Re: [Marxism] Submission re: Syria

[Angelo Foscari via Marxism]

  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.
*

Very interesting

On Thu, 12/11/15, Joseph Green via Marxism  wrote:


 The
 theoretical issue raised by Andrew Stewart is of a great
 deal of 
 interest. Stalin and Trotsky
 present themselves as polar opposites, but in 
 reality both separated anti-imperialism from
 the class struggle and from 
 Leninist
 anti-imperialism.  
 
 Stewart points to Stalin's famous passage
 in "The Foundations of Leninism" 
 concerning the Emir of Afghanistan and
 "the revolutionary character of a 
 national movement under the conditions of
 imperialist oppression". I analyzed 
 this passage in detail in my article
 "Anti-imperialism and the class 
 struggle" from June 2002
 (www.communistvoice.org/29cEmir.html). At the time 
 Stalin was writing, the then-Emir of
 Afghanistan was not a bloodstained 
 dictator
 like Bashar al-Assad, but a reformer, who sought both to
 introduce 
 domestic reforms in Afghanistan
 and to preserve Afghan independence against 
 British imperialism. It was correct for the the
 Soviet Union to develop 
 relations with the
 Emir's government; this did not betray the popular 
 movement in Afghanistan. However, Stalin went
 overboard in painting the Emir 
 as a
 revolutionary. Stalin's theorizing was a problem even
 then, and it later 
 has been used as a
 theoretical basis for such monstrous crimes as supporting
 
 the Taliban as
 "anti-imperialist". Indeed, the article I linked
 to discusses 
 Stalin's stand with
 reference to the debate on that time against those who 
 regarded the Taliban as anti-imperialist.
 
 The same article also deals
 with Trotsky's stand with respect to Emperor 
 Haile Selassie of Ethiopia. Just as it was
 correct for the Soviet Union at 
 that time
 to support the Emir of Afghanistan against British
 imperialism, it 
 was correct for Trotsky to
 back the Ethiopian government against Italian 
 invasion in the 1930s. But just as Stalin went
 overboard in painting the Emir 
 as a
 revolution, Trotsky went overboard in painting Haile
 Selassie as a 
 revolutionary. He dreamed
 that Selassie would perform revolutionary deeds 
 that 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 opressed peoples". In
 reality, Selassie fled Ethiopia right 
 after
 Trotsky dreamed that he might be a new Cromwell or
 Robespierre (those 
 were strange models for
 a socialist to put forward in the 20th century, but 
 that's Trotsky for you), and the Ethiopian
 people were left to fight the 
 occupiers by
 themselves. When Selassie returned to Ethiopia, he did his
 best 
 to continue absolutist rule.
 
 Thus both Stalin and Trotsky,
 despite apparently opposite theories, were 
 overboard in painting various figures as
 revolutionaries. And both Stalin's 
 theorizing on the Emir of Afghanistan, and
 Trotsky's theorizing on Haile 
 Selassie,
 were used by some groups to defend the Taliban's
 struggle. These 
 groups regard themselves as
 great anti-imperialists, but they are non-class 
 anti-imperialists, who are dragging the good
 name of anti-imperialism through 
 the
 mud.
 
 Leninist
 anti-imperialism is quite different from either
 Trotsky's version of 
 permanent
 revolution or Stalin's version of multi-stage
 revolution. I wrote 
 about Lenin's views
 in "An outline of Leninist anti-imperialism" 
 (www.communistvoice.org/29cOutline.html). It is
 Leninist theory, and neither 
 Trotskyism nor
 Stalinism, that provides a theoretical basis for a true 
 anti-imperialist stand with regard to the
 current world. And such a stand 
 shows the
 need to back the mass struggle against the vicious
 Ba'ath 
 dictatorship, which has
 suppressed political life in Syria for about half a 
 century.
 
 --
 Joseph Green
 _
 Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
 Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/angelo.foscari%40yahoo.co.uk

_
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

Re: [Marxism] Submission re: Syria

[Angelo Foscari via Marxism]

  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.
*

Very interesting

On Thu, 12/11/15, Joseph Green via Marxism  wrote:


 The
 theoretical issue raised by Andrew Stewart is of a great
 deal of 
 interest. Stalin and Trotsky
 present themselves as polar opposites, but in 
 reality both separated anti-imperialism from
 the class struggle and from 
 Leninist
 anti-imperialism.  
 
