-Caveat Lector-
On defensism
Class Line
No. 2-3 -- Winter-Spring 1999
The following is an exchange between the Communist Party of Great Britain
(CPGB), publishers of Weekly Worker, and the Marxist Workers' Group (MWG).
This discussion began as the two organizations, in conjunction with Marxist
organizations in Argentina and Greece, attempted to hammer out a joint
international statement on the bombing of Iraq. The piece by comrade Mark
Fischer, National Organizer of the CPGB, was first published in the January
7, 1999, issue of their newspaper, Weekly Worker. The Weekly Worker article
has been corrected for American spelling. The second piece was published
under the false title of "Mistaken position," and under the name of James
Paris, not the MWG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Defending Iraq
>From Weekly Worker
No. 270 -- January 7, 1999
Representatives of the Provisional Central Committee of our Party were
involved with an attempt to agree a joint statement against the punishment
bombing of Iraq which started on December 17 of last year. The suggestion
for this worthwhile initiative came from the United States-based Marxist
Workers Group and also involved organizations from Argentina and Greece.
However, negotiations revealed important differences that precluded our
organization signing a joint statement, centrally around the question of
defence of the Iraq state.
This position is common on the revolutionary left, particularly in the
Trotskyist milieu. For example, a statement by the International Bolshevik
Tendency (December 19, 1998) suggests that "the international working class
has a side in this struggle -- and it is with Iraq, and its government,
against the British and US pirates" (my emphasis). Then -- having explicitly
sided with the foul Ba'athist regime itself -- it ludicrously suggests that
"this in no way implies any political support to Saddam Hussein ... We look
forward to the revolutionary overthrow of Saddam."
The fine distinction such comrades attempt to draw between military support
for the Iraqi regime and political support is entirely spurious. After all,
war is the continuation of politics by other, violent, means. And surely
taking sides with Saddam Hussein is a political act by the various
Trotskyist sects. The defensive measures that the Saddam dictatorship may
take against imperialist attacks are designed to secure the conditions for
its continued rule as an anti-working class despotism. There can for us be
no question of a military bloc with -- or what is the same thing political
support to -- such a reactionary regime.
The historical precedent that many Trotskyist comrades attempt to draw to
justify this is the supposed military bloc of the Bolsheviks with Kerensky
against the attempted Kornilov coup between the two revolutions of February
and October 1917. This simply does not stand up to any serious examination,
however.
Replying to this idea, Lenin starkly stated that "you do not conclude
agreements or make blocs with people who have deserted for good to the enemy
camp" (Collected Works, Vol. 25, p251). And further still: "A Bolshevik
would say, 'Our workers and soldiers will fight the counterrevolutionary
troops if they start an offensive now against the provisional government;
they will do so not to defend this government ... but to independently
defend the revolution as they pursue their own aim" (ibid. pp251-2).
Thus, what Lenin is outlining here is the fight for proletarian political
independence. The revolutionary proletariat will fight to defeat the
Kornilov counterrevolution as a precondition for the fight to make its
revolution. If that struggle happens to parallel the struggle of forces
loyal to Kerensky then this is a purely episodic, coincidental phenomenon.
In no way does it imply a "bloc" -- political or military -- with the
provisional government which remains the enemy of the revolution.
The position of those who advocated cooperation, a certain alliance between
revolutionaries and the military forces of Kerensky, would in effect have
tied the proletariat to the coat tails of this antirevolutionary government.
In the context of the politics of revolutionary Russia at this time, this
was a grave opportunist mistake, but at least explicable. After all, the
provisional government was a product of a revolution and contained people
who regarded themselves as Marxists.
In today's Iraq, frankly it is perverse.
By what criteria do we judge the regime in Baghdad? Should we as
revolutionaries say -- "Well, it is against our government; therefore it
should be defended"? This would be a crassly non-Marxist method and an
insult to the oppressed masses in Iraq. We evaluate each armed conflict by
its class character, the classes that are waging it, the historico-economic
conditions that have given birth to it.
