The Communist Parties and World War II

[Random Precision]

The no-strike pledge was a pledge adopted by unions in the United States and Canada, among others, to not strike for the duration of World War II to help the war effort. Most of these unions were pressured into accepting it by the government with offers of a better "seat at the table" in the future. In the US specifically, strikes in violation of the pledge were put down harshly.

During the war, the Communist Parties of both the United States and Canada encouraged unions to accept the pledge to help the fight against fascism in Europe, as well as encouraging their members and supporters who were of age to join the army. The CPUSA supported the trial of SWP militants for encouraging strikes in Minneapolis under the Smith Act, a law which would later be used against themselves.

In countries without an official no-strike pledge, like Britain, CP militants nevertheless denounced striking workers as "Trotskyist agents" and other such things, in one constituency even supporting a Tory candidate against an ILP candidate in a by-election in 1943. And the CPs in many of the countries of Africa and the Middle East completely discredited themselves by calling for support of Britain and France, the colonial powers, in their fight against fascism.

So what I am wondering is what anti-revisionsts and others who are sympathetic to it think of the behavior of the Communist Parties during the war.

[Panda Tse Tung]

I don't see how that was wrong in the light of fighting Fascism. Fascism at that time was a force which could have realistically taken over Europe. It's simply setting your priorities straight.

[Random Precision]

I don't see how that was wrong in the light of fighting Fascism. Fascism at that time was a force which could have realistically taken over Europe.

But what is the practical difference between German fascist imperialism and British or French "democratic" imperialism?


It's simply setting your priorities straight.

Was defeating fascism a priority in North America or the Middle East or Africa? And was it right to call on the workers to die abroad and to give up their hard-won rights at home to support the expansion of American imperialism into Europe? Or for workers in the colonies to die on behalf of the mother country?

[Panda Tse Tung]

But what is the practical difference between German fascist imperialism and British or French "democratic" imperialism?
Your asking what the difference is between Fascism and a Bourgeouis Democratic system?



Was defeating fascism a priority in North America or the Middle East or Africa?
In the Middle East it was, in Africa (in North-Africa it certainly was) in general not too familiar with that.


And was it right to call on the workers to die abroad and to give up their hard-won rights at home to support the expansion of American imperialism into Europe?
Without American involvement the anti-fascist war would've been far harsher. They didn't even lose that much rights. Especially compared to their German counter-parts who lost half of their minimum-wages when the Nazi's rose to power.


Or for workers in the colonies to die on behalf of the mother country?
They didn't just die for the colonizing power, they often died for their own country as well.
If England would have been beaten by the Nazi's they would also have their colonies, it would take some extra effort, but not much since the army's there we're British. It was thus also in their self-interest to do so.

[Random Precision]

Your asking what the difference is between Fascism and a Bourgeouis Democratic system?

No. I'm asking what the difference between the imperialism of a fascist nation and the imperialism of a bourgeois-democratic nation is.


In the Middle East it was, in Africa (in North-Africa it certainly was) in general not too familiar with that.

Can you demonstrate that German rule of those places would have been worse than British and French rule?


Without American involvement the anti-fascist war would've been far harsher.

But the United States was not in the war to fight fascism, it was there to establish an imperialist hold on Western Europe and Asia.


They didn't even lose that much rights. Especially compared to their German counter-parts who lost half of their minimum-wages when the Nazi's rose to power.

Do you really want to compare workers' rights in the United States to Nazi Germany?

In any case, I don't see how you can justify American workers abandoning their rights, which only helped their rulers extend control over Europe and Asia and over the workers themselves at home.


They didn't just die for the colonizing power, they often died for their own country as well.
If England would have been beaten by the Nazi's they would also have their colonies, it would take some extra effort, but not much since the army's there we're British. It was thus also in their self-interest to do so.

They were fighting to be under the control of one imperial power rather than another. Not exactly the same thing as "fighting for your country".

[Glorious Union]

Can you demonstrate that German rule of those places would have been worse than British and French rule?

Genocide. Remember that those areas contained "inferior races" that needed to be purged or enslaved.

[Panda Tse Tung]

No. I'm asking what the difference between the imperialism of a fascist nation and the imperialism of a bourgeois-democratic nation is.
I see where your going.
Here's an example of stronger racial laws and stricter policies in fascist colonial countries:
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/5927/Africa-Italian-Colonies.html


But the United States was not in the war to fight fascism, it was there to establish an imperialist hold on Western Europe and Asia.
I repeat: Without American involvement the anti-fascist war would've been far harsher.It was choosing between Fascism or Americans. Simple choice if you ask me.


Do you really want to compare workers' rights in the United States to Nazi Germany?
Apparently we are comparing Fascists with other Bourgeois states, so yes.


In any case, I don't see how you can justify American workers abandoning their rights, which only helped their rulers extend control over Europe and Asia and over the workers themselves at home.
Fascism, which would have endangered the U.S. as well if Europe would have been taken over.

[ComradeOm]

Can you demonstrate that German rule of those places would have been worse than British and French rule?See the Herero Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_Genocide). And this is even before the rise of Nazism with its systematic polices of extermination


Do you really want to compare workers' rights in the United States to Nazi Germany?Well why not? The record of the United States government with regards to its labour movement is almost certainly amongst the worst in Western world. Yet despite this you'd be very hard pressed to demonstrate that even at its worst (which I'd consider to be the years during and prior WWI) the programmes of the US government are even comparable to the hardships experienced by German workers under Nazi rule. We are talking about a complete and systematic programme to break the labour movement through state repression (from arrests to internment in concentration camps) that claimed the lives of thousands of prominent unionists and communists. There was a similar programme in Italy that effectively destroyed the CP and drove its members into either jail or exile. Despite many martyrs there is nothing in the long history of US labour relations that can compare to the events of these short years in Germany and Italy

There no question that fascism has proven to be the most dangerous enemy to the labour movement. This is hardly surprising given that the complete destruction of the political left has always been one of the central planks/objectives of fascist governments

[Cumannach]

The British and French murdered plenty of millions themselves but not as many as the fascists would have or as quickly and efficiently. Same goes for workers rights and the repression of socialists, taken as a whole, the fascists are significantly worse, unpleasant as it is to say anything good about the ordinary imperialists and capitalists.

[Tower of Bebel]

Some believe we should support the bourgeoisie in their supposed struggle against facism. Yet the bourgeoisie compromised with the Nazi-regime before the war (and even during the war). The only reason why a war was fought against fascism was because the international crisis of capitalism demanded a solution (militarism and war are such "solutions"). Because Germany and Italie started such a war they gave liberal countries the ideal ideological background for their war against those nations.

The British and French murdered plenty of millions themselves but not as many as the fascists would have or as quickly and efficiently. Same goes for workers rights and the repression of socialists, taken as a whole, the fascists are significantly worse, unpleasant as it is to say anything good about the ordinary imperialists and capitalists.
How come fascism is so unpleasant and worse than liberalism? Not because the working class wasn't supporting their bourgeoisie, but because both the bourgeoisie and the workers' movement were incompetent.

[mykittyhasaboner]

The decision of various Communist organizations to support a no-strike policy is a cowardly mistake, and should be harshly condemned. Communists should take the very opposite position and oppose imperialist wars at all costs, instead of excusing these acts of militarism on the basis of "getting priorities straight". I thought the priorities of communists was waging the class struggle? Communist militants should have been at the front lines of the struggle in their respective countries, and organizing the proletariat in such a time of crisis.

[BobKKKindle$]

If we accept the excuse that fascism did represent the single biggest threat to the working classes of oppressed nations, and if the prospect of worse treatment under German imperialism was sufficient justification to call on workers of the colonial world to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the "democratic" imperialist powers, then it begs the question, why did the KPD refuse to enter into a united front with the SPD during the Nazis, before Hitler had come to power, as a means to defeat fascism before it could establish itself as a major political force, and win the members of the SPD over to a more progressive and revolutionary position? How does this fit with the Stalinist argument that the SPD constituted a more serious threat to the working-class during this period than the Nazi period, and why did the KPD vote with the Nazis against SPD government officials, as in the case of the mid-1931 referendum over whether the SPD-led government in Prussia should be replaced? In addition, claiming that German subjugation would have been worse on the grounds that the workers and peasants of the oppressed nations would have been systematically exterminated in the same way as the Jewish inhabitants of European countries indicates a failure to understand the nature of WW2 and war under capitalism in general. It was fundamentally an inter-imperialist war, between rival imperialist powers over the division of the earth's resources and territory, and because of this it would have been against the interests of the bourgeoisie to eliminate a source of cheap labour power and a market for goods which could not be sold to the working-class of the imperialist core, and if the Nazis had attempted such an extermination they would not have been able to sustain the crucial support of the German bourgeoisie and could have been overthrown and replaced with a regime more open to allowing African workers to survive and produce for the imperialist bourgeoisie. There would have been no fundamental changes in the functioning of colonialism if Germany had emerged victorious, and for that reason it was reactionary to call on colonized workers to defend their imperialist masters against a rival bourgeoisie.