 Stewart points to Stalin's famous passage
 in "The Foundations of Leninism" 
 concerning the Emir of Afghanistan and
 "the revolutionary character of a 
 national movement under the conditions of
 imperialist oppression". I analyzed 
 this passage in detail in my article
 "Anti-imperialism and the class 
 struggle" from June 2002
 (www.communistvoice.org/29cEmir.html). At the time 
 Stalin was writing, the then-Emir of
 Afghanistan was not a bloodstained 
 dictator
 like Bashar al-Assad, but a reformer, who sought both to
 introduce 
 domestic reforms in Afghanistan
 and to preserve Afghan independence against 
 British imperialism. It was correct for the the
 Soviet Union to develop 
 relations with the
 Emir's government; this did not betray the popular 
 movement in Afghanistan. However, Stalin went
 overboard in painting the Emir 
 as a
 revolutionary. Stalin's theorizing was a problem even
 then, and it later 
 has been used as a
 theoretical basis for such monstrous crimes as supporting
 
 the Taliban as
 "anti-imperialist". Indeed, the article I linked
 to discusses 
 Stalin's stand with
 reference to the debate on that time against those who 
 regarded the Taliban as anti-imperialist.
 
 The same article also deals
 with Trotsky's stand with respect to Emperor 
 Haile Selassie of Ethiopia. Just as it was
 correct for the Soviet Union at 
 that time
 to support the Emir of Afghanistan against British
 imperialism, it 
 was correct for Trotsky to
 back the Ethiopian government against Italian 
 invasion in the 1930s. But just as Stalin went
 overboard in painting the Emir 
 as a
 revolution, Trotsky went overboard in painting Haile
 Selassie as a 
 revolutionary. He dreamed
 that Selassie would perform revolutionary deeds 
 that 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 opressed peoples". In
 reality, Selassie fled Ethiopia right 
 after
 Trotsky dreamed that he might be a new Cromwell or
 Robespierre (those 
 were strange models for
 a socialist to put forward in the 20th century, but 
 that's Trotsky for you), and the Ethiopian
 people were left to fight the 
 occupiers by
 themselves. When Selassie returned to Ethiopia, he did his
 best 
 to continue absolutist rule.
 
 Thus both Stalin and Trotsky,
 despite apparently opposite theories, were 
 overboard in painting various figures as
 revolutionaries. And both Stalin's 
 theorizing on the Emir of Afghanistan, and
 Trotsky's theorizing on Haile 
 Selassie,
 were used by some groups to defend the Taliban's
 struggle. These 
 groups regard themselves as
 great anti-imperialists, but they are non-class 
 anti-imperialists, who are dragging the good
 name of anti-imperialism through 
 the
 mud.
 
 Leninist
 anti-imperialism is quite different from either
 Trotsky's version of 
 permanent
 revolution or Stalin's version of multi-stage
 revolution. I wrote 
 about Lenin's views
 in "An outline of Leninist anti-imperialism" 
 (www.communistvoice.org/29cOutline.html). It is
 Leninist theory, and neither 
 Trotskyism nor
 Stalinism, that provides a theoretical basis for a true 
 anti-imperialist stand with regard to the
 current world. And such a stand 
 shows the
 need to back the mass struggle against the vicious
 Ba'ath 
 dictatorship, which has
 suppressed political life in Syria for about half a 
 century.
 
 --
 Joseph Green
 _
 Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
 Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/angelo.foscari%40yahoo.co.uk

_
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

Re: [Marxism] Submission re: Syria

[Andrew Stewart via Marxism]

  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.
*

I don't know why you want to get into a line of talk like that, I have been 
rather polite and mature about this. My own view is that these ideas have some 
relevance and some elements are frankly useless. This piece of writing was 
meant to be a bit of media analysis and not a theoretical debate. Quite frankly 
there is a touch of Eurocentrism at play when people are quoting texts from the 
era of the gold standard and not even mentioning the writings of the South 
American socialists who are talking about neoliberalism and American empire in 
this century. It strikes me that you are taking an effort at mild humor in a 
direction towards nastiness and condescension. Why is your business, I just 
don't have to take your bait and give you the satisfaction of engaging on that 
level. I imagine part of it stems from the "anti-revisionist" bit you are 
about, which in my understanding is focused on arguing about Stalin's glory 
while failing to accept that the man had no grasp of Hegel's dialectical
  method.