Viewed in this way, we would ask our "defensist" comrades -- what possible
progressive content does the Ba'athist regime embody? If there is none, what
justification can there be for siding with it against imperialism? Surely
the situation has far more in common with the example that Lenin conjures up
in Socialism and War:
"... imagine a slaveholder who owns 100 slaves warring against another, who
owns 200 slaves, for a more 'just' distribution of slaves. The use of the
term 'defensive' war, or a war 'for the defence of the fatherland', would
clearly be historically false in such a case and would in practice be sheer
deception of the common people, philistines and the ignorant, by the astute
slaveholders." (ibid. p301)
Whatever the intentions of the "defensists," their political stance actually
implies aid to the "slave holder" regime of Saddam in its ongoing
deception -- and vicious oppression -- of the people of Iraq.
Mark Fischer,
National Organizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
In defense of defensism
A recent article by comrade Mark Fischer in the pages of the British
Communist newspaper Weekly Worker, newspaper of the CPGB, opens a debate on
the question of defensism -- what it is, and how you apply it. This debate
developed from discussion between the CPGB and the MWG around the recent
imperialist bombing of Iraq.
For the MWG, the issue of revolutionary defense is a question of method.
Wars and revolutions are acid tests for Marxists. The First World War
graphically drew out the differences within Social Democracy -- separating
out the Marxists from the chauvinists and reformists. The implosions in the
USSR and Eastern Europe, specifically the August 1991 coup, separated out
the proletarian communists from the petty-bourgeois "democrats" who
masqueraded as "Marxists."
Such is also true of the ongoing conflict between U.S./British imperialism
and Iraq. All manifestations of petty-bourgeois pacifism, social-patriotism
and adventurism (not to mention opportunist tailing of the Ba'athists) came
out during the Gulf War of 1990-91. And these failures in method continued
to develop in the ensuing years.
The current debate with the comrades of the CPGB allow us an excellent
opportunity to demonstrate Marxist method, and to attempt to influence the
development of a corrective trend.
Defensism: What it is
To begin tackling this question, we must begin with a Marxist understanding
of defensism: what it is and what it isn't.
Marxists have always understood that there are two types of war: 1)
progressive wars, wars of national liberation, anti-imperialist wars; and 2)
reactionary wars, wars of redivision of the world, inter-imperialist wars. A
Marxist organization develops its position on war based on the analysis of
the class relations in all wars. By "class relations," we not only mean the
subjective elements of the wars (regime, ideology, etc.) but also the
objective elements (relations between oppressed and oppressor, questions of
markets, etc.).
The seminal work on this question was the aforementioned Socialism and War.
The position was outlined by Lenin and Zinoviev very clearly in 1915:
"The period between 1789 and 1871 left deep traces and revolutionary
reminiscences. Before the overthrow of feudalism, absolutism and foreign
oppression, there could be no thought of developing the proletarian struggle
for Socialism. When, in speaking of the wars of such periods, the Socialists
always recognized the justice of a 'defensive' war, they had in view of the
above aims, namely, a revolution against medievalism and serf labor. Under a
'defensive' war the Socialists always understood a 'just' war in this
particular sense. (Wilhelm Liebknecht once expressed himself in this very
way.) Only in this sense did the Socialists recognise, and so recognise at
present, the legitimacy, progressivism, and justice of 'defending the
fatherland', or of a 'defensive' war. For instance, if Morocco were to
declare war against France tomorrow, or India against Britain, or Persia or
China against Russia, etc., those wars would be 'just,' 'defensive' wars, no
matter which one was the first to attack. Every Socialist would then wish
the victory of the oppressed, dependent and un-sovereign states against the
oppressing, slaveholding, pillaging 'Great' nations.
"But imagine that a slave-holder possessing 100 slaves wages war against a
slave-holder possessing 200 slaves for a more 'equitable' redistribution of
slaves. It is evident that to apply to such a case the term 'defensive' war
or 'defence of the fatherland,' would be an historical lie; in practice it
would mean that the crafty slave-holders were plainly deceiving the
unenlightened masses, the lower strata of the city population. It is in this
very fashion that the present-day imperialist bourgeoisie, when war is waged
among the slave-holders for the strengthening and consolidation of slavery,
deceive the people by means of the 'national' ideology and the idea of
defence of the fatherland." (V.I. Lenin, Works, Vol. XVIII: The Imperialist
War, p. 220-221 [International, 1930], emphasis ours)\
So, what does this mean? Lenin was attempting to show through example what
kind of different wars exist under capitalism. For him and the Bolsheviks,
wars of "oppressed states" against imperialist powers (France, Britain,
Russia) were "just," "defensive" wars. In other words, they were wars that
Marxists "would ... wish victory."