[Charles Xavier]

You must not forget WW2 the trade union movement exploded in Canada and the United States. Many millions more were organized into trade unions, they may have not striked but they were not pushed over neither. Women entered the work place en masse. While there wasn't strikes there was massive organization drives.

What came out of ww2 was a vastly more democratic world despite what the imperialists had hoped as a war to save their colonial possessions from a rival Imperialist power. The Communists had the forsight to see that this what was going to be the outcome.

Do not forget we did Oppose the war while it was an imperialist war, but once the soviet union was involved it became more of a war of liberation.

[Random Precision]

I see where your going.
Here's an example of stronger racial laws and stricter policies in fascist colonial countries:
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/5927/Africa-Italian-Colonies.html

So the only choice people in the colonies had was rule by Britain/France or rule by Germany? False dilemma one.


I repeat: Without American involvement the anti-fascist war would've been far harsher.It was choosing between Fascism or Americans. Simple choice if you ask me.

False dilemma two.


Fascism, which would have endangered the U.S. as well if Europe would have been taken over.

A choice between your own rulers and fascist rulers. False dilemma three.


See the Herero Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_Genocide). And this is even before the rise of Nazism with its systematic polices of extermination

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The British and French did any number of fucked up things in their own colonies. Were the Germans just uniquely evil somehow?


There no question that fascism has proven to be the most dangerous enemy to the labour movement. This is hardly surprising given that the complete destruction of the political left has always been one of the central planks/objectives of fascist governments

A step up from the Stalinist argument. Nevertheless, the fight against fascism does not require that the workers fight under the banner of their own ruling class. Killing your enemy on your own is much more effective than killing him under the direction of someone else who has his gun trained on you as well, and who may make common cause with your enemy.


The British and French murdered plenty of millions themselves but not as many as the fascists would have or as quickly and efficiently.

So the deciding factor between Britain and France on one hand and Nazi Germany on the other is that... Hitler would have racked up more bodies? Not much of a choice if you ask me.


Same goes for workers rights and the repression of socialists, taken as a whole, the fascists are significantly worse, unpleasant as it is to say anything good about the ordinary imperialists and capitalists.

As I've stated before, this is a false dilemma.


You must not forget WW2 the trade union movement exploded in Canada and the United States. Many millions more were organized into trade unions, they may have not striked but they were not pushed over neither. Women entered the work place en masse. While there wasn't strikes there was massive organization drives.

But what happened to organized labor after the war?


What came out of ww2 was a vastly more democratic world

No. What came out of WW2 was yet another world divided between rival imperialisms, although different ones than before the war.


despite what the imperialists had hoped as a war to save their colonial possessions from a rival Imperialist power. The Communists had the forsight to see that this what was going to be the outcome.

No foresight was involved. Everyone got exactly the same orders peppered by split-second complete reversals in line directly from Moscow.


Do not forget we did Oppose the war while it was an imperialist war, but once the soviet union was involved it became more of a war of liberation.

And that changed the nature of the war exactly how? Even assuming the USSR was socialist (which I never have and never will), in the United States, in Canada, in Britain, in India, in South Africa it was still the same imperialist leaders sending the same workers to die for their interests, and the same Communists in all of those countries cheering them on as they left.

[Devrim]

Was defeating fascism a priority in North America or the Middle East or Africa? And was it right to call on the workers to die abroad and to give up their hard-won rights at home to support the expansion of American imperialism into Europe? Or for workers in the colonies to die on behalf of the mother country?

These are very good questions. The fundamental point that you are missing though is that the vast majority of Trotskyists also supported the war*. Indeed, in some ways what determines the communist left today is that they are the political descendants of, and in some cases the same organisations as the Marxist organisations that opposed World War II. The Trotskyists on the other hand, we see as a current which betrayed, just as the social democrats did in the first war.

Devrim

*There was a bit of a discussion on this a week or so ago. There were some Trotskyist organisations that opposed the war, but in general they broke with Trotskyism.

[Tower of Bebel]

What came out of ww2 was a vastly more democratic world despite what the imperialists had hoped as a war to save their colonial possessions from a rival Imperialist power. The Communists had the forsight to see that this what was going to be the outcome.The outcome was a severe backlash to the workers' movement and an economic boom when the fifties flew by. Both are reasons for the rise of "democracy" in the West. I doubt the communist parties knew this would happen. Even worse is that instead of arming the working class they disarmed it helping the bourgeoisie in pushing back the workers' movement and integrating it more in the capitalist system.

Instead of fighting for reforms that could strenthen the working class as an opposition against capitalism most communists of various currents fought for or supported reforms that could only buy out the working class. This only made bureaucracies and capitalists stronger while their post-war social positions were still highly unstable (especially in parts of Europe occupied by the Nazis). Instead of preparing for revolution many communist parties tried to form coalitions with different bourgeois parties (like social democrats and liberals).

[Yehuda Stern]

I have to agree with Devrim here, although these organizations were the ancestors of Pabloism, i.e. the whole current with the "deformed workers' states" position. It was the same adaptation to imperialism and the labor bureaucracy that led the original FI to both its semi-chauvinist position on WWII (especially the US SWP) and to Pabloist positions. Either way, it in no way suggests that Trotskyism 'passed to the other side'. It was a consequence of the isolation and physical annihilation of a great part of the FI's cadres.

[ComradeOm]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The British and French did any number of fucked up things in their own colonies. Were the Germans just uniquely evil somehow?Well yes, that's my point. Whatever about the crimes of the British and French (and they were legion) to the best of my knowledge only one European empire, with the possible exception of Belgium, embarked on a deliberate campaign of genocide. That is, a targeted and thorough programme to exterminate an entire ethnic group who they deemed to be racially inferior

Now you can argue that it would be better if there was no empires at all and everybody was free, etc, etc, and I'd agree with you 100%. This however is the history forum and we're discussing a history in which empires did exist and some were worse than others


A step up from the Stalinist argument. Nevertheless, the fight against fascism does not require that the workers fight under the banner of their own ruling class. Killing your enemy on your own is much more effective than killing him under the direction of someone else who has his gun trained on you as well, and who may make common cause with your enemyListen, it would be great if the arrival of WWII saw a number of genuinely revolutionary CPs operating in genuinely revolutionary environments. Unfortunately neither was the case. The CPs were never going to call for revolution (in '36 Maurice Thorez famously ordered 2 million strikers back to work with the grumble that they should "know how to end the strike") and its unrealistic to expect them to have adopted some revolutionary programme that would be unlikely to work anyway; given that, with the exception of France, no major Allied nation had experienced mass unrest prior to the war

And don't forget that during the Nazi-Soviet Pact period the CPs did adopt the left-communist line (war between bourgeois powers, blah, blah). In France the shock of the sudden reversal and adoption of such an unpopular stance almost destroyed the impressive PCF organisation that had been built up in the preceding decade. Had it not been for the subsequent state repression, which reinforced a siege mentality amongst the remaining members, the party might have simply dissolved entirely. Ultimately it turned out that anti-fascism, on any meaningful scale, did require cooperation with the bourgeois state

Again, I feel that the CPs, to the best of their abilities, made the right choice. They were real organisations with real mass followings and they made a real impact on the war effort. If you want to damn them then don't do it for the one thing they, eventually, got right but rather focus on the squandered opportunities - the possibility of revolution in 1945 France and Italy springs to mind. Ironically the post-war popularity of these two parties was secured through their impressive resistance records

[Yehuda Stern]

Whatever about the crimes of the British and French (and they were legion) to the best of my knowledge only one European empire, with the possible exception of Belgium, embarked on a deliberate campaign of genocide.

Another 'exception' is the British genocide in Bengal in 1942, and I'm quite certain we can find enough examples so that your 'exceptions' are no longer that. It's pretty clear that the rationale of "only Germany committed genocide" is ludicrous, irrelevant, and false to anyone taking into account the mass murder of people who are not European, i.e. anyone who isn't a chauvinist.

[Das war einmal]

why did the KPD refuse to enter into a united front with the SPD during the NazisTalking about revisionism, it was the other way around chap. Though I have to say I am not surprised that Trotskyist rather believe and support social-democrats instead of genuine communists

[Das war einmal]

Trotsky himself called upon his supporters to overthrow to USSR government while the nazi's were banging on the frontdoor. This would have had dire consequenses should it have really happened. While I must admit that there were indeed trotskyist who bravely joined the underground resistance, this is just another example of how far gone and radical trotsky and his followers had become. Another example of the backstabbing is George Orwell who continually stated that the Soviet government should be eliminated whilst the nazi's were eradicating jews, leftists, gypsies and slavik citizens by the millions.

