******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
On 12/29/14 5:24 AM, A.R. G via Marxism wrote:
I think the alleged hypocrisy you describe, though, is less to do with
allegiance to the Syrian regime per se and more to do with the public's
apathy short of the US government taking part in active regime change,
which appears to suggest the opening of some kind of greater can of worms.
Unfortunately it seems as though "targeted strikes" don't rouse the
public's anger, especially when they are framed as targeted attacks against
"the bad guys".
It is more complicated than that.
There are good reasons why some on the left might have qualms about
automatically calling for protests when American is bombing in the
Middle East. Does anybody think that ISIS would have not overrun Kobani
by now if it hadn't been for American bombing?
To my knowledge, the only group on the left that has solidarized itself
with ISIS against the Kurds is the Spartacist League:
http://www.icl-fi.org/print/english/wv/1055/isis.html
If you ere a socialist parliamentarian, would you have voted against
American air strikes against ISIS? I would have myself for one good
reason. There is an important principle involved, namely the need for
the USA to stop acting as the world's policeman. That is the reason I
opposed American air strikes after the sarin gas attack crossed Obama's
fictional red line.
I don't know how many comrades have read this but I sometimes think that
a Marxism list subscription should require a membership test based on
being able to understand this:
Leon Trotsky
Learn To Think
A Friendly Suggestion to Certain Ultra-Leftists
(May 1938)
Written on 22 May 1938.
Source: New International, Vol.4 No.7, July 1938, pp.206-207.
Transcription/Mark-up: Einde O’Callaghan for the Trotsky Internet Archive.
CERTAIN PROFESSIONAL ultra-left phrase-mongers are attempting at all
cost to “correct” the thesis of the Secretariat of the Fourth
International on war in accordance with their own ossified prejudices.
They especially attack that part of the thesis which states that in all
imperialist countries the revolutionary party, while remaining in
irreconcilable opposition to its own government in time of war, should,
nevertheless, mold its practical politics in each country to the
internal situation and to the international groupings, sharply
differentiating a workers’ state from a bourgeois state, a colonial
country from an imperialist country.
The proletariat of a capitalist country which finds itself in an
alliance with the USSR [1] [states the thesis] must retain fully and
completely its irreconcilable hostility to the imperialist government of
its own country. In this sense its policy will not differ from that of
the proletariat in a country fighting against the USSR. But in the
nature of practical actions considerable differences may arise depending
on the concrete war situation. (War and the Fourth International, p.21,
§ 44.)
The ultra-leftists consider this postulate, the correctness of which has
been confirmed by the entire course of development, as the starting
point of ... social-patriotism. [2] Since the attitude toward
imperialist governments should be “the same” in all countries, these
strategists ban any distinctions beyond the boundaries of their own
imperialist country. Theoretically their mistake arises from an attempt
to construct fundamentally different bases for war-time and peace-time
policies.
Let us assume that rebellion breaks out tomorrow in the French colony of
Algeria under the banner of national independence and that the Italian
government, motivated by its own imperialist interests, prepares to send
weapons to the rebels. What should the attitude of the Italian workers
be in this case? I have purposely taken an example of rebellion against
a democratic imperialism with intervention on the side of the rebels
from a fascist imperialism. Should the Italian workers prevent the
shipping of arms to the Algerians? Let any ultra-leftists dare answer
this question in the affirmative. Every revolutionist, together with the
Italian workers and the rebellious Algerians, would spurn such an answer
with indignation. Even if a general maritime strike broke out in fascist
Italy at the same time, even in this case the strikers should make an
exception in favor of those ships carrying aid to the colonial slaves in
revolt; otherwise they would be no more than wretched trade unionists –
not proletarian revolutionists.
At the same time, the French maritime workers, even though not faced
with any strike whatsoever, would be compelled to exert every effort to
block the shipment of ammunition intended for use against the rebels.
Only such a policy on the part of the Italian and French workers
constitutes the policy of revolutionary internationalism.
Does this not signify, however, that the Italian workers moderate their
struggle in this case against the fascist regime? Not in the slightest.
Fascism renders “aid” to the Algerians only in order to weaken its
enemy, France, and to lay its rapacious hand on her colonies. The
revolutionary Italian workers do not forget this for a single moment.
They call upon the Algerians not to trust their treacherous “ally” and
at the same time continue their own irreconcilable struggle against
fascism, “the main enemy in their own country”. Only in this way can
they gain the confidence of the rebels, help the rebellion and
strengthen their own revolutionary position.
If the above is correct in peace-time, why does it become false in
war-time? Everyone knows the postulate of the famous German military
theoretician, Clausewitz, that war is the continuation of politics by
other means. This profound thought leads naturally to the conclusion
that the struggle against war is but the continuation of the general
proletarian struggle during peace-time. Does the proletariat in
peace-time reject and sabotage all the acts and measures of the
bourgeois government? Even during a strike which embraces an entire
city, the workers take measures to insure the delivery of food to their
own districts, make sure that they have water, that the hospitals do not
suffer, etc. Such measures are dictated not by opportunism in relation
to the bourgeoisie but by concern for the interests of the strike
itself, by concern for the sympathy of the submerged city masses, etc.
These elementary rules of proletarian strategy in peace-time retain full
force in time of war as well.