Lenin goes on explain the nature of inter-imperialist wars. Lenin is clear
to show that wars "waged among the slave-holders" are wars between competing
imperialist powers, fighting to redivide the world. Further, he shows how
the imperialist bourgeoisie uses "defense of the fatherland" as a means to
deceive the working class, and that Marxists need to expose these lies.
But then why do Marxists defend "oppressed states" against imperialism? Why
do Marxists consider them "just" wars? Marxists defend these states against
imperialism for two reasons. First, we unconditionally oppose the movement
of imperialism toward further subjugation of oppressed peoples around the
world. Second, the defeat of imperialism in a fight with oppressed states
weakens the base of imperialism at home and around the world, and allows an
opening for the working class to fight capitalism.
Leon Trotsky, co-leader of the October Revolution and Marxist theoretician,
wrote on this:
"Maxton and the others opine that the Italo-Ethiopian war is 'a conflict
between two rival dictators.'... They thus define the character of the war
by the political form of the state, in the course of which they themselves
regard this political form in a quite superficial and purely descriptive
manner, without taking into consideration the social foundations of both
'dictatorships.' A dictator can also play a very progressive role in
history; for example, Oliver Cromwell, Robespierre, etc.... Should a
dictator place himself at the head of the next uprising of the Indian people
in order to smash the British yoke -- would Maxton then refuse this dictator
his support? Yes or no? If not, why does he refuse his support to the
Ethiopian 'dictator' who is attempting to cast off the Italian yoke?
"If Mussolini triumphs, it means the reinforcement of fascism, the
strengthening of imperialism, and the discouragement of the colonial peoples
in Africa and elsewhere. The victory of the Negus [Ethiopian king Halle
Selaisse -- CL], however, would mean a mighty blow not only at Italian
imperialism but at imperialism as a whole, and would lend a powerful
impulsion to the rebellious forces of the oppressed peoples. One must really
be completely blind not to see this." (L.D. Trotsky, "On Dictators and the
Heights of Oslo," Writings: 1935-36, p. 317-318, [Pathfinder, 1977],
emphasis ours)
Centrist confusion
The crux of this debate, according to comrade Fischer, stems from the
question of whether military support of Iraq is the same as political
support to the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein. According to Fischer:
"The fine distinction such comrades attempt to draw between military support
for the Iraqi regime and political support is entirely spurious. After all,
war is the continuation of politics by other, violent, means. And surely
taking sides with Saddam Hussein is a political act by the various
Trotskyist sects. The defensive measures that the Saddam dictatorship may
take against imperialist attacks are designed to secure the conditions for
its continued rule as an anti-working class despotism. There can for us be
no question of a military bloc with -- or what is the same thing political
support to -- such a reactionary regime."
With this opening, comrade Fischer confuses the issues of military and
political support. Of course, according to the comrade, there is no
fundamental difference between the two. Moreover, for him, the differences
between Iraq and the U.S. are quantitative -- a simple matter of degrees.
We believe that this exposes a severe lack of Marxist understanding. The
confusion inherent in these positions, the inability to discern between
oppressed and oppressor states, shows the centrist character of the CPGB as
it stands. It negates the Leninist understanding of war, as well as the
understanding of imperialism and the world division of labor.
Comrade Fischer's position is not new to us. Some members of the MWG were at
one time in the Communist Party, USA. The more savvy members of the CPUSA
used the same argument as the comrade from Britain for the same reasons
(though not for the same ends). In fact, the position is a hallmark of
"official Communist" parties. And it is still just as non-Leninist and
false.
However, from the CPGB, it is not designed to justify support for a
"negotiated solution" by the United Nations. In our opinion, the CPGB's
argument against defensism is an opportunistic vestige of the "official
Communist" parties' old practices.
Oppressed or oppressor state?
The central question behind the argument around Iraq is whether or not the
latter is an oppressor (imperialist) or oppressed (semicolonial) state. In
his book Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin outlined five
essential features of imperialist capitalism. They are:
"The concentration of production and capital developed to such a high stage
that it created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.