[ComradeOm]

Another 'exception' is the British genocide in Bengal in 1942, and I'm quite certain we can find enough examples so that your 'exceptions' are no longer that. It's pretty clear that the rationale of "only Germany committed genocide" is ludicrous, irrelevant, and false to anyone taking into account the mass murder of people who are not European, i.e. anyone who isn't a chauvinist.What part of "deliberate campaign of genocide" did you fail to understand? Or are you suggesting that the British government set out with the express purpose of murdering millions of civilians via a 'man-made famine'? If so I'd certainly like to see your sources

I also take umbrage to your suggestion that I did not "take into account the mass murder of people who are not European". If you'd actually read my above posts you'd see that I was specifically referring to Herero Genocide. In case you're not aware, that took place in what was then German South-West Africa. I'd suggest reading up on your history (although I'm not sure if Trotsky wrote about that particular affair) but I'll settle for you actually reading someone's posts before you decide to jump in and accuse them of chauvinism

Edit: Ho, ho. I see you also conveniently left out the following line from my post when I clarified by what I meant by a 'deliberate campaign of genocide' - "That is, a targeted and thorough programme to exterminate an entire ethnic group who they deemed to be racially inferior"

Now not fully reading posts is hardly a crime and can be attributed to many factors, few of which are malicious. I've done it myself on many occasions. However deliberately omitting crucial lines in order to bolster your own position is simply intellectually dishonest. You knew what I was getting at but you still chose to misinterpret my point

[Cumannach]

multi quoting ftw!



So the deciding factor between Britain and France on one hand and Nazi Germany on the other is that... Hitler would have racked up more bodies? Not much of a choice if you ask me.



Unfortunately reality doesn't always work out the way we would like, and as it happened, a hard choice had to be made. There was objectively no chance of a socialist revolution breaking out and conquering the bourgeoisie of both sides. Had Hitler conquered Britain, he would have hung every communist, socialist and leftist from the trees.


Another 'exception' is the British genocide in Bengal in 1942, and I'm quite certain we can find enough examples so that your 'exceptions' are no longer that. It's pretty clear that the rationale of "only Germany committed genocide" is ludicrous, irrelevant, and false to anyone taking into account the mass murder of people who are not European, i.e. anyone who isn't a chauvinist.

I don't see any moral difference between the Indian or Irish Famines and the Jewish Holocaust, no matter how we define the word 'genocide', but the fact remains, that had a fascist regime like Hitler's gained control of any colonies, things would have gone significantly worse for the people in them, as evidenced by the events in Poland and the Soviet Union.

[Devrim]

And don't forget that during the Nazi-Soviet Pact period the CPs did adopt the left-communist line (war between bourgeois powers, blah, blah). In France the shock of the sudden reversal and adoption of such an unpopular stance almost destroyed the impressive PCF organisation that had been built up in the preceding decade. Had it not been for the subsequent state repression, which reinforced a siege mentality amongst the remaining members, the party might have simply dissolved entirely. Ultimately it turned out that anti-fascism, on any meaningful scale, did require cooperation with the bourgeois state

No actually the CPs followed the Russian national foreign policy line. It is a completely different thing and their polices changed as Russian foreign policy changed, not because the interests of the working class changed.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I have to agree with Devrim here, although these organizations were the ancestors of Pabloism, i.e. the whole current with the "deformed workers' states" position. It was the same adaptation to imperialism and the labor bureaucracy that led the original FI to both its semi-chauvinist position on WWII (especially the US SWP) and to Pabloist positions. Either way, it in no way suggests that Trotskyism 'passed to the other side'. It was a consequence of the isolation and physical annihilation of a great part of the FI's cadres.

If we are discussing the mainstream Trotskyist current, I think it is quite clear as you yourself agree that they backed the Western powers in an imperialist war, a 'semi-chauvinist position' as you refer to it.

Does that mean that Trotskyism betrayed and passed over to the other side? In my opinion yes it does, just as the Social Democracy did in 1914.

Devrim

[Tower of Bebel]

Trotsky himself called upon his supporters to overthrow to USSR government while the nazi's were banging on the frontdoor. This would have had dire consequenses should it have really happened. While I must admit that there were indeed trotskyist who bravely joined the underground resistance, this is just another example of how far gone and radical trotsky and his followers had become. Another example of the backstabbing is George Orwell who continually stated that the Soviet government should be eliminated whilst the nazi's were eradicating jews, leftists, gypsies and slavik citizens by the millions.
That's an interpretation of the facts, and one with well picked words too. Trotsky never wanted to destroy the Soviet Union so that the Nazis could invade the country without organized resistance. The Communist Parties of France and Belgium interpreted Trotsky's ideas in other words: "Trotskyites organize united front with Goebbels".

[ComradeOm]

No actually the CPs followed the Russian national foreign policy line. It is a completely different thing and their polices changed as Russian foreign policy changed, not because the interests of the working class changedOf course. However in practice this consisted of condemning war, in the words of L'Humanité, as a "war of capitalist brigands" that the proletariat should play no role in, and so forth. All of which (with the natural exception of portraying Stalin as the champion de la paix) is essentially the same fare as was served up by contemporary left fractions. As already stated, the change in direction, regardless of the cause, was an unmitigated disaster for the PCF and destroyed many of the very real gains that the party had made in the previous decade

[Yehuda Stern]

Quote:
why did the KPD refuse to enter into a united front with the SPD during the Nazis
Talking about revisionism, it was the other way around chap.

Actually, it was both ways. However, as the KPD was the party of the more advanced workers, its betrayal was far worse - if it had offered a united front to the SPD and that had been refused, it would expose the SPD leadership's sabotage of the anti-Nazi struggle, and that way it could attract SPD workers to the KPD. This is the reason that Trotsky criticized the KPD more than the SPD.

As for the line that it was wrong to suggest overthrowing the Stalinist regime because of the war, it is quite obvious that Trotsky advocated that (or, more to the point, would've advocated it if he had lived during Operation Barbarossa) exactly because he did not trust the Stalinist regime to conduct the war effectively and expected it to actually capitulate to Nazism. Trotsky did not understand that the USSR was already state capitalist when he died, but in essence he was correct - the policy of the Stalinist ruling class led to disasters which could've easily been averted if it wasn't for Stalin's opportunist attitude towards Hitler.


What part of "deliberate campaign of genocide" did you fail to understand? Or are you suggesting that the British government set out with the express purpose of murdering millions of civilians via a 'man-made famine'? If so I'd certainly like to see your sources

I did not fail to understand anything. I was saying that, yes, the British government did consciously create the conditions for a famine in Bengal, and that even if it didn't, it's not really relevant. There's no intention meter we can use, and if the debate is now moving from if it's OK to support non-genocidal imperialists against genocidal imperialists to if it's OK to support non-intentionally genocidal imperialists against imperialist ones, I'm afraid we're getting very ridiculous. The bottom line is that German imperialism was dangerous and genocidal mainly towards people in Europe, while British imperialism was dangerous and genocidal mainly towards people outside Europe. I'm sorry if implying that your position is that of first world chauvinists offends you. I don't think you are a first world chauvinist consciously, or even unconsciously probably. Your political positions, though, are ultimately effected by your 'soft' endorsement of the Stalinist regime and the war on the side of 'democratic' imperialism.

As for me twisting what you said because I did not quote the whole post, I'm sorry, but please find a less ridiculous reason to claim that I misrepresented your position.


the fact remains, that had a fascist regime like Hitler's gained control of any colonies, things would have gone significantly worse for the people in them, as evidenced by the events in Poland and the Soviet Union.

And the fate of German workers in Dresden and elsewhere, as well as the suppression of the revolution in Italy, shows that things have gone significantly worse for the people living in lands occupied by the Allies. The lesson? When support is given to any imperialist, the supporter in essence aids morally in the strengthening of imperialism as a whole.


Does that mean that Trotskyism betrayed and passed over to the other side? In my opinion yes it does, just as the Social Democracy did in 1914.

The difference is that the Second International degenerated for reasons inherent in social-democracy, while the FI degenerated because persecution and its failure in sinking roots in the working class led it to move away from Trotsky's positions.

[BobKKKindle$]

that the party had made in the previous decade The PCF made gains in the sense that it was able to establish itself as a major political force in France during the 1930s, partly because there was no other organization capable of rooting itself in the working class, but its actions in this role exposed the fact that it was fundamentally a Stalinist organization and hostile to the class interests of the militant proletariat - the PCF entered into the Front populaire in 1936 and thereby became directly complicit in the oppression of workers and peasants in France's colonies due to its participation in the executive of the bourgeois state, and failure to take the side of the world's oppressed by calling for immediate decolonization and reparation payments to the underdeveloped nations once they had been granted independence. In addition, the PCF was also bound by the interests of its bourgeois coalition partners and reactionary leadership, and therefore oppossed the strike and occupation waves due to the fear that if the movement had been allowed to grow and develop its own organizations it would have posed a challenge to the position of the bourgeois state and possibly created a revolutionary situation in which the bourgeois nature of the PCF would have become obvious for the whole of the French proletariat to see.