An irreconcilable attitude against bourgeois militarism does not signify
at all that the proletariat in all cases enters into a struggle against
its own “national” army. At least the workers would not interfere with
soldiers who are extinguishing a fire or rescuing drowning people during
a flood; on the contrary, they would help side by side with the soldiers
and fraternize with them. And the question is not exhausted merely by
cases of elemental calamities. If the French fascists should make an
attempt today at a coup d’etat and the Daladier government found itself
forced to move troops against the fascists, the revolutionary workers,
while maintaining their complete political independence, would fight
against the fascists alongside of these troops. Thus in a number of
cases the workers are forced not only to permit and tolerate, but
actively to support the practical measures of the bourgeois government.
In ninety cases out of a hundred the workers actually place a minus sign
where the bourgeoisie places a plus sign. In ten cases however they are
forced to fix the same sign as the bourgeoisie but with their own seal,
in which is expressed their mistrust of the bourgeoisie. The policy of
the proletariat is not at all automatically derived from the policy of
the bourgeoisie, bearing only the opposite sign – this would make every
sectarian a master strategist; no, the revolutionary party must each
time orient itself independently in the internal as well as the external
situation, arriving at those decisions which correspond best to the
interests of the proletariat. This rule applies just as much to the war
period as to the period of peace.
Let us imagine that in the next European war the Belgian proletariat
conquers power sooner than the proletariat of France. Undoubtedly Hitler
will try to crush the proletarian Belgium. In order to cover up its own
flank, the French bourgeois government might find itself compelled to
help the Belgian workers’ government with arms. The Belgian Soviets of
course reach for these arms with both hands. But actuated by the
principle of defeatism, perhaps the French workers ought to block their
bourgeoisie from shipping arms to proletarian Belgium? Only direct
traitors or out-and-out idiots can reason thus.
The French bourgeoisie could send arms to proletarian Belgium only out
of fear of the greatest military danger and only in expectation of later
crushing the proletarian revolution with their own weapons. To the
French workers, on the contrary, proletarian Belgium is the greatest
support in the struggle against their own bourgeoisie. The outcome of
the struggle would be decided, in the final analysis, by the
relationship of forces, into which correct policies enter as a very
important factor. The revolutionary party’s first task is to utilize the
contradiction between two imperialist countries, France and Germany, in
order to save proletarian Belgium.
Ultra-left scholastics think not in concrete terms but in empty
abstractions. They have transformed the idea of defeatism into such a
vacuum. They can see vividly neither the process of war nor the process
of revolution. They seek a hermetically sealed formula which excludes
fresh air. But a formula of this kind can offer no orientation for the
proletarian vanguard.
To carry the class struggle to its highest form – civil war – this is
the task of defeatism. But this task can be solved only through the
revolutionary mobilization of the masses, that is, by widening,
deepening, and sharpening those revolutionary methods which constitute
the content of class struggle in “peace”-time. The proletarian party
does not resort to artificial methods, such as burning warehouses,
setting off bombs, wrecking trains, etc., in order to bring about the
defeat of its own government. Even if it were successful on this road,
the military defeat would not at all lead to revolutionary success, a
success which can be assured only by the independent movement of the
proletariat. Revolutionary defeatism signifies only that in its class
struggle the proletarian party does not stop at any “patriotic”
considerations, since defeat of its own imperialist government, brought
about, or hastened by the revolutionary movement of the masses is an
incomparably lesser evil than victory gained at the price of national
unity, that is, the political prostration of the proletariat. Therein
lies the complete meaning of defeatism and this meaning is entirely
sufficient.
The methods of struggle change, of course, when the struggle enters the
openly revolutionary phase. Civil war is a war, and in this aspect has
its particular laws. In civil war, bombing of warehouses, wrecking of
trains and all other forms of military “sabotage” are inevitable. Their
appropriateness is decided by purely military considerations – civil war
continues revolutionary politics but by other, precisely, military means.
However during an imperialist war there may be cases where a
revolutionary party will be forced to resort to military-technical
means, though they do not as yet follow directly from the revolutionary
movement in their own country. Thus, if it is a question of sending arms
or troops against a workers’ government or a rebellious colony, not only
such methods as boycott and strike, but direct military sabotage may
become entirely practical and obligatory. Resorting or not resorting to
such measures will be a matter of practical possibilities. If the
Belgian workers, conquering power in war-time, have their own military
agents on German soil, it would be the duty of these agents not to
hesitate at any technical means in order to stop Hitler’s troops. It is
absolutely clear that the revolutionary German workers also are
duty-bound (if they are able) to perform this task in the interests of
the Belgian revolution, irrespective of the general course of the
revolutionary movement in Germany itself.
Defeatist policy, that is, the policy of irreconcilable class struggle
in war-time cannot consequently be “the same” in all countries, just as
the policy of the proletariat cannot be the same in peacetime. Only the
Comintern of the epigones has established a regime in which the parties
of all countries break into march simultaneously with the left foot. In
struggle against this bureaucratic cretinism we have attempted more than
once to prove that the general principles and tasks must be realized in
each country in accordance with its internal and external conditions.
This principle retains its complete force for war-time as well.
Those ultra-leftists who do not want to think as Marxists, that is,
concretely, will be caught unawares by war. Their policy in time of war
will be a fatal crowning of their policy in peace-time. The first
artillery shots will either blow the ultra-leftists into political
non-existence, or else drive them into the camp of social-patriotism,
exactly like the Spanish anarchists, who, absolute “deniers” of the
state, found themselves from the same causes bourgeois ministers when
war came. In order to carry on a correct policy in war-time one must
learn to think correctly in tune of peace.
COYOACAN, D.F.
May 22,1938
Leon TROTSKY
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