"The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on
the basis of this 'finance capital,' of a 'financial oligarchy.'
"The export of capital, which has become extremely important, as
distinguished from the export of commodities.
"The formation of international capitalist monopolies which share the world
among themselves.
"The territorial division of the whole world among the greatest capitalist
powers is completed." (V.I. Lenin, "Chapter VII: Imperialism as a Special
Stage of Capitalism," Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, p. 89
[International, 1945])
Even a cursory glance at Iraq shows that it does not fit these five
features. Iraq does not export capital, it has not formed international
capitalist monopolies and it has not divided the world alongside the
"greatest capitalist powers." For Lenin, these five features were decisive
criteria. For us, they fulfill the same role.
But, if Iraq is not an imperialist power (even a minor power, like Canada or
Greece) then what is it? While at times Iraq has played the role of
imperialist proxy in the Middle East (e.g., the Iran-Iraq War), it is
fundamentally an exploited state -- an oppressed semicolonial state.
Form and content
For comrade Fischer, what is defining the "anti-defensism" of their position
is not the position of Iraq in the world division of labor, but rather the
ruthlessness of Hussein's Ba'athist regime. He writes:
"Viewed in this way, we would ask our 'defensist' comrades -- what possible
progressive content does the Ba'athist regime embody? If there is none, what
justification can there be for siding with it against imperialism?"
Here the comrade makes the same mistake as Maxton in the piece by Trotsky
quoted above. Comrade Fischer elevates form (the lack of "progressive
content" in the Iraqi regime) over content (the semicolonial character of
Iraq). This is a superficial and impressionistic argument. It ignores the
relationship of imperialism to the rest of the world, and reduces the
argument to moralistic appeals of "good" and "evil."
The Communist International was able to develop a clear position on the work
of member sections in the colonial and semicolonial countries.
"The refusal of Communists in the colonies to take part in the fight against
imperialist tyranny, on the pretext of their supposed 'defense' of
imperialist class interests [i.e., rejection of defensism due to the
reactionary nature of the semicolonial leadership -- CL], is the worst kind
of opportunism and can only discredit the proletarian revolution in the
East.... The working class of the colonies and semi-colonies must be firmly
convinced that it is only the overall intensification of the struggle
against Great-Power imperialist oppression that can promote it to
revolutionary leadership. On the other hand, it is only the political and
economic organization of the and the political education of the working
class and semi-proletarian layers that can increase the revolutionary scope
of the anti-imperialist struggle." ("Theses on the Eastern Question: V. The
General Tasks of the Communist Parties in the East," Theses, Resolutions and
Manifestos of the First Four Congresses of the Third International, p.
414-415 [Pluto, 1983])
In other words, only through a consistent struggle against imperialism and
imperialist attack can a communist organization win political leadership.
Only through a consistent defense of semicolonies against "Great Power"
countries like the United States and Britain can the Marxists win leadership
in the struggle. Communists see imperialism's need to capture markets (a
question of content) as paramount to the bloodthirsty regime of a semicolony
(a question of form).
This is not to say that we don't take the form into account. On the
contrary, this is where the question of the difference between military and
political support comes into play.
Military or political support?
Comrade Fischer uses the example of the Bolsheviks struggle against Kornilov
as a means to defeat the position of the "defensists." In this, the comrade
constructs straw man after straw man to demolish the position. He writes:
"Replying to this idea, Lenin starkly stated that 'you do not conclude
agreements or make blocs with people who have deserted for good to the enemy
camp' (Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 251). And further still: 'A Bolshevik
would say, "Our workers and soldiers will fight the counterrevolutionary
troops if they start an offensive now against the provisional government;
they will do so not to defend this government ... but to independently
defend the revolution as they pursue their own aim" ' (ibid. p. 251-252).
"Thus, what Lenin is outlining here is the fight for proletarian political
independence. The revolutionary proletariat will fight to defeat the
Kornilov counterrevolution as a pre-condition for the fight to make its
revolution. If that struggle happens to parallel the struggle of forces
loyal to Kerensky then this is a purely episodic, coincidental phenomenon.
In no way does it imply a 'bloc' -- political or military -- with the
provisional government which remains the enemy of the revolution.
"The position of those who advocated cooperation, a certain alliance between
revolutionaries and the military forces of Kerensky, would in effect have
tied the proletariat to the coat tails of this anti-revolutionary
government. In the context of the politics of revolutionary Russia at this
time, this was a grave opportunist mistake, but at least explicable. After
all, the provisional government was a product of a revolution and contained
people who regarded themselves as Marxists."
In order to argue this, let us break it down into its component statements.
First, comrade Fischer uses quotes by Lenin to attempt to justify the
anti-defensist position. Unfortunately for him, though, the comrade
accidentally stumbles upon the Marxist understanding of defensism. We agree
with Lenin when he writes: "A Bolshevik would say, 'Our workers and soldiers
will fight the counterrevolutionary troops if they start an offensive now
against the provisional government; they will do so not to defend this
government ... but to independently defend the revolution as they pursue
their own aim'."
This is the essence of the Marxist position of revolutionary defensism. We
do not defend Iraq to shore up the bloody Ba'athist regime. On the contrary,
we defend Iraq to further prepare the groundwork for the revolutionary
proletarian overthrow of the Ba'athists, and the establishment of a
proletarian dictatorship.
And, "if that struggle happens to parallel the struggle of the forces" of
Saddam Hussein, "then this is a purely episodic, coincidental phenomenon."
But, unlike comrade Fischer, we understand that this very position is a
"military bloc," the only kind of bloc allowed between proletarian and
non-proletarian forces -- "a purely episodic, coincidental phenomenon."
Military defense in no way "advocates" -- either explicitly or implicitly --
any kind of "cooperation." A Marxist military force would not "cooperate"
with the Ba'athist forces beyond simply coordinating attacks against
imperialist forces. In a sense, revolutionary defensism is a military
application of the united front. There only exists the most basic of
coordination, and the Marxists "support" the Ba'athists in a war against
imperialism like a rope supports a hanged man.
As we said above, such defensism is predicated with the understanding that
our work is designed to strengthen the independence of the proletariat. The
victory of imperialism, and successive stalemate, has done nothing to
strengthen the resolve of the Iraqi proletariat. On the contrary, it has
served to demoralize the working class and tie it to the Ba'athists. A
defeat of imperialism would have added boldness and strength to the actions
of the working class in Iraq, giving impulse to moving beyond -- that is, to
fight Saddam Hussein.
Finally, we feel compelled to ask comrade Fischer: If the Kornilov revolt
took place in the absence of Soviets, would Marxists have still mobilized to
fight him? Or, by the logic of your position, would you declare a pox on
both houses and let the Kornilov fascists take control? The same question
can be asked around the Spanish Civil War: Would you have declared dual
defeatism between the Republic and the Franco fascists?
As an aside, we would like to clue comrade Fischer in on the rest of the
quote he uses to justify his anti-defensist position. It reads:
"... a Bolshevik would tell the Mensheviks: 'We shall fight, of course, but
we refuse to enter into any political alliance whatever with you, refuse to
express the least confidence in you. We shall fight in the very same way as
the Social Democrats fought tsarism in February 1917, together with the
Cadets, without entering into any alliance with the Cadets or trusting them
for one second.'...
"It is all too advantageous for the Mensheviks to put about false rumours
and allegations to the effect that the government they support is saving the
revolution, while in reality it has already formed a bloc with the Kaledins,
is already counter-revolutionary, has already taken a great many steps, and
is daily taking further steps, to meet the terms of this bloc with the
Kaledins." (V.I. Lenin, "Rumours of a Conspiracy," Collected Works, Vol. 25,
p. 252 [Progress, 1977] first paragraph emphasis ours, second paragraph
emphasis in original)
"Hands off Iraq!" vs. "Defend Iraq!"
If we were interested in a psychological understanding of comrade Fischer's
argument, we might say that he was polemicizing in denial. The reason for
this would be due to the established positions of the CPGB, which run
counter to the position of the comrade.
For example, the CPGB has an historical position of defending forces like
the Irish Republican Army against the military might of British imperialism.
This position alone would be enough to expose the contradiction. But, and
perhaps more important, the position of the CPGB on Iraq is another example.
On their Internet Website, the CPGB raised the slogan "Hands off Iraq!" as
opposed to "Defend Iraq" (our demand) or "Defend the peoples of Iraq," the
slogan they counterposed in the course of our discussions around the joint
statement.
