Clarifying different stands

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 19:32 10/10/00 -0400,

> Burford:
> >The difference between Burford (as he calls me) and Proyect, is that
> >Proyect seems deliberately to avoid the concrete analysis of the internal
> >causes that led to the fall of the Milsevic regime, in favour of repeating
> >only half correctly that the external cause was undoubtedly the
> >interference by the west.


Proyect

> There were internal causes in the downfall of the Sandinistas as well. They
> are exacerbated when world imperialism organizes military and economic
> pressure over a ten year period. As a Marxist, I stand opposed to
> imperialist interference in the affairs of countries trying to construct
> socialism. Non-Marxian socialists, of course, are entitled to stake out a
> different agenda as befits their world-view.


I think this helps clarify lines of demarcation. On the concrete issue of
how the parliament was stormed, unless I have missed a post, I do not think
Proyect has dealt with the evidence that the primary and immediate cause of
(counter) revolution was the defection of a critical part of the security
police to the opposition.

Concerning the lines of demarcation as Proyect summarises them here,
obviously I appreciate that within the Michael's strict etiquette on PEN-L
Proyect's formal manner of address signals adequately enough that he
himself is a Marxist and certain others, are not. There is nothing
surprising about this and formality allows important issues to be
considered where people wish to clash in a serious and constructive fashion.

I have a lot of sympathy with Proyect's proposition that

> As a Marxist, I stand opposed to imperialist interference in the
> affairs of countries trying to construct socialism.


One of the hallmarks of a democrat, let alone a socialist or a marxist, who
lives in an imperialist oppressor country, as Proyect and I both do, is
whether consistently to oppose all oppression by that country. But since
that is a hallmark of a democrat (with a small d) in such a situation, I do
not see how it can be a defining feature of a marxist.

On its own it cannot be the single defining mark of a Marxist stand.
Marxism cannot be reduced to this by way of shorthand. I note that Proyect
considers "dialectical stuff" dangerous. This cannot be considered a
dialectical stand. Rather it is a (commendable) moral stand, I suggest, for
a citizen of an imperialist nation.

What it censors out of consciousness is the complexity of implementing
concretely, an even more fundamental Marxist orientation: "Workers of all
countries unite!"

It fails to discuss whether concretely a smaller country trying to build
socialism has in fact strayed into a reactionary national chauvinism,
bureaucrat socialism, which sets back the possibility of the unity of
workers of all countries.

It censors out the reality that in the process of the fall of state
socialism in Eastern Europe, certain fascist and racist risks became
serious in a number of countries.

It therefore confines itself to a rigid position that a people claiming to
build socialism, are in fact building socialism, when they may be
destroying the basis on which socialism must stand, the unity of the
working people.

In relation to the imperialist states, it is a fine stand for a citizen of
such a state to declare

> I stand opposed to
> imperialist interference in the affairs of countries trying to construct
> socialism

But Proyect also states

> There were internal causes in the downfall of the Sandinistas as well. They
> are exacerbated when world imperialism organizes military and economic
> pressure over a ten year period.



 When, since the emergence of imperialism, in the marxist sense, has there
*not* been imperialist interference in the affairs of all countries?

In terms of concrete politics how can such an honourable stand conceivably
be translated into action unless you make tactical distinctions, that for
example you oppose imperialist interference in Nicaragua even if the
Sandanistas mishandled the Miskitos, and you support imperialist
interference in apartheid South Africa against the Afrikans national
bourgeoisie, even though you know there were probably human rights abuses
in the ANC prison camps.

But do not censor out reports of human rights abuses of a chauvinist and
fascist nature by a self-claimed socialist regime which is destroying the
possibility of working people regrouping in the west Balkans to co-operate
in resisting the advance of neo-liberalism.

Unlike Proyect's "stand", the marxist principle of the right of nations to
self determination is a practical one, not a moral one: it is to strengthen
rather than weaken the marxist cause of workers unity.


Yoshie I think argued a line of demarcation better elsewhere when she
elevated the principle of revolutionary defeatism to being the yardstick of
a progressive attitude for a citizen of an imperialist country.

The problem with that is that not every action (most - yes) of an
imperialist government is reactionary. The imperialists would expose
themselves too much. Some of the initiatives by the western imperialist
countries, like the interference in East Timor, which Proyect, like
Chomsky, actually correctly supported, are progressive.

The interference in the diamond trade, for capitalist reasons, to control
the marketing of blood diamonds, is also progressive.

Similarly I do not see that Proyect has a strong case when he lists at the
top of his evidence of undoubted imperialist interference in Yugoslavia,
support by the CIA and Soros for NGO's and B92.
The report that I took off the B92 website about the harassment of Natasha
Kandic, was progressive to the cause of workers unity, not reactionary.

Imperialism is not progressive *only* because it produces its gravediggers,
as Proyect has recently claimed. A true marxist approach notes also the
processes whereby imperialism actually prepares the ground for world
socialism. This includes the degree of integration and rudimentary control
of the world economy. And it includes the, yes, half-hearted reforms that
the imperialist powers increasingly feel they have to support to reduce the
disruption to charming old cities where they have their international meetings.

Lenin, who claimed to be an even more resolute marxist than Proyect or I
could claim, criticised (On Slogans July 1917)  ascribing "philistine
notions of morality" to the proletariat. The reason: "*for the good of the
cause*, the proletariat will always support not only the vacillating petty
bourgeoisie, but even the big bourgeoisie."

 I know the owner of the marxism list has said elsewhere that we will
never get anywhere if we just quote Lenin, and I do not expect him to
reply. But he has frequently expressed respect for Lenin, at least as he
interprets Lenin, so evidence of Lenin's dialectical approach I submit is
relevant pressure in asking him to consider what is genuinely marxist and
what is not.

I do suggest that Proyect's line of demarcation above, about what is truly
marxist, is ultimately a rigid moralistic stand, and not a dialectical
materialist one, capable of orientating progressive people in a complex
contradictory process going on under our very eyes.

Chris Burford

London