As for the argument that Trotsky was wrong to call for the destruction of the Stalinist bureaucracy because the war effort demanded social and political unity inside the USSR, this is exactly what bourgeois leaders argue in order to justify restrictions on civil liberties, as well as the ability of trade unions to take strike action, and is synonymous with calling on the Russian proletariat to participate in an imperialist war and sacrifice itself so that the bureaucracy would be able to extend its political control and economic exploitation to eastern Europe, as occurred once the war had come to a conclusion, despite Trotsky's predictions that Stalinism would not be able to survive the end of the war, and that the war would give rise to new proletarian revolutions throughout Europe. It is disappointing to see socialists calling on workers to give up their lives for the sake of the ruling class just because the bureaucrats waved red flags and sang the Internationale to obscure the bourgeois class structure of the USSR.

[ComradeOm]

I did not fail to understand anything. I was saying that, yes, the British government did consciously create the conditions for a famine in Bengal, and that even if it didn't, it's not really relevant. There's no intention meter we can useHow exactly is intent not relevant when discussing genocide? It is this intent that separates genocide from a mere natural or demographic disaster. As I've already said, genocide is "a targeted and thorough programme to exterminate an entire ethnic group". There's no such thing as a "non-intentional genocide"

As for an "intention meter" of course there fecking well is! Its very simple - were orders given by any members of the British authorities to murder, or create a set of circumstances with a view to murdering, all members of a particular ethnic group. In short was there anything similar to this, "Any Herero found within the German borders with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot" (General von Trotha)


There's no intention meter we can use, and if the debate is now moving from if it's OK to support non-genocidal imperialists against genocidal imperialists to if it's OK to support non-intentionally genocidal imperialists against imperialist ones, I'm afraid we're getting very ridiculousWho has said its OK to support or condone any crime committed by an imperialist power? I know that I haven't


The bottom line is that German imperialism was dangerous and genocidal mainly towards people in Europe, while British imperialism was dangerous and genocidal mainly towards people outside EuropeNo, that's not the discussion at all. We were specifically taking about the Herero and Namaqua Genocide. Now feel free to bring events in Europe into this discussion but don't you act like like I've been solely concerned with the latter and then proceed to criticise me for it. You are the only one who has mentioned Europe and you are the one who has has the gall to accuse me of only mentioning Europe


The PCF made gains in the sense that it was able to establish itself as a major political force in France during the 1930s, partly because there was no other organization capable of rooting itself in the working class, but its actions in this role exposed the fact that it was fundamentally a Stalinist organization and hostile to the class interests of the militant proletariatI'm in full agreement as to the nature of the PCF and in this thread have already highlighted two occasions where it proved to be counter-revolutionary. Although I will note that the PCF was never part of the "the executive of the bourgeois state", refusing to take positions in the Popular Front government, and its participation in the anti-colonisation movement was in general very progressive, although undoubtedly more muted following its entry into the Popular Front

Nonetheless that should not disguise the fact that in 1939 the PCF was a mass workers party of which there are too few comparisons in European history

[BobKKKindle$]

refusing to take positions in the Popular Front governmentThe fact that this may have been the case does not change the basic relationship between the PCF and the bourgeois state, because the functioning of the French political system is such that unless the PCF had given its support to the political representatives of the bourgeoisie by pressuring its parliamentary deputies to vote the right way in the National Assembly, the Front populaire government would not have been able to pass legislative proposals, or operate effectively in its role as the political manifestation of the interests of the ruling class, particularly during the wave of occupations and strikes mentioned in my previous post. A genuine revolutionary party would have refused to enter into a coalition or informal alliance with any non-proletarian organizations, but would also have been willing to call for united fronts as a means of responding to the threat of fascism and engaging with the members of reformist organizations in order to win them over to revolutionary positions, in contrast to the ultra-left and reactionary approach adopted by the KPD in Germany before 1933. The PCF was a mass party but only because it commanded the support of a large section of the proletariat - it was not a vanguard party, as its praxis demonstrated its reactionary orientation, and in this respect it was similar to the German SPD, and the contemporary Labour party in Britain.


No, that's not the discussion at all. We were specifically taking about the Herero and Namaqua GenocideThis event actually occurred in the 1900s, and so you seem to be suggesting that the prospect of extermination and brutal treatment under German imperialism had nothing to do with the fact that the Nazis were in power, and presumably lies in some other factor that also existed during this time period. If we accept the assertion that the German propensity to commit acts of genocide against the people of other continents during the race to acquire colonial possessions was in some way unique or at least worse than that of the other imperialist powers, including Britain, not withstanding the evidence to the contrary, then surely the logic implication of this, given that you see the prospect of worse treatment under a given imperialist power as sufficient justification to support a rival state in a military confrontation, would be to have supported the British and the French bourgeoisies during WW1 as well as WW2, given that, according to you, had the Germany succeeded in WW1, the peoples of oppressed nations would have suffered as a result?

[Cumannach]

As for the argument that Trotsky was wrong to call for the destruction of the Stalinist bureaucracy because the war effort demanded social and political unity inside the USSR, this is exactly what bourgeois leaders argue in order to justify restrictions on civil liberties, as well as the ability of trade unions to take strike action, and is synonymous with calling on the Russian proletariat to participate in an imperialist war and sacrifice itself so that the bureaucracy would be able to extend its political control and economic exploitation to eastern Europe, as occurred once the war had come to a conclusion, despite Trotsky's predictions that Stalinism would not be able to survive the end of the war, and that the war would give rise to new proletarian revolutions throughout Europe. It is disappointing to see socialists calling on workers to give up their lives for the sake of the ruling class just because the bureaucrats waved red flags and sang the Internationale to obscure the bourgeois class structure of the USSR.

It's a lucky thing the Soviet working class didn't share your opinion and closed ranks with the communist party and Stalin and his awful bureaucrat generals to defeat the Nazi scum and save Europe from a Hitlerite dominion. You really believe a rotten bureaucracy could simply have been toppled over, Trotsky welcomed back to the helm and and everything put right without a disastrous weakening of the Soviet Union's capability to defend against imminent fascist aggression? Well, Trotsky would have risked anything for a return to power I guess. I'd also love to see you elaborate on the 'bourgeois class structure' of the Soviet Union in another thread.

[PRC-UTE]

Talking about revisionism, it was the other way around chap. Though I have to say I am not surprised that Trotskyist rather believe and support social-democrats instead of genuine communists

that's it, sin e.

unfortunately most histories comrades read of that period are polemics and not that clued up on the actual concrete facts. the KPD promoted a united front from below, and some of their fighters even protected SPD politicians.

the problem was really that in that environment, the employed workers of the SPD were a bit conservative compared to the communists. they understandably didn't want to lose their employment by going on strike with the communists (they refused the communists requests for a strike to destroy the nazi regime).

I read somewhere that fairly often the transition from social democrat supporter/voter/activist to communist supporter/voter/activist occurred when a comrade was let go and couldnt' get work.

[Devrim]

Does that mean that Trotskyism betrayed and passed over to the other side? In my opinion yes it does, just as the Social Democracy did in 1914.
The difference is that the Second International degenerated for reasons inherent in social-democracy, while the FI degenerated because persecution and its failure in sinking roots in the working class led it to move away from Trotsky's positions.

I would argue that it was a result of reasons inherent in Trotskyism, the caricaturisation of the USSR as a 'workers' state' and the defence of 'workers' states'. These were Trotsky's positions.

Devrim

[benhur]

Another 'exception' is the British genocide in Bengal in 1942, and I'm quite certain we can find enough examples so that your 'exceptions' are no longer that. It's pretty clear that the rationale of "only Germany committed genocide" is ludicrous, irrelevant, and false to anyone taking into account the mass murder of people who are not European, i.e. anyone who isn't a chauvinist.

Some people may argue that British and French empires, despite their flaws, at least improved the lot of the Asians/Africans to some degree by giving them railways, parliamentary democracy, education etc.. This silver lining was missing in the German empire, which seemed to have had one agenda and one agenda only: the total annihilation of what they considered to be the 'inferior races.' So we're forced to choose the lesser of the two evils.