Best regards,
Andrew Stewart 

> On Nov 14, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Joseph Green  wrote:
> 
> 
> Andrew Stewart wrote:
>> There's a story I really like about a rabbi (it was told by Alan
>> Dershowitz, but that is besides the point):
> 
> It seems to me that you don't have a serious attitude to the theoretical 
> issues involved. So-and-so said this, and so-and-so said that, but as you 
> have explained, you really don't care about most of it.  The amusing thing is 
> that the result was that nevertheless your article on Syria was  better than 
> most of those in that publication, and would raise theoretical issues to 
> others reading it. But it seems to me that to really escape the 
> Stalinist/Trotskyist framework, it would take serious consideration of the 
> theoretical issues underlying the debate on anti-imperialism. It takes work, 
> and not just feelings, however justified some of them might be. And the 
> anti-revisionist trend I am from has been preoccupied with dealing with what 
> the experience of the world movement shows, and how theory has to develop to 
> deal with it. 
> 
> In any case, to each their own, as far as how to deal with theory. Best 
> wishes.
> 
> -- Joseph Green

_
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

Re: [Marxism] Submission re: Syria

[Joseph Green via Marxism]

  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.
*


Andrew Stewart wrote:
> There's a story I really like about a rabbi (it was told by Alan
> Dershowitz, but that is besides the point):
> 

 It seems to me that you don't have a serious attitude to the theoretical 
issues involved. So-and-so said this, and so-and-so said that, but as you 
have explained, you really don't care about most of it.  The amusing thing is 
that the result was that nevertheless your article on Syria was  better than 
most of those in that publication, and would raise theoretical issues to 
others reading it. But it seems to me that to really escape the 
Stalinist/Trotskyist framework, it would take serious consideration of the 
theoretical issues underlying the debate on anti-imperialism. It takes work, 
and not just feelings, however justified some of them might be. And the 
anti-revisionist trend I am from has been preoccupied with dealing with what 
the experience of the world movement shows, and how theory has to develop to 
deal with it. 

In any case, to each their own, as far as how to deal with theory. Best 
wishes.

-- Joseph Green
_
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

Re: [Marxism] Submission re: Syria

[Andrew Stewart via Marxism]

  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.
*

I greatly appreciate the kind words and insightful comments. However, just to 
push back respectfully and stimulate discussion, two points:

A) The Stalin national question is laid out first in the 1914 book OF MARXISM 
AND THE NATIONAL QUESTION, which Lenin wholeheartedly embraced, and it was in 
that book that the two stage theory is outlined. Trots of the more grouchy 
variation, in my experience, are prone to emphasize that they think Stalin 
plagiarized the work from others and that Lenin impacted how it was written in 
a major way.

2) The emir was used as an example but not a solitary one, he was invoked to 
justify Soviet backing of Chiang Kai Shek in China and other bourgeois 
anti-imperial national liberation fighters.

