on national liberation vs worker revolution

[redSHARP]

my pakistani friend and me got into a debate (he was a social democrat, i of course being left of him). we were discussing the middle east and Palestine/Israel.

he stated that palestine can only be free through national liberation by palestinian groups. further more, he noted that the israelis are oppresssors who exploit the palestinain people.

i asked him, arent both sides exploited by warhawks? and isnt this conflict being fought by soldiers from the working class? why should they fight each other, when they could fight there oppressors?


my question is, is it better to have national liberation first, then a marxist revolution, or skip the first step and go straight to a marxist revolution (remove marxist and add anarchist for those who apply)? especially in the case of palestine.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Get real. Israelis are literally subsidized, through the oppression of indigenous Palestinians. For instance, and Israeli can get government subsidized housing in settlements outside of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

I don't think it's a matter of 'better' or not, it a matter of strategy. Israelis by in large support the Israeli state. Relying on their support is not part of a realistic strategy in the struggle for Palestinian liberation.

[scarletghoul]

i asked him, arent both sides exploited by warhawks?
thats kinda wrong. i mean the palestinians are being killed and brutalised, so its not really warhawkism for them to defend themselves. thats like saying the partisans in world war 2 were warhawks

[scarletghoul]

my question is, is it better to have national liberation first, then a marxist revolution, or skip the first step and go straight to a marxist revolution (remove marxist and add anarchist for those who apply)?
Well yeah lol of course it would be better to just have a workers revolution now but that is not going to happen. So the question is wrong. the question should be is it possible to have a workers revolution while palestine is still under israeli occupation and attack, and the answer is no. well maybe its possible but highly unlikely.
Hamas isnt very good but palestinian national liberation is overall a good cause. theres not gonna be any proletarian revolution when theyre still under israeli occupation, so national liberation is necessary as a first step

[Niccolò Rossi]

i mean the palestinians are being killed and brutalised, so its not really warhawkism for them to defend themselves.

Since when has HAMAS been the in (self) defence of the Palestinian people (let alone the Palestinian working class)? I think it's fairly obvious that the interests of HAMAS are not those of the working class or the Palestinian peoples who butchery it has been implicit in.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Well, they are the democratically elected representatives of the oppressed, state-less Palestinian people.

[BobKKKindle$]

Since when has HAMAS been the in (self) defence of the Palestinian people (let alone the Palestinian working class)?We can all agree that Hamas is not a revolutionary party, and the overthrow of capitalism in Palestine and throughout the Middle East will inevitably involve challenging Islamist organizations that currently draw their support from the proletariat, and frequently promote all sorts of misogynistic and homophobic ideas. This much we can agree on. However, the fact of the matter is that Hamas cannot be understood simply as an organization that reflects the interests of the local bourgeoisie and plays workers off against each other to enhance its own interests. This kind of understanding ignores the fact that during the age of imperialism it is actually impossible for the bourgeoisie to lead a successful struggle against national domination (even in the sense of gaining political independence, which is obviously not the same as being independent from economic coercion and the capitalist world-system - that can only come about through international socialist revolution) because the ruling class recognizes that doing so would lead to the proletariat becoming more confident in its own abilities and ultimately seeking to further its own goals at the expense of the bourgeoisie. For this reason we find that national liberation movements have historically been led by the petty-bourgeoisie whilst the bourgeoisie has affiliated itself with an imperialist power, as Trotsky understood in his theory of permanent revolution. What then does this mean for Hamas and the class interests of the proletariat? An empirical fact that cannot be denied is that Hamas does command mass support. This is why Hamas was able to win a significant majority in the elections for the PA, and has been able to maintain support over a long period of time. We are therefore faced with the need to explain why it is that Hamas continues to receive this support from workers despite its repeated attacks on trade unions and its reactionary attitude towards oppressed groups such as women. It seems that the Left-Communist response to this issue is to assert that the only reason workers would ever support Hamas is because they are completely blind of where their real interests lie and have effectively been brainwashed into thinking that what Hamas is doing is actually in their own interests when it is not. In other words, we have an accusation of false consciousness that applies to all national liberation movements.