[BobKKKindle$]

Some people may argue that British and French empires, despite their flaws, at least improved the lot of the Asians/Africans to some degree by giving them railways, parliamentary democracy, education etc.Except, people who argue this are either ignorant of how imperialism functions, or are consciously trying to justify British and French imperialism. "They" (by which you presumably mean the workers and peasants of the global south who were oppressed and exploited by the imperialist powers in order to provide an outlet for surplus capital and commodities) were not "given" any of the benefits that you mentioned - the only railways that were ever constructed during the colonial period were used to connect sources of valuable raw materials to the ports, which meant that, once extracted, the mineral wealth of the colonized countries was shipped to the imperialist core where it was often used to produce consumer goods that were then exported back to the colonies in order to be bought by local consumers, thereby undercutting domestic producers, and generating a permanent flow of surplus value back to the imperialist core. The British authorities in India went to so far as to prohibit the manufacture of textile products inside India through the imposition of heavy tariffs on all local producers, so that Indian workers would end up wearing clothes that had been produced in Lancaster with Indian cotton. Similarly, the colonial authorities did not provide education, because this would have involved spending valuable resources on a colonized population that, for the imperialists, possessed no value beyond their role as workers and consumers. The small number of individuals who did manage to get a degree were almost universally from privileged backgrounds and obtained an education only by traveling to the imperialist countries and studying at universities dominated by whites, because the colonized countries had been denied the ability to develop their own education systems based on what would have been appropriate for the people of those countries. The fact that you feel capable of asserting that these benefits were provided - presumably because the civilized and rational white people were benevolent and felt the need to help the poor brown people who were obviously too rooted in tradition and therefore unable to help themselves - just affirms your orientalist prejudices, and demonstrates that you have no knowledge of colonial history. In 1877, when large areas of India, specifically Bengal, experienced drought and crop failure, the British, in the form of Lord Lytton, appointed to manage India by Queen Victoria, refused to stockpile foodstuffs in preparation for what would clearly be a terrible famine unless precautions were taken because doing so would have interfered with market forces and led to a decline in the profits of the companies that were involved in the production and sale of agricultural goods in India at that time, and as a result of this millions of peasants (5.5 million is the generally accepted estimate) starved to death or died from diseases associated with famine because the prices of basic foodstuffs increased beyond what most peasants were able to afford with their limited incomes, and those who were able to survive only did so by borrowing money, forcing the survivors into even greater economic dependency [1]. Do you think this constitutes benevolent treatment, behur? The global south is not a natural or necessary part of the world economy, it was created by starving millions of people to death in the interests of profit and political domination, and, whether you like it or not, the countries that now comprise the imperialist bloc benefited from this process of underdevelopment, because the profits extracted from the periphery were invested in the development of domestic industry and infrastructure, eventually creating a higher living standard for the workers of these imperialist countries. It's not about picking the better imperialist power, it's about supporting the workers and peasants of oppressed nations in their struggle for liberation, and that means opposing all imperialist powers, and not calling on workers to support the country which oppresses and exploits them during an inter-imperialist conflict.

[1] Source: Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis

You really are just an ignorant and chauvinist white supremacist, aren't you?

[Pogue]

Except, people who argue this are either ignorant of how imperialism functions, or are consciously trying to justify British and French imperialism. "They" (by which you presumably mean the workers and peasants of the global south who were oppressed and exploited by the imperialist powers in order to provide an outlet for surplus capital and commodities) were not "given" any of the benefits that you mentioned - the only railways that were ever constructed during the colonial period were used to connect sources of valuable raw materials to the ports, which meant that, once extracted, the mineral wealth of the colonized countries was shipped to the imperialist core where it was often used to produce consumer goods that were then exported back to the colonies in order to be bought by local consumers, thereby undercutting domestic producers, and generating a permanent flow of surplus value back to the imperialist core. The British authorities in India went to so far as to prohibit the manufacture of textile products inside India through the imposition of heavy tariffs on all local producers, so that Indian workers would end up wearing clothes that had been produced in Lancaster with Indian cotton. Similarly, the colonial authorities did not provide education, because this would have involved spending valuable resources on a colonized population that, for the imperialists, possessed no value beyond their role as workers and consumers. The small number of individuals who did manage to get a degree were almost universally from privileged backgrounds and obtained an education only by traveling to the imperialist countries and studying at universities dominated by whites, because the colonized countries had been denied the ability to develop their own education systems based on what would have been appropriate for the people of those countries. The fact that you feel capable of asserting that these benefits were provided - presumably because the civilized and rational white people were benevolent and felt the need to help the poor brown people who were obviously too rooted in tradition and therefore unable to help themselves - just affirms your orientalist prejudices, and demonstrates that you have no knowledge of colonial history. In 1877, when large areas of India, specifically Bengal, experienced drought and crop failure, the British, in the form of Lord Lytton, appointed to manage India by Queen Victoria, refused to stockpile foodstuffs in preperation for what would clearly be a terrible famine unless precautions were taken because doing so would have interfered with market forces and led to a decline in the profits of the companies that were involved in the production and sale of agricultural goods in India at that time, and as a result of this millions of peasants (5.5 million is the generally accepted estimate) starved to death or died from diseases assocaited with famine because the prices of basic foodstuffs increased beyond what most peasants were able to afford with their limited incomes, and those who were able to survive only did so by borrowing money, forcing the survivors into even greater economic dependency. Do you think this constitutes benevolent treatment, behur?

[Source: Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis]

1. Use the enter key, seperate your text.

2. Stop using arguments which solely consist of using the race card and accusing anyone who disagrees with you as racist.

The natural product of your elitist education is your spiteful, insulting and arogant demeanor which is contemptful. Typical child of the ruling class.

[BobKKKindle$]

The natural product of your elitist education is your spiteful, insulting and arogant demeanor which is contemptful. Typical child of the ruling class.No, if I were a child of the ruling class, I would make misinformed arguments that reflect my class interests and poor knowledge of the history of capitalist development, by claiming that imperialism isn't important (does that sound familiar to you?) or that British imperialism brought benefits to colonized populations. I don't do any of those things, because I'm not a child of the ruling class, and I give my full support to all struggles against imperialism, because I object to the suffering and oppression of most of the world's population, and want to see workers and peasants of the global south cast off their chains. When someone claims that imperialism was in any way beneficial for the working people of the colonized world, that is racist, because it is entirely consistent with the orientalist myths that have been promoted to obscure the real motives that drove imperialist expansion, and includes the notion that non-whites are too stupid to rule themselves and therefore need the civilized governments of Europe to intervene and rid them of their superstitions and irrationalities.

And, once again, you don't know anything about my class background. I do attend university, and I'm on a bursary, because I'm an international student, and the UK government doesn't think we should be able to pay the same amounts as home students, and my family can't afford to pay the ridiculous fees we get charged without help from the university. You appeal to this idea that my arguments are based on privilege, because I'm right, and I know what I'm talking about when it comes to imperialism, and you can't give a decent response. I have absolute contempt for people like you and benhur, because you can't accept that you're wrong, and you have terrible politics.

[Pogue]

No, if I were a child of the ruling class, I would make misinformed arguments that reflect my class interests and poor knowledge of the history of capitalist development, by claiming that imperialism isn't important (does that sound familiar to you?) or that British imperialism brought benefits to colonized populations. I don't do any of those things, because I'm not a child of the ruling class, and I give my full support to all struggles against imperialism, because I object to the suffering and oppression of most of the world's population, and want to see workers and peasants of the global south cast off their chains. When someone claims that imperialism was in any way beneficial for the working people of the colonized world, that is racist, because it is entirely consistent with the orientalist myths that have been promoted to obscure the real motives that drove imperialist expansion, and includes the notion that non-whites are too stupid to rule themselves and therefore need the civilized governments of Europe to intervene and rid them of their superstitions and irrationalities.

And, once again, you don't know anything about my class background. I do attend university, and I'm on a bursary, because I'm an international student, and the UK government doesn't think we should be able to pay the same amounts as home students, and my family can't afford to pay the ridiculous fees we get charged without help from the university. You appeal to this idea that my arguments are based on privilege, because I'm right, and I know what I'm talking about when it comes to imperialism, and you can't give a decent response. I have absolute contempt for people like you and benhur, because you can't accept that you're wrong, and you have terrible politics.

yes, politics which call for united international working class action against racism and capitalism are stupid politics, if you're a spoilt member of the soon-to-be bourgeois intelligentsia

bollocks that you want to see the globla south lose its chains, you just fetishise supporting struggles which make you seem counter-culture. I support workers of the world so I don't call for them to put their faith in so called national liberation organisations which have repeatedly fuckd them over and re-introduced a bourgeois state in place of an old one.

your politics are stupid and the sort that james connolly, someone you'd hold up as a hero, argued against.

[BobKKKindle$]

HLVS, all of these arguments have been dealt with before. The idea that workers in Palestine or any other oppressed nation are going to respond to the "calls" of socialists living in imperialist countries is absurd - whether 'Socialist Worker' supports the resistance (which, for the last time, is not the same as supporting nationalism, or encouraging workers to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the ruling class) is not going to have any impact whatsoever on the actions of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. Palestinian workers resist because resistance is the only way they can fight back against the military manifestation of Israeli imperialism - and history teaches us that resistance to imperialism is not a symbolic gesture, and the people who are engaged in these resistance movements are not there because they have been brainwashed by reactionary organizations and are therefore incapable of grasping what is in their own best interests, they are there because imperialism represents the single biggest obstacle to their liberation. It's all very well to say that people in the imperialist countries are doing a job of raising awareness, or that we will eventually be able to defeat imperialism when all the workers around the world join hands and proclaim the socialist revolution, but imperialism does not listen to the suffering of oppressed populations, and it does not respond to negotiation and calls for compromise - it responds to oppressed workers taking up arms.

You, of course, don't think that imperialism is important, so why should any of this matter?

