[Marxism] Re: While we trade abstractions, people are dying?

[Greg McDonald <sabocat59@xxxxxxx>]

Einde O'Callaghan wrote:


"Reading some of the criticisms of the criticisms of Mugabe, I'm  
sadly reminded of the arguments I often heard about Russia from die- 
hard Stalinists. Their position was basically that any criticism of  
the Soviet Union objectively supported the position of the Western  
imperialists. This seemed to me at the time - and still does - to be  
simply a mirror image of the argument that "my enemy's enemy is my  
friend" - and is just as false.

I was reminded of this today while reading some of Trotsky's comments  
after the victory of the Nazis in Germany:

"The so-called friends of the Soviet Union (left democrats,  
pacifists, Brandlerites, and the like) repeat the argument of the  
Comintern functionaries that the struggle against the Stalinist  
bureaucracy, i.e., first of all criticism of its false policies,  
'helps the counter-revolution.' This is the standpoint of the  
political lackeys of the bureaucracy, but never that of  
revolutionists. The Soviet Union both internally and externally can  
be defended only by means of a correct policy. All other  
considerations are either secondary or simply lying  
phrases." (Trotsky: "To Build Communist Parties and an International  
Anew", <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-ger/ 
330715.htm>)

I realise that not all people on this list identify with the  
Trotskyist tradition in any sense, but some of those who have argued  
for uncritical support for Mugabe do come from this tradition.  
Perhaps they should remember some of the better aspects of the  
tradition before the epigones got their hands on it. Who the epigones  
are/were I leave up to you - it will probably depend on the  
particular tendency or tendencies you were politicised in."
At the risk of distorting your argument, I would like to extend your  
analogy forward to the Zimbabwe situation in a more explicit manner.  
In the quotation cited above, Trotsky makes a distinction between the  
Stalinist bureaucracy and the revolutionists, criticizing the former  
for defending "false policies", and stating that the USSR could only  
be defended successfully from the vantage point of "correct policy",  
which the latter are doing implicitly by pointing out the  
deficiencies of said bureaucracy.

IMHO, if we really claim to be offering a viable socialist  
alternative, that would mean supporting the organized working class,  
in whatever measures they call for in any given situation. The  
question seems to be whether or not the leadership, in this case the  
ZCTU, represents the working class and the immiserated 80% who are  
unemployed.  In this particular instance, as Eric Lee points out  
below, the South African COSATU and unions in Nigeria and Ghana have  
lent their support to the ZCTU. COSATU has even split from the ANC on  
this particular issue. Would it not therefore be "correct policy",  
given that these unions have their feet on the ground in Africa and  
know the situation there much more intimately than all of us, to  
trust their analysis and support the efforts of the ZCTU? If we agree  
in our opposition to neo-liberalism, would it not make more sense to  
bolster the opposition to Mugabe in the hope that the ZCTU and their  
allies  could arrive in a position of power?  Certainly the ZCTU is  
well aware, much more than we are, how the neo-liberal policies  
forced on Mugabe have devastated the country.  Does one really  
imagine that they would want an extension of said neo-liberal  
political economy if they were to gain power? Does not the doubt  
thereof arise from a position of elitism? That we know better than  
they do?

Greg



Eric Lee wrote:

"The call for an international online campaign of protest came from  
the organized working class in Zimbabwe. The only national trade  
union center in that country is the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions  
(ZCTU). It has all kinds of critical things to say about the Mugabe  
regime and as I write these words, it has called its members out in a  
general strike.

If this had happened in any other country, activists would not  
hesitate to lend their support.

Those unions in Zimbabwe are being backed by trade union movements  
all across Africa –- in Nigeria, in Ghana, and above all in South  
Africa. The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) has taken  
a very strong stand in support of the ZCTU and against the Mugabe  
regime. They have done so for the same reasons that they are also  
struggling against the tyranny in Swaziland. And for the same reasons  
that they played such a heroic role in the struggle against the  
apartheid regime in their own country.

The South African unions feel so strongly about Zimbabwe that they  
have broken ranks with their partners in the African National  
Congress, whose leadership is wavering on Zimbabwe rather than taking  
a stand.

In other words, among African trade unionists in the front lines of  
the struggle against poverty, racism, neo-liberalism and neo- 
colonialism, there is near-unanimity on the question of Zimbabwe."
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism