the
most success in agitation in order to advance our side.

(i) I personally believe that "Victory to the Taleban" is bad because it
would make people think we approved of all the Taleban's reaction.  In any
case the Taleban are not equivalent to Afghanistan.  The victory of the
Taleban would, in essence, be a negative, but secondary, aspect of a victory
for Afghanistan.

(ii) I believe that "Victory to Afghanistan" is also not good agitationally
because unless someone supplies them with some really good ground-to-air
missiles, they have no chance whatever of any "victory" over the imperialist
war planes and missiles, other than just surviving.  (Doesn't the 'victory'
slogan work better if you are hoping for territorial gains in a ground war?)
And "Calling for" an Afghan victory seems even worse.  Who would we be
calling on to do what?  Calling on the Afghans to win?  "Fight harder,
Afghans!"?  In any case I don't have great confidence in the Taleban to win
victories, precisely because of their reactionary character.  Although if it
comes to a ground war I might be surprised.  (If a ground war developed
between Afghanistan and an imperialist-backed Northern Alliance, I might
start to think more highly of "Victory to Afghanistan.")

(iii)  Furthermore, shouldn't our slogans be directed to our own government
("Hands off Afghanistan!") and our own people ("Oppose the war!") , rather
than to Afghans?  Whichever side wins a given battle in Afghanistan between
given forces on the two sides is pretty much entirely out of our control.
But we aim to stop the forces from being sent there.

(iv) Finally, we are going to be going out and organizing among the troops
and their working-class families, and why should we phrase our stance in a
needlessly provocative way?

By finding the best way to organize among the workers, the troops, and so
on, and by building a movement to oppose the war and make it harder for the
imperialists to conduct it - to the extent that we can affect the situation
at all - we are doing what we can to increase the chances of the Afghans
actually winning a (defensive) victory, which is more to the point than just
"calling for" one.

I absolutely do not believe, by the way, that favoring the victory of
Afghanistan over the imperialist offensive is just some sort of unpleasant
duty or sacrifice imposed on us by the ghost of Lenin or something.  It
bears directly on our practical situation.  We are in the thick of an
antiwar movement which is growing very rapidly and bringing in an exciting
new layer of young people.  Well, the future of that movement depends mostly
on the course of the war.  IF the US imperialists were to win a quick
victory tomorrow, destroying al-Qaeda's forces, murdering the Taleban, and
imposing a new government, without suffering too much elsewhere, this
movement would dissipate in discouragement, and the struggle worldwide would
ebb.  IF the US imperialists encounter serious obstacles, though, and the
war drags on without a victory, then the working class, fighting for
survival in the economic crisis, and being forced to pay the costs of the
war in blood and money, will become ever more forced into a confrontation
with our ruling class.  Finally, IF something were to happen now which were
to actually force the US to abandon the war against Afghanistan right now -
some military disaster, some political side-effect elsewhere like a revolt
in Arabia - it would inflame and embolden the struggle against U.S.
imperialism worldwide!  It would advance the struggle by years in an
instant!  So, in very practical terms:  THE BETTER THE AFGHANS DO ON THE
BATTLEFIELD, THE BETTER IT IS FOR US ON THE STREETS OF CHICAGO.  The irony
is that by standing up to the U.S. and refusing to surrender, the Taleban
are doing us U.S. Marxists much more good than we, on our side, have yet
been able to do for Afghanistan.

Lou Paulsen
Chicago


Lou Paulsen




=======
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message