I find this sort of explanation rather unsatisfactory because it is based on the assumption that workers are liable to be "tricked" by the power of ideology, whereas I've always felt that we should treat workers, like every other political actor in any society, as rational agents, who know what their interests are, and act in defense of those interests. If we adopt that analytical approach then we can see that there are plenty of reasons as to why a worker might choose to become part of Hamas or vote for them in elections. The most immediate is the fact that Hamas is the sole provider of basic services such as education and the reconstruction of homes that have been damaged as a result of persistent attack from Israel, but what really has really allowed Hamas to position itself as the dominant political force in Gaza is its role as the leading section of the resistance against Israel, and its willingness to fight back. This second aspect is important because the key source of pain and oppression for workers in Gaza is not the national ruling class, insofar as it even makes sense to speak of a coherent and stable ruling class in Gaza, but the threat of Zionist attack, and the destruction that the IDF imposes on Palestinian communities when it does launch military operations, as we saw earlier this year. Workers are not going to form a revolutionary party or campaign for the overthrow of capitalism when they are faced with the daily threat of having their houses and families bombed by one of the most advanced military powers in the region, and when they see that there are some people who do fight back, and succeed in pushing back the forces of imperialism, it is logical that they would identify with those people, which in the context of Gaza means Hamas. The effect of Palestine being liberated from imperialism, or workers in Gaza being given a bit more "space" in which to operate if Israel is forced to make concessions after suffering a military defeat, would be to reduce the external source of oppression, and to turn the anger of workers against the domestic ruling class, i.e. Hamas, or to be a bit more precise, the petty-bourgeois leadership of that organization. This is supported by historical examples - the "revolution of flowers" that brought down fascism in Portugal in 1974 broke out after a revolt in the army in Portuguese colonies, the collapse of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1989 was a harbinger of upheaval across the Russian empire, and the resistance to US troops in Vietnam was a major factor in crises that rocked the US in the 1960s and 70s - but the dominance of Stalinist parties within imperialist countries and oppressed nations has often prevented these positive results from developing into more radical struggles.

In this context, Trotskyists have always given military support to resistance movements against imperialism. "Military support" in this context does not mean that we want to send weapons over to countries which are being invaded, it simply means that we would prefer one side to win over the other, because we think that it would enhance the ability of workers to liberate themselves from oppression. This kind of support is distinct from "political support", which would mean identifying with the ideas and methods of the resistance. This is not appropriate unless the resistance is being led by revolutionary socialists, because there are countless ways in which we disagree with forces such as Islamists and Stalinists.

So, to answer the OP's question, saying "national liberation vs revolution" as if we have to choose one over the other really is a false dichotomy, because in oppressed nations they are always bound up with one another, and together form an anti-capitalist dynamic. It is frankly silly to assume that the first struggle that workers enter into is always going to be absolutely clear in terms of what the participants are working towards and which class forces they are fighting against, because any successful socialist revolution will only occur as the conclusion of a long series of struggles, with each victory teaching workers lessons about how to assert themselves, and increasing their confidence, and ability to struggle in the future. Or, as Lenin put it, when referring to the sectarianism of those Bolsheviks who dismissed the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin as a mere “putsch” by petty bourgeois nationalists:


To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc. – to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, “We are for socialism,” and another, somewhere else, says, “We are for imperialism,” and that will be a social revolution! ... Whoever expects a “pure” social revolution will never live to see it.From Lenin's Collected Works, vol.XXII, pp.355-356 (1964)

A more extended discussion of national liberation can be found in this essay: Hal Draper, The ABC of National Liberation Movements (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1969/abc/abc.htm#CHAPTER13-1)

[hugsandmarxism]

The fate of a national movement, which is essentially a bourgeois movement, is naturally bound up with the fate of the bourgeoisie. The -final disappearance of a national movement is possible only with the downfall of the bourgeoisie. Only under the reign of socialism can peace be fully established. But even within the framework of capitalism it is possible to reduce the national struggle to a minimum, to undermine it at the root, to render it as harmless as possible to the proletariat. This is borne out, for example, by Switzerland and America. It requires that the country should be democratized and the nations be given the opportunity of free development.

So, it seems the man with the mustache would support national movement in so far as to reduce the harm of international antagonisms on the proletariat. Depending on the severity of those antagonisms, and their harm of the proletariat in the countries involved, class-conscious workers may need to participate in a broader coalition that has the more immediate power to deal with the present harms.

As much as I don't like the idea of marxists working alongside petty-bourgeois nationalists and reactionaries, sometimes there isn't a real option. This is what I understand the case to be for the PFLP, for instance. When the white phosphorus comes raining down on a group of school children, it becomes necessary to make some rather unsavory bed-fellows to protect the people.