[Pogue]

HLVS, all of these arguments have been dealt with before. The idea that workers in Palestine or any other oppressed nation are going to respond to the "calls" of socialists living in imperialist countries is absurd - whether 'Socialist Worker' supports the resistance (which, for the last time, is not the same as supporting nationalism, or encouraging workers to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the ruling class) is not going to have any impact whatsoever on the actions of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. Palestinian workers resist because resistance is the only way they can fight back against the military manifestation of Israeli imperialism - and history teaches us that resistance to imperialism is not a symbolic gesture, and the people who are engaged in these resistance movements are not there because they have been brainwashed by reactionary organizations and are therefore incapable pf grasping what is in their own best interests, they are there because imperialism represents the single biggest obstacle to their liberation.

You, of course, don't think that imperialism is important, so why should any of this matter?

Simply put, national liberation struggles have never led to socialism, and have always led to another bourgeois state. SWP supports Hamas, encourages people to support Hamas, etc. Thats supporting an anti-working class organisaiton, pretty shit politics for a socialist to be honest.

You see opposition to imperialism as seperate from capitalism, just as Hamas do, Fucking stupid point of view, put simply.

[BobKKKindle$]

SWP supports Hamas, encourages people to support Hamas, etc. Thats supporting an anti-working class organisaiton, pretty shit politics for a socialist to be honest.This is yet another case of you trying to create a silly position and then claiming that your opponent supports that position. The SWP does not support Hamas. We regret the fact that the resistance in Gaza is not being led by a socialist organization that also calls for gender equality and the overthrow of capitalism in addition to fighting against the Israeli state, and we support all efforts to create such an organization, despite the obstacles revolutionaries living in Gaza are forced to deal with. However, none of this changes the fact that Hamas currently occupies a leadership role, and is respected by the Palestinian working class as the only organization that is willing to refuse compromises with Israeli and maintain active military resistance against the aggression of the IDF. This means that any revolutionary party that eventually wants to take the place of Hamas and lead Palestinian workers in the struggle against capitalism, including the national ruling class, will need to fight alongside Hamas, and be part of the resistance, because a party's ability to develop a support base and engage with the concerns of workers will depend on whether it is willing and able to resist Israel, given that the IDF is, as noted above, and as stated many times before in previous discussions, the single biggest threat to the liberation and basic rights of Palestinians, above things like trade union rights, and the legal status of abortion, and any of the other issues socialists would otherwise pursue.


You see opposition to imperialism as seperate from capitalism, just as Hamas do, Fucking stupid point of view, put simply.

Needless to say, this isn't true, but I'm confused - you don't think imperialism is important, so how does this fit with your own politics?

[Pogue]

This is yet another case of you trying to create a silly position and then claiming that your opponent supports that position. The SWP does not support Hamas. We regret the fact that the resistance in Gaza is not being led by a socialist organization that also calls for gender equality and the overthrow of capitalism in addition to fighting against the Israeli state, and we support all efforts to create such an organization, despite the obstacles revolutionaries living in Gaza are forced to deal with. However, none of this changes the fact that Hamas currently occupies a leadership role, and is respected by the Palestinian working class as the only organization that is willing to refuse compromises with Israeli and maintain active military resistance against the aggression of the IDF. This means that any revolutionary party that eventually wants to take the place of Hamas and lead Palestinian workers in the struggle against capitalism, including the national ruling class, will need to fight alongside Hamas, and be part of the resistance, because a party's ability to develop a support base and engage with the concerns of workers will depend on whether it is willing and able to resist Israel, given that the IDF is, as noted above, and as stated many times before in previous discussions, the single biggest threat to the liberation and basic rights of Palestinians, above things like trade union rights, and the legal status of abortion, and any of the other issues socialists would otherwise pursue.



Needless to say, this isn't true, but I'm confused - you don't think imperialism is important, so how does this fit with your own politics?

I don't see how Hamas being in power would result in any form of liberation for the working class. Just look at other nations which struggled against Imperialism only to create a situation of same shit, different arsehole.

But then again I don't really blame you for your politics, its much easier and romantic to cry out about how ignorant everyone else is in ahod we need to support anyone who points a gun at imperialists regardless of their motivaitons than to engage in real working class politics or actually do something like stand on a picket line

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't see how Hamas being in power would result in any form of liberation for the working class. Just look at other nations which struggled against Imperialism only to create a situation of same shit, different arsehole.The fact that Hamas exists and is resisting the IDF is obviously advantageous for the working class, because otherwise Hamas would not have been elected with more than sixty percent of the vote in the 2006 election, against the traditional leaders of the secular resistance movement, Fatah, and Hamas would not command a mass support base despite the high casualties sustained during the most recent Israeli invasion and its persistent attempts to repress dissent in Gaza. On the question of Hamas coming to power, Hamas is already in power in the Gaza Strip because it won the election and Fatah has since been forced out, although there are ongoing talks that may result in the creation of a unity government, in which case we would expect to see Hamas being forced to make compromises with Israel in order to maintain good relations with Fatah, which now functions as a tool of Israeli domination in the West Bank due to its acceptance of the two-state solution, which signifies a rejection of the rights of refugees expelled during the 1948 Naqba. In the unlikely event that Hamas ever manages to defeat Israel militarily and conquer the whole of what is currently Israel - this is highly unlikely due to the role of neighboring countries in supporting the oppression of Palestinians and the overwhelming military strength of Israel - but if we assume for a moment that this does occur, then this would unleash the revolutionary potential of the working class, as, in situations of national oppression, the struggle between oppressor and oppressed nations tend to act as a unifying force within the nation that is being oppressed, diminishing the importance of class antagonisms, with the national struggle overlaying all other struggles, as the dominance of the oppressor nation is the most immediate source of pain for the oppressed population, and therefore the focal point of political action in the form of anti-imperialist struggle, such that, once the national question has been resolved, the fetters on class struggle are also removed, creating a basis for the development of class consciousness and open antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat.

Once again, though, why do you care, given that you don't think imperialism is important?

[Pogue]

The fact that Hamas exists and is resisting the IDF is obviously advantageous for the working class, because otherwise Hamas would not have been elected with more than sixty percent of the vote in the 2006 election, against the traditional leaders of the secular resistance movement, Fatah, and Hamas would not command a mass support base despite the high casualties sustained during the most recent Israeli invasion and its persistent attempts to repress dissent in Gaza. On the question of Hamas coming to power, Hamas is already in power in the Gaza Strip because it won the election and Fatah has since been forced out, although there are ongoing talks that may result in the creation of a unity government, in which case we would expect to see Hamas being forced to make compromises with Israel in order to maintain good relations with Fatah, which now functions as a tool of Israeli domination in the West Bank due to its acceptance of the two-state solution, which signifies a rejection of the rights of refugees expelled during the 1948 Naqba. In the unlikely event that Hamas ever manages to defeat Israel militarily and conquer the whole of what is currently Israel - this is highly unlikely due to the role of neighboring countries in supporting the oppression of Palestinians and the overwhelming military strength of Israel - but if we assume for a moment that this does occur, then this would unleash the revolutionary potential of the working class, as, in situations of national oppression, the struggle between oppressor and oppressed nations tend to act as a unifying force within the nation that is being oppressed, diminishing the importance of class antagonisms, with the national struggle overlaying all other struggles, as the dominance of the oppressor nation is the most immediate source of pain for the oppressed population, and therefore the focal point of political action in the form of anti-imperialist struggle, such that, once the national question has been resolved, the fetters on class struggle are also removed, creating a basis for the development of class consciousness and open antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat.

Once again, though, why do you care, given that you don't think imperialism is important?

Why go through the bullshit nationalist stage? We know it always creates governments as bad as the ones before. Just like in Ireland, Zimbabwe, etc. It doesn't advance class struggle one bit.

Thats why I don't see it as important in its right. Its part of capitalism. We abolish the Israeli state just as we abolish every other state.

Hamas was elected by working people, Hamas has attacked working people. Thats what elected bourgoies groups do. Thus we destroy Hamas, as well as the Israeli state.