Both of the demands they raised -- "Hands off Iraq" and "Defend the peoples
of Iraq" -- are objectively defensist slogans. Calling for "Hands off Iraq"
can be taken two ways. It can be a weak, pacifist slogan or it can be seen
as a weak call for defense.
The call to "Defend the peoples of Iraq" appears to fall in the defensist
category within the context of imperialist bombing. However, how can it be
taken seriously unless it is understood to mean that proletarian
internationalists would be episodically aiming their guns in the same
direction as the Iraqi armed forces?
To distinguish this slogan from a defensist position makes sense only if it
is to argue a pacifist point of view. We do not believe this is the case
with the CPGB, but comrade Fischer's polemic is clearly muddled by such
influences. In many ways, the position of the CPGB is similar to that of
Trotsky and the Inter-District Group in the early years of the First World
War. They are essentially internationalist, but prone to lapses into
social-pacifism.
Far from falling into the CPGB's stereotype of "Trotskyist sects," the
Marxist Workers' Group bases its method on Bolshevism and the
Bolshevik-Leninists of Trotsky's time. It is ironic that the "Leninists" of
the CPGB and the "Trotskyists" of the MWG have reciprocal positions on war
and imperialism from Lenin and Trotsky in 1914-1915.
Bolshevik-Leninism vs. "Trotskyism"
This brings us to the "fine distinction" between the position of the
Bolshevik-Leninists of the MWG and the Trotskyists. The final straw man it
is necessary to contend with is where comrade Fischer attempts to draw
parallels between our position and that of the various "Trotskyist sects,"
like the rotten and doubly-misnamed "International Bolshevik Tendency."
The comrade quotes a part of the IBT's statement on the bombing where they
say "the international working class has a side in this struggle -- and it
is with Iraq, and its government, against the British and US pirates"
(Fischer's emphasis).
Like comrade Fischer, we would also take exception with the statement of the
IBT for precisely the same reasons. The IBT, making a mistake very common
among the centrists, does confuse military defense and political support.
Like the milieu they emerged from, the Spartacist/Healyite/Shachtmanite
tradition, the IBT confuses the masses with the leaders. Like their mentors
in the Spartacists, they equate the revolutionary actions of the masses --
done in spite of their reactionary leadership -- with the leaders.
For the Spartacists, it led to "hailing the Red Army [sic!] in Afghanistan"
and an obituary for former USSR leader Yuri Andropov. For the IBT, it led
them to giving implicit political support to the neo-Bukharinite
restorationist leadership of the CPSU during the August 1991 coup and now to
the bloody Ba'athist leadership of Iraq. But the situation can also work in
the polar opposite direction.
Both the Spartacists and the IBT refused to call for a general strike during
the Ontario teachers' strike of 1997. While the teachers demanded "General
strike!", the centrist dilettantes of the IBT declared "It's all cut and
dry" and the Spartacists whined about how the "union bureaucrats" would be
in control of any general strike.
The Spartacist/Healyite milieu is characteristic of the "orthodox" post-WWII
Trotskyist movement. This includes their petty-bourgeois composition,
"r-r-revolutionary" abstentionism, hyperpropagandism, and general centrist
muddleheadedness.
We understand that the history of the British workers' and socialist
movement has a wing that traditionally confused military defense with
political support. The British Workers' Revolutionary Party took this trend
of centrism to its extreme by openly acting as the franchise for the Iraqi
Ba'athists and Libyan nationalists. So we do understand if Marxist
organizations attempt to correct this historical revisionism. But we caution
comrades not to bend the stick too far in the opposite direction. Such a
move can be viewed as capitulation to British imperialism and "little
England chauvinism."
Aquestion of method
For us, there is a methodological root to comrade Fischer's position. This
root, this failure, has plagued the workers' and socialist movement for
decades. In essence, it is the loss of dialectical method; the failure to
see contradiction and analyze how these contradictions create motion.
Because of this failure of method, comrade Fischer cannot make use of these
contradictions to move the struggles of the working class forward. Moreover,
because of this failure, he cannot interact with these contradictions in
concrete ways.