[Pogue]

We can all agree that Hamas is not a revolutionary party, and the overthrow of capitalism in Palestine and throughout the Middle East will inevitably involve challenging Islamist organizations that currently draw their support from the proletariat, and frequently promote all sorts of misogynistic and homophobic ideas. This much we can agree on. However, the fact of the matter is that Hamas cannot be understood simply as an organization that reflects the interests of the local bourgeoisie and plays workers off against each other to enhance its own interests. This kind of understanding ignores the fact that during the age of imperialism it is actually impossible for the bourgeoisie to lead a successful struggle against national domination (even in the sense of gaining political independence, which is obviously not the same as being independent from economic coercion and the capitalist world-system - that can only come about through international socialist revolution) because the ruling class recognizes that doing so would lead to the proletariat becoming more confident in its own abilities and ultimately seeking to further its own goals at the expense of the bourgeoisie. For this reason we find that national liberation movements have historically been led by the petty-bourgeoisie whilst the bourgeoisie has affiliated itself with an imperialist power, as Trotsky understood in his theory of permanent revolution. What then does this mean for Hamas and the class interests of the proletariat? An empirical fact that cannot be denied is that Hamas does command mass support. This is why Hamas was able to win a significant majority in the elections for the PA, and has been able to maintain support over a long period of time. We are therefore faced with the need to explain why it is that Hamas continues to receive this support from workers despite its repeated attacks on trade unions and its reactionary attitude towards oppressed groups such as women. It seems that the Left-Communist response to this issue is to assert that the only reason workers would ever support Hamas is because they are completely blind of where their real interests lie and have effectively been brainwashed into thinking that what Hamas is doing is actually in their own interests when it is not. In other words, we have an accusation of false consciousness that applies to all national liberation movements.

I find this sort of explanation rather unsatisfactory because it is based on the assumption that workers are liable to be "tricked" by the power of ideology, whereas I've always felt that we should treat workers, like every other political actor in any society, as rational agents, who know what their interests are, and act in defense of those interests. If we adopt that analytical approach then we can see that there are plenty of reasons as to why a worker might choose to become part of Hamas or vote for them in elections. The most immediate is the fact that Hamas is the sole provider of basic services such as education and the reconstruction of homes that have been damaged as a result of persistent attack from Israel, but what really has really allowed Hamas to position itself as the dominant political force in Gaza is its role as the leading section of the resistance against Israel, and its willingness to fight back. This second aspect is important because the key source of pain and oppression for workers in Gaza is not the national ruling class, insofar as it even makes sense to speak of a coherent and stable ruling class in Gaza, but the threat of Zionist attack, and the destruction that the IDF imposes on Palestinian communities when it does launch military operations, as we saw earlier this year. Workers are not going to form a revolutionary party or campaign for the overthrow of capitalism when they are faced with the daily threat of having their houses and families bombed by one of the most advanced military powers in the region, and when they see that there are some people who do fight back, and succeed in pushing back the forces of imperialism, it is logical that they would identify with those people, which in the context of Gaza means Hamas. The effect of Palestine being liberated from imperialism, or workers in Gaza being given a bit more "space" in which to operate if Israel is forced to make concessions after suffering a military defeat, would be to reduce the external source of oppression, and to turn the anger of workers against the domestic ruling class, i.e. Hamas, or to be a bit more precise, the petty-bourgeois leadership of that organization. This is supported by historical examples - the "revolution of flowers" that brought down fascism in Portugal in 1974 broke out after a revolt in the army in Portuguese colonies, the collapse of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1989 was a harbinger of upheaval across the Russian empire, and the resistance to US troops in Vietnam was a major factor in crises that rocked the US in the 1960s and 70s - but the dominance of Stalinist parties within imperialist countries and oppressed nations has often prevented these positive results from developing into more radical struggles.

In this context, Trotskyists have always given military support to resistance movements against imperialism. "Military support" in this context does not mean that we want to send weapons over to countries which are being invaded, it simply means that we would prefer one side to win over the other, because we think that it would enhance the ability of workers to liberate themselves from oppression. This kind of support is distinct from "political support", which would mean identifying with the ideas and methods of the resistance. This is not appropriate unless the resistance is being led by revolutionary socialists, because there are countless ways in which we disagree with forces such as Islamists and Stalinists.

So, to answer the OP's question, saying "national liberation vs revolution" as if we have to choose one over the other really is a false dichotomy, because in oppressed nations they are always bound up with one another, and together form an anti-capitalist dynamic. It is frankly silly to assume that the first struggle that workers enter into is always going to be absolutely clear in terms of what the participants are working towards and which class forces they are fighting against, because any successful socialist revolution will only occur as the conclusion of a long series of struggles, with each victory teaching workers lessons about how to assert themselves, and increasing their confidence, and ability to struggle in the future. Or, as Lenin put it, when referring to the sectarianism of those Bolsheviks who dismissed the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin as a mere “putsch” by petty bourgeois nationalists:

From Lenin's Collected Works, vol.XXII, pp.355-356 (1964)

A more extended discussion of national liberation can be found in this essay: Hal Draper, The ABC of National Liberation Movements (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1969/abc/abc.htm#CHAPTER13-1)

But Bob, do you really think Hamas can defeat Israeli imperialism with guns? Surely the issue is that such a conflict couldn't be resolved for Hamas by arms alone, but as part of a wider social conflict which overthrew capitalist aggression worldwide, including Israel?