[ComradeOm]

The PCF was a mass party but only because it commanded the support of a large section of the proletariat - it was not a vanguard party, as its praxis demonstrated its reactionary orientation, and in this respect it was similar to the German SPD, and the contemporary Labour party in BritainI'm at the stage where these days I'm interested, although not necessarily supportive of, on any workers party (of which Labour has never been; the history of the SPD being more complex) that succeeds in the critical task of building a mass following. This is the hurdle that much more 'pure' or 'revolutionary' parties have continually fallen at - for example, name one French Trot or Maoist party that has commanded even a fraction of the PCF's early support (ie, 1930s-1940s). Its impossible, regardless of the validity of various theories/analyses, for a vanguard party to emerge when it does not enjoy a mass following. Now there is a question that warrants further investigation


This event actually occurred in the 1900s, and so you seem to be suggesting that the prospect of extermination and brutal treatment under German imperialism had nothing to do with the fact that the Nazis were in power, and presumably lies in some other factor that also existed during this time period. If we accept the assertion that the German propensity to commit acts of genocide against the people of other continents during the race to acquire colonial possessions was in some way unique or at least worse than that of the other imperialist powers, including Britain, not withstanding the evidence to the contrary, then surely the logic implication of this, given that you see the prospect of worse treatment under a given imperialist power as sufficient justification to support a rival state in a military confrontation, would be to have supported the British and the French bourgeoisies during WW1 as well as WW2, given that, according to you, had the Germany succeeded in WW1, the peoples of oppressed nations would have suffered as a result?Of course not. Whatever my suspicions that there lurked a deeply malevolent strain of racial superiority within the ruling class of Imperial Germany, they remain that - suspicions. I have at no point suggested that the Second Reich was itself a state fundamentally committed to genocide (despite obviously being no obstacle to such) although had it possessed further colonies, and thus was in a position to perpetrate further atrocities in the vein of systematic campaigns of genocide, I might have been forced to revisit that opinion. As it is, it took the emergence of the Third Reich to give full reign to the various demons that had long been nurtured by the German intelligentsia

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm at the stage where these days I'm interested, although not necessarily supportive of, on any workers party (of which Labour has never been; the history of the SPD being more complex that succeeds in the critical task of building a mass following. This is the hurdle that much more 'pure' or 'revolutionary' parties have continually fallen at

What about the USPD, then? My polemics regarding the SPD as a vanguard party are meant primarily as "bending the stick in the other direction" against the "pure" and "revolutionary" parties of which you speak. The medium, of course, is the USPD, without the ultra-right economistic scabs (Bernstein and his ilk being the "center-right" of the workers' movement).

[benhur]

Paragraphs, please!:mad:


Except, people who argue this are either ignorant of how imperialism functions, or are consciously trying to justify British and French imperialism.


Nobody's suggesting that the imperialists were angels. But for practical purposes, we have to make some distinctions. The nazis were determined to wipe out certain ethnic groups, not so with the British or French imperialists. It's not like BE 'created' famines in India to commit genocide against inferior, native populations, it;s not like they had labor camps and gas chambers. That's the difference between murder and accident. In the former, there's a malicious intent to do harm, to do away with people; whereas, in the latter, things go wrong due to policy failure.

[Cumannach]

Paragraphs, please!:mad:



Nobody's suggesting that the imperialists were angels. But for practical purposes, we have to make some distinctions. The nazis were determined to wipe out certain ethnic groups, not so with the British or French imperialists. It's not like BE 'created' famines in India to commit genocide against inferior, native populations, it;s not like they had labor camps and gas chambers. That's the difference between murder and accident. In the former, there's a malicious intent to do harm, to do away with people; whereas, in the latter, things go wrong due to policy failure.

No, I wouldn't say that. There usually was no specific intent by, the British for example, to liquidate an ethnic group for the sake of it. But if such genocide was an unavoidable consequence of super exploitation and profiteering, including economic policies that allowed for these, then there was no hesitation about thus precipitating an 'unintentional' genocide. The moral difference is practically non existant in my personal opinion. Millions dead for the sake of free market profiteering or racial ideology, not much of a difference.

My point is, they knew full well that their policies would very likely lead to mass Famines, but didn't care, as long as the profits kept raking in.

[BobKKKindle$]

Why go through the bullshit nationalist stage? We know it always creates governments as bad as the ones before. Just like in Ireland, Zimbabwe, etc. It doesn't advance class struggle one bit.It's not about supporting a nationalist "stage", it's about being sensitive to the relationship between imperialism and class consciousness. The local ruling class exists in nations that are being oppressed and exploited by imperialism but this class is generally not the focus of struggle for the proletariat, because it not the key source of oppression - at the current time, the IDF represents a more oppressive entity for Palestinian workers than Hamas or any other nationalist organization because, despite the fact that these organizations are oppressive when they repress strikes and shut down schools, and will eventually have to be overcome, the IDF is responsible for killing children and destroying communities because it needs to use violence in order to maintain the position of Israel and discourage resistance. In fact, the balance of class forces within Palestine is even more irrelevant than in other cases of national oppression because more than eighty percent of the working population is unemployed with no immediate prospect of gaining stable employment, due to the economic sanctions imposed by Israel with the support of the EU and the US, whereby the government is not allowed to receive foreign aid on the grounds that Gaza is being controlled by a terrorist organization in the form of Hamas, and most of those that are employed are payed by the government, which complicates the class interests of these workers as they are dependent on Hamas being in power to retain their relatively privileged position. It is perfectly rational, given this situation, that workers should put aside struggle against the local ruling class, and ally with hostile class forces in order to confront and resist the IDF, and because of this, it is unreasonable and even naive to expect Palestinian workers to simply forget about the threat posed by the IDF and to plan for socialist revolution against the incredibly weak local ruling class without first resolving the national question. There are numerous historical examples of class struggle becoming more intense after national independence once workers realize that merely having an independent country and a ruling class that uses nationalist slogans does not allow for the effective resolution of economic and political grievances, such as poverty and a lack of political autonomy, especially when post-independence governments prove themselves to be just as reprehensible as the rule of the imperialists through acts of political oppression, often leading to a division within the nationalist movement whereby the section led by the bourgeoisie makes a compromise with the imperialist ruling class in order to prevent the movement from seeking to push anti-imperialism to its ultimate conclusion - the abolition of capitalism, conducted through international class struggle. This dynamic was complicated somewhat in the post-war era by the fact that workers were often led by Stalinist parties that were often all too happy to follow the lead of the bourgeoisie in favour of post independence "national unity", thereby betraying the proletariat. However, the division between the Irish Free State and the Republicans following the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922 is an important case study here.


But for practical purposes, we have to make some distinctions. The nazis were determined to wipe out certain ethnic groups, not so with the British or French imperialists.What fundamental difference does it make if one worker is being gassed to death, and another is dying of starvation? The point is that no imperialist nation ever has any humanitarian concern for the nations it oppresses, as the entire point of imperialism is to exploit other nations through the extraction of surplus value and the export of commodities, not to bring development or liberation to the working population. This is why we never encourage workers and peasants to fight on behalf of the nation that oppresses them, but call for worldwide struggle against imperialism. It's probably quite hard for you to understand, as an apologist for imperialism, especially in its Zionist form.

[Das war einmal]

As for the line that it was wrong to suggest overthrowing the Stalinist regime because of the war, it is quite obvious that Trotsky advocated that (or, more to the point, would've advocated it if he had lived during Operation Barbarossa) exactly because he did not trust the Stalinist regime to conduct the war effectively and expected it to actually capitulate to Nazism. Trotsky did not understand that the USSR was already state capitalist when he died, but in essence he was correct - the policy of the Stalinist ruling class led to disasters which could've easily been averted if it wasn't for Stalin's opportunist attitude towards Hitler.

Oh yeah? And what 'disasters' are we talking about? Purging those who wanted to stage a military coup? Rapidly industrializing the USSR? What do you mean with Stalin's 'opportunist' attitude towards Hitler? Can you even name one thing? If you mean the Molotov- von Ribbentrop pact than you're sadly mistaken: this agreement gave the USSR the valuable time to prepare defenses for the nazi invasion.

People here should be more appreciative of the USSR in war-time, there's no USSR to defeat fascism nowadays.

[BobKKKindle$]

Oh yeah? And what 'disasters' are we talking about?Trotsky did argue from the perspective of what would best allow the USSR to defend itself. This was ultimately the wrong position, because the USSR was a state-capitalist imperialist power, and not a workers state as Trotsky argued at the time, and so the correct position would have been to adopt a revolutionary defeatist stance and call on the Soviet working class to turn the inter-imperialist war into a civil war, directed against the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, and involving the proletarians of other participating imperialist powers, such as Germany and Britain. However, from a military perspective, Trotsky pointed to the fact that the Soviet government had allowed Hitler to gain power by prevent the KPD from entering into a united front with the SPD through the promotion of the "social-fascist" position, and, during the war, the regime refused to arm the working class, as this would have posed a threat to the position of the bureaucracy once the war had come to an end, despite the fact that this would also have been the most effective way to fight against the invading German forces, especially in areas that had already fallen under Nazi control. The same argument is applicable to Cuba, with greater importance, because Trotskyists would support the defense of Cuba regardless of whether we see it as a workers state, because all Trotskyists agree that Cuba is oppressed by imperialism. The best way to defend Cuba would be to distribute arms to the workers and to establish genuinely democratic control of the means of production, but the bureaucracy would never be willing to do any of these things, because its privileged position depends on its ability to exercise economic and political control over the rest of the population, and would be compromised if such sweeping changes were implemented.

[Das war einmal]

I'll just ignore your twitter about 'state-capitalist imperialist power', although the claim that WW2 was inter-imperialist is a big fat lie, I'll just go straight to this point


Trotsky pointed to the fact that the Soviet government had allowed Hitler to gain power by prevent the KPD from entering into a united front with the SPD through the promotion of the "social-fascist" position, and, during the war, the regime refused to arm the working class, as this would have posed a threat to the position of the bureaucracy once the war had come to an end, despite the fact that this would also have been the most effective way to fight against the invading German forces, especially in areas that had already fallen under Nazi control

So Trotsky argued that the USSR government prevented the KPD from entering the 'united front', he thereby totally ignored the fact that the SPD wasnt interested at all in joining forces with the KPD but instead looked to join with the liberals and thereby going even further with their revisionism.

