The discussion of the attack on Ethiopia and the response to it has been illuminating, even inspiring. There is a whole history that I knew nothing about. The role that Sylvia Pankhurst played in mobilizing support for Ethiopia as well as the solidarity between the African-American community and the Italian-American community in New York. Also the number of African Americans who signed up to fight in Ethiopia.
A part of the discussion has centred on how Trotsky responded to the attack on Ethiopia. Joseph Green has the right to have his own interpretation of what Trotsky wrote at the time. Rather than responding with my interpretation, I thought it was useful to post Trotsky’s letter and let readers judge for themselves. For those who are interested, here it is. https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/04/oslo.htm In his most recent remarks on this topic Joseph Green dismisses Trotsky’s letter as “...being all about the debates in the British ILP.” Given that today the Independent Labour Part is largely forgotten, it is reasonable to ask why Trotsky paid any attention to them. But at the time the ILP was a substantial organization. James Maxton, the target of Trotsky’s criticism, was not only a leader of the party, but also a Member of Parliament, part of a caucus of three (or four, my research leaves me unsure). It would be fair to say that the ILP caucus was roughly of the same stature as “The Squad.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Squad_(United_States_Congress). Given the differences between Britain in the ‘30s and the US today, it is hard to compare the actual impact they had. But I think Trotsky had good reason to be angry that someone with the public profile of Maxton was not using it to build solidarity with Ethiopia. But I don’t think he reacted from anger alone. He may have seen it as an opportunity to convince some of his readers. Granted that the ILP was in decline. From 1932 to 1935 they fell from 16,773 members to 4,392. But that still makes it 7 times larger than this list. The simple fact that there are only 606 subscribers to this list has not prevented me or Joseph Green or many others from vigorously advocating our views. ken h Joseph Green, November 14 Ken Hiebert replies to me by citing Trotsky's letter of 1936 concerning Ethiopia. It is ironic that this letter has become one of the influential texts of Trotskyist dogma, as Trotsky didn't care that much about Ethiopia. That's why his statement about Ethiopia was published in 1936, and ever after, under the title "On dictators and the heights of Oslo", Oslo being the capital of Norway, not Ethiopia, and the letter being all about the debates in the British ILP. The talk about dictators was Trotsky's attempt to find a clever response to "the Pacifist Parliamentarians who run the [British] ILP", and the letter has nothing about the internal situation inside Ethiopia. He simply glorifies Selassie, and then never looks back, never writes again on Ethiopia, although Selassie fled Ethiopia 10 days after Trotsky's praise of him as a possible revolutionary dictator striking a powerful blow against world imperialism. This is an astonishing example of dogmatism. What matters is supposedly what Trotsky said, not what happened in the world. To that way of reasoning, Trotsky matters, not so much the multitude of Ethiopians, Eritreans, and other Africans in the Ethiopian empire who lived and died in the period of the resistance war. Few leftists would ignore the partisan wars in Europe and Asia that took place during the Second World War. But the Ethiopian one against Italian fascist occupation is ignored. As are the Eritreans, the Oromo people, and the bad role played by national oppression inside the Ethiopian empire. As is also the desire of the Ethiopian Patriots, who were fighting Italian occupation, to see some reforms in Selassie's absolute monarchy. Theories should be based on facts. African lives and experience matter! This isn't just a historical question. "On dictators and the heights of Oslo" has been used for such things as justifying support for the Taliban and other reactionary forces as anti-imperialist. It has been cited on both sides of this debate. One would imagine that this has something to do with the fact that anti-imperialism and working-class internationalism don't really consist of choosing between two dictators. Trotsky was at least on the right side of the Italian-Ethiopian war; his theory of choosing between two dictators -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3812): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/3812 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/78217453/21656 -=-=- 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. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