Best regards,
Andrew Stewart 

> On Nov 12, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Joseph Green  wrote:
> 
> Andrew Stewart wrote:
>> 
>> Per the recent controversy re: Syria, I composed this piece to provide a
>> brief ideological background, I think it goes very deeply into an Old Left
>> fight between Trotsky and Lenin. Special thanks to Louis Proyect and other
>> voices on this list that aided in this effort, I could not have done it
>> without your vital aid.
>> 
>> http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/10/what-spain-in-1936-teaches-us-about-syria-in-2015/
> 
> The theoretical issue raised by Andrew Stewart is of a great deal of 
> interest. Stalin and Trotsky present themselves as polar opposites, but in 
> reality both separated anti-imperialism from the class struggle and from 
> Leninist anti-imperialism.  
> 
> Stewart points to Stalin's famous passage in "The Foundations of Leninism" 
> concerning the Emir of Afghanistan and "the revolutionary character of a 
> national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression". I analyzed 
> this passage in detail in my article "Anti-imperialism and the class 
> struggle" from June 2002 (www.communistvoice.org/29cEmir.html). At the time 
> Stalin was writing, the then-Emir of Afghanistan was not a bloodstained 
> dictator like Bashar al-Assad, but a reformer, who sought both to introduce 
> domestic reforms in Afghanistan and to preserve Afghan independence against 
> British imperialism. It was correct for the the Soviet Union to develop 
> relations with the Emir's government; this did not betray the popular 
> movement in Afghanistan. However, Stalin went overboard in painting the Emir 
> as a revolutionary. Stalin's theorizing was a problem even then, and it later 
> has been used as a theoretical basis for such monstrous crimes as supporting 
> the Taliban as "anti-imperialist". Indeed, the article I linked to discusses 
> Stalin's stand with reference to the debate on that time against those who 
> regarded the Taliban as anti-imperialist.
> 
> The same article also deals with Trotsky's stand with respect to Emperor 
> Haile Selassie of Ethiopia. Just as it was correct for the Soviet Union at 
> that time to support the Emir of Afghanistan against British imperialism, it 
> was correct for Trotsky to back the Ethiopian government against Italian 
> invasion in the 1930s. But just as Stalin went overboard in painting the Emir 
> as a revolution, Trotsky went overboard in painting Haile Selassie as a 
> revolutionary. He dreamed that Selassie would perform revolutionary deeds 
> that 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 opressed peoples". In reality, Selassie fled Ethiopia right 
> after Trotsky dreamed that he might be a new Cromwell or Robespierre (those 
> were strange models for a socialist to put forward in the 20th century, but 
> that's Trotsky for you), and the Ethiopian people were left to fight the 
> occupiers by themselves. When Selassie returned to Ethiopia, he did his best 
> to continue absolutist rule.
> 
> Thus both Stalin and Trotsky, despite apparently opposite theories, were 
> overboard in painting various figures as revolutionaries. And both Stalin's 
> theorizing on the Emir of Afghanistan, and Trotsky's theorizing on Haile 
> Selassie, were used by some groups to defend the Taliban's struggle. These 
> groups regard themselves as great anti-imperialists, but they are non-class 
> anti-imperialists, who are dragging the good name of anti-imperialism through 
> the mud.
> 
> Leninist anti-imperialism is quite different from either Trotsky's version of 
> permanent revolution or Stalin's version of multi-stage revolution. I wrote 
> about Lenin's views in "An outline of Leninist anti-imperialism" 
> (www.communistvoice.org/29cOutline.html). It is 

Re: [Marxism] Submission re: Syria

[Andrew Stewart via Marxism]

  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.
*

There's a story I really like about a rabbi (it was told by Alan
Dershowitz, but that is besides the point):

A rabbi and his student are sitting studying Torah one day and a husband
and wife come to them with a domestic complaint.

The man says 'Rebbe, my wife has not given me sons, she does not clean, her
cooking is awful, and she is very bitter, I feel I have the right to be
angry'. The rabbi says 'you are right, my son.'

Wife says 'Rebbe, he never loved me, he only married me for the dowry, he
drinks, he cheats on me, and I feel I have the right to be angry'. Rabbi
replies 'you are right, my daughter'.

The student says 'Rabbi, they can't both be right'. Rabbi smiles. 'You are
right, my student!'

I originally wrote this as a media analysis piece talking about RT (English
language, that is) and other Western left outlets, I think there is a touch
of Eurocentrism at play that is steering the way this is being debated. You
are much wiser than I on these matters and also are correct on your points.

My own view is that, in the epoch of neoliberalism, why in the name of all
that is holy are we referring back to texts written in the time of the gold
standard when there has been a huge social revolution in South America
following the rise of Chavez that has a little more relevance? As I said in
the piece, as well as in an earlier one about Slavoj Zizek, the Soviet
Union was corrupted by things having far more to do with the Leninist
vanguard notion than with a post-WWI invasion of Russia and the Civil War.
The anarchists and left-leaning Marxist socialists knew well before the
Revolution that the Bolshevik vanguard theory was a debacle, that is why
Rosa Luxemburg was critical of it. My own view is that the Marx-Bakunin
split was half based around genuine philosophical issues and half based
around idiotic ego posturing. In many ways, the American Left today is
moving ever so slowly towards the synthesis of the two.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Joseph Green 
wrote:

> Andrew Stewart wrote:
>  > I greatly appreciate the kind words and insightful comments. However,
> just
> >to push back respectfully and stimulate discussion, two points:
> >
> I appreciate your response, Andrew, and I agree its useful to look further
> into these theoretical matters.
>
> > A) The Stalin national question is laid out first in the 1914 book OF
> >MARXISM AND THE NATIONAL QUESTION, which Lenin wholeheartedly embraced,
> and
> >it was in that book that the two stage theory is outlined.
>
> The distinction between different types of revolution was being made by
> Marxists long before Stalin was born, to say nothing of his book of 1914.
> The
> distinction between bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions is a
> basic
> point of Marxism. The Trotskyist version of "permanent revolution" holds
> that
> Marxism is outdated on this point.
>
> In an "An Outline of Leninist anti-imperialism" I discuss Lenin's
> presentation of what the Trotskyists call "two-stage revolution." It's also
> In "Leninism and the Arab Spring" (www.communistvoice.org/46cLeninism.html
> ),
> I discuss the continuing relevance of this distinction to the analysis of
> the
> Arab Spring.
>
> The world isn't simply either/or: Stalinism or Trotskyism. There is life
> outside the spheres of Trotskyism and Stalinism.  But to see an alternative
> analysis, one needs to take the time to examine it.
>
> >Trots of the more grouchy variation, in my experience, are prone to
> >emphasize that they think Stalin plagiarized the work from others and that
> >Lenin impacted how it was written in a major way.
>
> So it seems that they are obsessed with spin control rather than serious
> analysis. We need to look into more important issues. We need to examine
> the
> Marxist theory of the different types of revolution, the Marxist version of
> "two-stage revolution" and of the tactics of the working class in such
> revolutions; we need to evaluate whether it holds today, and whether both
> Stalinist and Trotskyist theory departs from it.
>
> >
>  > 2) The emir was used as an example but not a solitary one, he was
> invoked
> > to justify Soviet backing of Chiang Kai Shek in China and other bourgeois
> > anti-imperial national liberation fighters.
>
> There are many examples, and each of them involves specific issues of the
> local economic and political situation. Each requires its own particular
> analysis.
>
>  But sometimes it is useful to go deeper in a couple of examples in depth.
> Clarity doesn't necessarily come from a large number of examples, if each
> one
> is covered superficially.
>
> So let's stay on Afghanistan and 

Re: [Marxism] Submission re: Syria

[Joseph Green via Marxism]

  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.
*

Andrew Stewart wrote:
 > I greatly appreciate the kind words and insightful comments. However, just 
>to push back respectfully and stimulate discussion, two points:
> 
I appreciate your response, Andrew, and I agree its useful to look further  
into these theoretical matters. 

> A) The Stalin national question is laid out first in the 1914 book OF 
>MARXISM AND THE NATIONAL QUESTION, which Lenin wholeheartedly embraced, and 
>it was in that book that the two stage theory is outlined. 

The distinction between different types of revolution was being made by 
Marxists long before Stalin was born, to say nothing of his book of 1914. The 
distinction between bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions is a basic 
point of Marxism. The Trotskyist version of "permanent revolution" holds that 
Marxism is outdated on this point. 

In an "An Outline of Leninist anti-imperialism" I discuss Lenin's 
presentation of what the Trotskyists call "two-stage revolution." It's also  
In "Leninism and the Arab Spring" (www.communistvoice.org/46cLeninism.html), 
I discuss the continuing relevance of this distinction to the analysis of the 
Arab Spring. 

The world isn't simply either/or: Stalinism or Trotskyism. There is life 
outside the spheres of Trotskyism and Stalinism.  But to see an alternative 
analysis, one needs to take the time to examine it.

>Trots of the more grouchy variation, in my experience, are prone to 
>emphasize that they think Stalin plagiarized the work from others and that 
>Lenin impacted how it was written in a major way.

So it seems that they are obsessed with spin control rather than serious 
analysis. We need to look into more important issues. We need to examine the 
Marxist theory of the different types of revolution, the Marxist version of 
"two-stage revolution" and of the tactics of the working class in such 
revolutions; we need to evaluate whether it holds today, and whether both 
Stalinist and Trotskyist theory departs from it. 

> 
 > 2) The emir was used as an example but not a solitary one, he was invoked 
> to justify Soviet backing of Chiang Kai Shek in China and other bourgeois
> anti-imperial national liberation fighters.

There are many examples, and each of them involves specific issues of the 
local economic and political situation. Each requires its own particular 
analysis. 

 But sometimes it is useful to go deeper in a couple of examples in depth. 
Clarity doesn't necessarily come from a large number of examples, if each one 
is covered superficially.

So let's stay on Afghanistan and Ethiopia for awhile. For example, how would 
the theory of "permanent  revolution" apply to the issues of the Emir of 
Afghanistan in 1920s  and Haile Selassie in the 1930s? There was no 
possibility at all of a socialist revolution or the establishment of a 
workers' regime in Afghanistan or Ethiopia at that time: for one thing, 
neither country had many workers. In this situation, would the Trotskyists 
agree with Stalin's analysis of the Emir of Afghanistan, giving him similar 
revolutionary features to those Trotsky dreamed that Selassie might have? Or 
would they disagree? And if so, on what basis?

It might seem at first that Trotskyism couldn't say anything about 
Afghanistan or Ethiopia in those years.  But Trotsky saw the necessity of 
saying something about Ethiopia, so he appealed to a mechanical rule which 
ignored the internal situation in Ethiopia. According to this mechanical 
rule, similar to that put forward by Stalin about Afghanistan, all that 
mattered was that Italy was imperialist and attacking a weaker country. With 
regard to the situation in the mid-1930s, this rule correctly called for 
resistance to the Italian colonial war on Ethiopia, but was impotent in 
dealing with the internal situation in Ethiopia. That means, it was impotent 
in giving advice about how to actually fight imperialism. And applied to 
Afghanistan, this rule would back Stalin's stand in the "Foundations of 
Leninism".

Today we see that the "non-class anti-imperialists" who denigrate the  
struggle against Assad also apply a mechanical rule. They could appeal to 
either Stalin or Trotsky for support for this monstrous stand. And this time 
the mechanical rule is even more wrong than in the past, since it justifies 
support for the Assad dictatorship.

Some "non-class anti-imperialists" have applied this mechanical rule to the 
Taliban. After all, there is still no immediate possibility of socialist 
revolution in Afghanistan. So the mechanical rule would make the Taliban into 
an alleged anti-imperialist force. This monstrous conclusion  was debated 
with a certain openness in 

Re: [Marxism] Submission re: Syria

[Joseph Green via Marxism]

  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.
*

Andrew Stewart wrote:
> 
> Per the recent controversy re: Syria, I composed this piece to provide a
> brief ideological background, I think it goes very deeply into an Old Left
> fight between Trotsky and Lenin. Special thanks to Louis Proyect and other
> voices on this list that aided in this effort, I could not have done it
> without your vital aid.
> 
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/10/what-spain-in-1936-teaches-us-about-syria-in-2015/
> 

The theoretical issue raised by Andrew Stewart is of a great deal of 
interest. Stalin and Trotsky present themselves as polar opposites, but in 
reality both separated anti-imperialism from the class struggle and from 
Leninist anti-imperialism.  

Stewart points to Stalin's famous passage in "The Foundations of Leninism" 
concerning the Emir of Afghanistan and "the revolutionary character of a 
national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression". I analyzed 
this passage in detail in my article "Anti-imperialism and the class 
struggle" from June 2002 (www.communistvoice.org/29cEmir.html). At the time 
Stalin was writing, the then-Emir of Afghanistan was not a bloodstained 
dictator like Bashar al-Assad, but a reformer, who sought both to introduce 
domestic reforms in Afghanistan and to preserve Afghan independence against 
British imperialism. It was correct for the the Soviet Union to develop 
relations with the Emir's government; this did not betray the popular 
movement in Afghanistan. However, Stalin went overboard in painting the Emir 
as a revolutionary. Stalin's theorizing was a problem even then, and it later 
has been used as a theoretical basis for such monstrous crimes as supporting 
the Taliban as "anti-imperialist". Indeed, the article I linked to discusses 
Stalin's stand with reference to the debate on that time against those who 
regarded the Taliban as anti-imperialist.