Building a revolutionary working-class party requires understanding and
taking advantage of contradictions in bourgeois society. This includes
contradictions and divisions among the capitalists. Moreover, Marxists must
be able to exploit these contradictions to the benefit of the working class
in order to move closer to the establishment of a proletarian dictatorship.
However, comrade Fischer's failure to see, understand and exploit these
contradictions lead to dangerous conclusions and methods.
Instead of seeing the contradictions and differences between imperialist
bombings and the actions of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athists, comrade
Fischer equates Hussein's actions with the actions of U.S. and British
imperialism. Thus, the only thing left to base an analysis on is moralism.
Moralism is a concrete expression of the larger ideology that is promoted by
the bourgeoisie. This is an ideology that rests on formal logic as opposed
dialectical analysis. It is imposed on the working class every day, in
countless ways, by the capitalists in power. The working class is
indoctrinated in this method from birth, and taught by all institutions in
society that this is the only way to view the world. But bourgeois ideology
has changed and evolved throughout history to meet the needs of the ruling
class.
The various ideological changes in society have a direct relationship to the
various periods of development of capitalism. But one fact always remains:
the bourgeoisie needs this ideology in order to maintain itself in power;
the working class must reject this ideology in order to take power. The
bourgeoisie can afford to stand on moral and idealistic appeals, the working
class cannot. The job of the revolutionary party is to provide the working
class with an alternative method of viewing the world, a scientific and
Marxist method.
At the root of the analyses of most of the groups in the workers' and
socialist movement is the same bourgeois ideology: moralism instead of
materialism, formal logic instead of dialectics.
Thus, while different individuals and groups, like the IBT and comrade
Fischer, may come to very different sounding conclusions, and may formulate
things in ways that sound diametrically opposed to each other, the effects
are really two sides of the same coin. The IBT does not politically fight
Hussein while the latter is under attack, and comrade Fischer doesn't fight
him at all because he rejects a struggle out of hand.
It reminds us of leftists on a picket line, yelling "Shame!" at the scabs,
but not doing anything to stop them. They are either doing this because they
are tailists of the union bureaucracy or they see everything as "cut and
dry." A Marxist does not give moral propaganda, but leadership. Anything
else is only an impotent appeal, nothing more.
If we were to extend the logic and use comrade Fischer's method
consistently, he would abstain from supporting strikes, and reject calls for
general strikes, because they would be led by the union bureaucracy. He
would say "Not orange against green, but class against class!" in Ireland,
and abstain in a war between British imperialism and a semicolony like
Argentina.
This method, although it may seem very "left wing" at first glance, poses
some very right-wing dangers. Whether the form is open political support or
abstention, the content is the same: a rejection of the Marxist method of
the workers' united front, because of an inability to identify
contradictions between leadership and base. Ultimately, this is a
methodological rejection of the need to build workers' councils (soviets)
unless the leadership is somehow magically "pure" revolutionaries.
If the CPGB adheres to comrade Fischer's position, if they ever want to lend
military support to a force, they will have to give political support as
well. They will have to subordinate their program, or simply abstain from
almost all of the struggles today. That will be the choice facing them.
If it is taken to a logical conclusion, they will either sink into an
isolated oblivion or sacrifice their program on the altar of the popular
front.
It's not too late!
Comrade Fischer, it is not too late to change your current course! A
principled defense of Iraq and other semicolonies against imperialism can be
raised without slipping into tailism and opportunism.
Since coming into contact with the CPGB in 1997, we regarded them as one of
the healthiest and most dynamic organizations in the British workers' and
socialist movement. We have always seen the CPGB as worthy of revolutionary
respect.
This is why we have attempted to answer the arguments of comrade Fischer in
a comradely, pedagogical and comprehensive manner, and not simply denounce
him as a "Stalinist" (which he is not) or a "capitulator" (which he does not
appear to be). We see this article as a contribution to the development of
Marxist method. And we hope the comrades of the CPGB sees it in the same
light.
All organizations make mistakes in the course of intervening in the class
struggle. The comrades of the MWG have made their fair share; and probably
will as time goes on. But the difference between a Marxist and a revisionist
organization is that Marxists recognize their mistakes and attempt to
correct them; revisionists compound their mistakes with more mistakes,
cloaked in either "orthodoxy" or a "new word."
We regard the position of the comrade Fischer as a mistake, a mistake that
can be corrected.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