Than your second point; arming the civilians. If I'm right nearly every man and women capable of fighting was serving as a conscript in the red army or working in the factory or the land to sustain the war-time economy. Besides that the Soviets armed partizans throughout Europe, so I'm wondering who is left out? I hope you can understand that its not wise to blindly give away weapons. The Soviet army had enough problems with untrained conscripts who did not know how to effectively fire a weapon, let alone more advanced material.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'll just ignore your twitter about 'state-capitalist imperialist power', although the claim that WW2 was inter-imperialist is a big fat lie, I'll just go straight to this pointYou may not agree with the state-capitalist analysis, but how can you dispute the idea that WW2 was a war between imperialist powers? You obviously don't think that the USSR was imperialist, but Britain was, and so was Germany and all the other major participants, and therefore it would appear obvious that the war was fundamentally a conflict intended to change the distribution of the world's resources and markets, as the only way for the international ruling class to resolve the crisis of profitability that had arisen during the preceding depression.


So Trotsky argued that the USSR government prevented the KPD from entering the 'united front', he thereby totally ignored the fact that the SPD wasnt interested at all in joining forces with the KPD but instead looked to join with the liberals and thereby going even further with their revisionism.As someone already pointed out earlier in this thread, even if what you argue is true, by exposing the SPD as unwilling to enter into a united front, the KPD would have been able to win over a large section of the SPD's support base and assume the position of the proletarian vanguard, capable of independently defeating fascism through proletarian revolution, whereas previously the political allegiance of the working class had been split between the SPD and the KPD. Also, it's strange that you see the KPD as having maintained a principled position by refusing to enter into an alliance with a revisionist organization, because the PCE did the exact opposite only a few years later during the Spanish Civil War, by calling for the social revolution to be postponed until fascism had been defeated on the battlefield, and supporting efforts to construct a Popular Front government involving bourgeois republicans as well as more radical forces.

[Vargha Poralli]

Just to add to Bobkindl's post this link gives a chronological order of events from the failure of the German revoltion to the acension of hitler and Trotsky's view on each stages.

Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/index.htm)

[Cumannach]

You may not agree with the state-capitalist analysis, but how can you dispute the idea that WW2 was a war between imperialist powers? You obviously don't think that the USSR was imperialist, but Britain was, and so was Germany and all the other major participants, and therefore it would appear obvious that the war was fundamentally a conflict intended to change the distribution of the world's resources and markets, as the only way for the international ruling class to resolve the crisis of profitability that had arisen during the preceding depression.


In Europe, it could easily have become a war between the european bourgeoisie and their friends the Nazis on the one side and the Soviet Union on the other side. Thanks in large part to the brilliant machinations of the Soviet leaders, this didn't come about, and the Anglo-French were forced into an alliance with the Soviets. The greater part of the war was the war between the Nazis and the Soviet Union. An inter-imperialist war would have been a war between imperialist nations vying for new territory, colonies and markets. In the event, it was a war between the Socialist Soviet Union, which had no desire for colonies or markets, or at the outset, even the territory that had been annexed from it 20 years earlier, and the Imperialist Germans who wanted to destroy the Soviet Union and make a colony out of it, among other things. The limited warfare between the Anglo-French and the Germans was the only inter-imperialist part of the war, a relatively small part.

[Random Precision]

In Europe, it could easily have become a war between the european bourgeoisie and their friends the Nazis on the one side and the Soviet Union on the other side. Thanks in large part to the brilliant machinations of the Soviet leaders, this didn't come about, and the Anglo-French were forced into an alliance with the Soviets. The greater part of the war was the war between the Nazis and the Soviet Union. An inter-imperialist war would have been a war between imperialist nations vying for new territory, colonies and markets. In the event, it was a war between the Socialist Soviet Union, which had no desire for colonies or markets, or at the outset, even the territory that had been annexed from it 20 years earlier, and the Imperialist Germans who wanted to destroy the Soviet Union and make a colony out of it, among other things. The limited warfare between the Anglo-French and the Germans was the only inter-imperialist part of the war, a relatively small part.

"Brilliant machinations" has to be one of the best phrases I've ever encountered on this board. But I digress.

The best you can argue is that the Eastern front of the war in Europe, that between Germany and the Soviet Union, was a war of liberation. But, the war is not called "The Second European War" in history books for a reason.

The Pacific theater, fought between the United States and Japan, was an inter-imperialist conflict. As was the war in Southeastern Asia, fought between Britain/France and Japan. As was the war in Northern Africa, fought between Britain/France/United States and Germany. And that's to say nothing of the "limited warfare" that took place on the western front in Europe.

Therefore, I repeat my original question: how was it right for the Soviet Union and Communist Parties to call on American workers to fight for their bourgeoisie against Japan, for Algerian workers to fight for France against Germany, for Indian workers to fight for Britain against Japan?

[Das war einmal]

WW1 was an inter-imperialist war. WW2 was far worse, the ultimate goal of fascism was to annihilate the progressive workers movement and provide a final solution for class struggle. The western front was in no way as important as the eastern front and the Red Army defeated over 80% of the nazi forces at a terrible cost.

[Das war einmal]

There is no way you can blame the USSR or the KPD for the rise of Hitler. The terror exercised by the Freikorps and later the Sturmabteilung is not to be underestimated, as is the support the nazi party got by the capitalist corporations.

[Cumannach]

Therefore, I repeat my original question: how was it right for the Soviet Union and Communist Parties to call on American workers to fight for their bourgeoisie against Japan, for Algerian workers to fight for France against Germany, for Indian workers to fight for Britain against Japan?

Easy, the Soviet Union needed all the help it could get to crush the Nazis and their allies, which was anyway in the interests of the world proletariat.

[Random Precision]

Easy, the Soviet Union needed all the help it could get to crush the Nazis and their allies, which was anyway in the interests of the world proletariat.

So you're subordinating the immediate needs of the global working class to the Soviet national interest. This does not surprise me. Nevertheless, I I'll put it in sentences you can understand:

Defeating fascism was not a priority in North America, Asia or the Pacific, nor in Africa or the Middle East.

Calling on the workers living in those places to fight fascism in another place, is to call on them to fight for their own ruling class.

Their ruling classes only fought fascism to preserve or extend their own imperial interests.

Therefore, fighting fascism meant fighting for the imperial interests of the ruling class, for workers in those places.

Therefore, American workers fought to replace a Japanese empire with an American empire, Indian workers fought to maintain British dominance over their own country, etc. etc.

[Das war einmal]

So you're subordinating the immediate needs of the global working class to the Soviet national interest. .

Eh no? The defeat of fascism was essential for the global working class and had nothing to do with soviet 'national interest'

[Cumannach]

So you're subordinating the immediate needs of the global working class to the Soviet national interest. This does not surprise me. Nevertheless, I I'll put it in sentences you can understand:

Defeating fascism was not a priority in North America, Asia or the Pacific, nor in Africa or the Middle East.

Calling on the workers living in those places to fight fascism in another place, is to call on them to fight for their own ruling class.

Their ruling classes only fought fascism to preserve or extend their own imperial interests.

Therefore, fighting fascism meant fighting for the imperial interests of the ruling class, for workers in those places.

Therefore, American workers fought to replace a Japanese empire with an American empire, Indian workers fought to maintain British dominance over their own country, etc. etc.

The Japanese were allied to Nazi Germany, which was bent on world domination. Moreover they were at war with the Socialist Soviet Union, which needed all the support of the world proletariat to defeat Hitler. Had the Soviet Union been crushed, it would not have been able to aid and support the Chinese Revolution, the Korean Revolution, the Vietnamese, etc. I think it was a pretty straightforward decision for the communists worldwide what to do during the few crucial years of world war. There wasn't going to be a revolution in the early 40's all over the world if the communist parties hadn't given themselves to supporting the anti-fascist war effort.

The Soviet 'National interest', although the SU was made up of many Nationalities, was the interest of the soviet proletariat, who were in power there.

[Pogue]

The Japanese were allied to Nazi Germany, which was bent on world domination. Moreover they were at war with the Socialist Soviet Union, which needed all the support of the world proletariat to defeat Hitler. Had the Soviet Union been crushed, it would not have been able to aid and support the Chinese Revolution, the Korean Revolution, the Vietnamese, etc. I think it was a pretty straightforward decision for the communists worldwide what to do during the few crucial years of world war. There wasn't going to be a revolution in the early 40's all over the world if the communist parties hadn't given themselves to supporting the anti-fascist war effort.

The Soviet 'National interest', although the SU was made up of many Nationalities, was the interest of the soviet proletariat, who were in power there.

Last time I checked it was Stalin who was in power over there. What ridiculous history books do you read?

[Cumannach]

I have an usual taste for evidence-based history books. But hey we all have our eccentricities.