The same article also deals with Trotsky's stand with respect to Emperor 
Haile Selassie of Ethiopia. Just as it was correct for the Soviet Union at 
that time to support the Emir of Afghanistan against British imperialism, it 
was correct for Trotsky to back the Ethiopian government against Italian 
invasion in the 1930s. But just as Stalin went overboard in painting the Emir 
as a revolution, Trotsky went overboard in painting Haile Selassie as a 
revolutionary. He dreamed that Selassie would perform revolutionary deeds 
that 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 opressed peoples". In reality, Selassie fled Ethiopia right 
after Trotsky dreamed that he might be a new Cromwell or Robespierre (those 
were strange models for a socialist to put forward in the 20th century, but 
that's Trotsky for you), and the Ethiopian people were left to fight the 
occupiers by themselves. When Selassie returned to Ethiopia, he did his best 
to continue absolutist rule.

Thus both Stalin and Trotsky, despite apparently opposite theories, were 
overboard in painting various figures as revolutionaries. And both Stalin's 
theorizing on the Emir of Afghanistan, and Trotsky's theorizing on Haile 
Selassie, were used by some groups to defend the Taliban's struggle. These 
groups regard themselves as great anti-imperialists, but they are non-class 
anti-imperialists, who are dragging the good name of anti-imperialism through 
the mud.

Leninist anti-imperialism is quite different from either Trotsky's version of 
permanent revolution or Stalin's version of multi-stage revolution. I wrote 
about Lenin's views in "An outline of Leninist anti-imperialism" 
(www.communistvoice.org/29cOutline.html). It is Leninist theory, and neither 
Trotskyism nor Stalinism, that provides a theoretical basis for a true 
anti-imperialist stand with regard to the current world. And such a stand 
shows the need to back the mass struggle against the vicious Ba'ath 
dictatorship, which has suppressed political life in Syria for about half a 
century.

-- Joseph Green
_
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

Re: [Marxism] Submission re: Syria

[ioannis aposperites via Marxism]

  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.
*




Per the recent controversy re: Syria, I composed this piece to provide a
brief ideological background, I think it goes very deeply into an Old Left
fight between Trotsky and Lenin.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/10/what-spain-in-1936-teaches-us-about-syria-in-2015/

I can hardly see how the two "opposing" theories can hold at the same 
time. The very passage from "The Foundations of Leninism" you mention is 
very telling. It concludes that
"every step [...] along the road to liberation, even if it runs 
counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at 
imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step."
But a step in Stalinist vocabulary is something autonomous, to be 
necessarily completed per se and in isolation from any further "step" in 
the Stalinist time line.
The equation antistalinists = fascists of the Spanish civil war, was not 
a temporal caprice of JV Stalin, but a faire corollary.


If the Spanish Democratic State is to defeat the fascist coup, before 
and in abstraction of anything else, namely the proletarian revolution, 
then any independent proletarian political activity is an opposition, an 
obstacle to the very "democratic" step and thus "objectively" helps the 
fascists.
And if these proletarian attempts persist, then the political group who 
express them is apparently funded by fascists or imperialists to serve 
their political goals. Elementary Watson!


And since this is the case it is perfectly legitimate to exterminate 
that group if not as imperialist agents then because they "objectively" 
interrupt the " objectively revolutionary step" . And in Syria it turns 
out that the absence of a well defined and visible political group of 
that kind, poses no problem. Never mind if there is no in situ political 
mediation to denounce, the bombs need no political mediation to 
exterminate any spontaneous proletarian resistance .


Where Stalin seeks to just restore in power the good guy of the 
imperialist conflict, namely the one who signed a peace pact with the 
soviet bureaucracy , Trotsky seeks the revolution: he looks "forward and 
not backward".


Stalinism is not dead. The echoes of these "arguments" are on the air. 
But they are not less catastrophic for the cause of the proletariat. 
They are just far more reactionary, and in many cases  reactionary 
enough to meet Putinism and even National- Bolshevism.


JA
_
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