[BobKKKindle$]

But Bob, do you really think Hamas can defeat Israeli imperialism with guns? Surely the issue is that such a conflict couldn't be resolved for Hamas by arms alone, but as part of a wider social conflict which overthrew capitalist aggression worldwide, including Israel?

Good question - and I think you're right. Hamas won't ever be able to overthrow the Israeli state and address the grievances of the Palestinian people for two basic reasons. Firstly, Israel is a country that receives vast amounts of economic and military support from the United States each year due to its role as a forward base for imperialism in the Middle East, and despite the effective use of guerrilla tactics by Hamas and other organizations such as Hezbollah in recent conflict, it would be naive on that basis to assume that Hamas would be able to take on the whole of the IDF, especially given that the US would be likely to intervene or provide even greater support if Israel was ever seriously threatened. Secondly, and more importantly from a Marxist point of view, Hamas is an organization that is led by the petty-bourgeoisie, and so whilst its leaders do engage in military conflict with imperialism, they are also happy to enter into compromises with Israel when the opportunity presents itself - we've already seen this happen with Fatah in the West Bank, but Hamas has also offered Israel a peace deal on the condition that Israel agrees to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders, which clearly signifies a betrayal of Palestinian workers, given that the injustices committed against Palestinians stretch back to the Naqba in 1948 and even previous events. I also think that the Israeli working class is not capable of becoming revolutionary and challenging capitalism as the current point in time (this (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.isreview.org/issues/23/class_character_israel.shtml) article does an excellent job of explaining why) and so the liberation of Palestine as well as the overthrow of capitalism throughout the Middle East ultimately depends on the struggles of workers in surrounding Arab countries, who, by overthrowing the pro-imperialist regimes in their own countries, above all Mubarak's regime in Egypt, will be able to render full support to the Palestinian struggle, and eventually end the link between Israel and imperialism, thereby opening up the potential for class struggle within Israel, conducted through a joint movement consisting of both Jewish and Arab workers.

What does this set of dynamics mean for our approach to Hamas and the Middle East? It underlines the need for socialists in all countries to forge their own organizations that represent the genuine interests of workers everywhere and take a progressive position on issues that have traditionally been ignored by Islamists, such as the women question, and the struggle against homophobia. This much should be obvious. However, the fact that Hamas is not capable or willing to liberate Palestine all by itself does not negate the progressive nature of the resistance that is being conducted through Hamas, because it is only through this resistance that workers are able to retain the small amount of autonomy that they currently have, and would cease to have if the IDF were able to establish hegemonic control over Gaza. This brings us back to the issue of where oppression is coming from. There are of course many ways in which Hamas is oppressive, not least its attitude towards the trade-union movement, but as long as Hamas continues to fight back and there is no other organization that is capable of doing so, workers are going to keep siding with Hamas, because giving up the right to go on strike and not be forced to go back to work is acceptable (from the viewpoint of Palestinian workers) if it means not living under occupation, and being able to inflict military defeats on the IDF. The only way socialists will be able to smash the links between Hamas and the working class is if they become part of the resistance and show that they are able to do a better job of fighting Israel than the Islamists, which necessarily involves arming the working class - something that Hamas is unable to do because it would allow workers to challenge their power. This may require us to fight alongside Hamas and even enter into a united front with that same organization when it comes to anti-imperialism simply because socialists will not be able to lead the resistance from day one, and if this does become necessary, it is essential that socialists do retain their political independence, so they don't end up apologizing for Hamas when they attack striking workers, or close down universities that contain female students. At the same time, socialists in the imperialist countries which currently support Israel, including the UK, as well as Israel itself, must render full support to the struggles of Palestinian workers (even when they are conducting their struggle through Hamas, as is currently the case) to break the chauvinism of the workers in their own countries, in the same way that Marx and Lenin supported the Irish independence struggle. That's the path to socialist revolution in the era of imperialism.

[Leo]

Well, they are the democratically elected representatives of the oppressed, state-less Palestinian people.

Actually Palestinians have two states - the one lead by al Fatah and the one lead by Hamas. Yeah, they are the "democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people". Bush was and Obama is the "democratically elected representatives of the American people", and Brown, Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi and Medvedev are the "democratically elected representatives of the British, German, Italian and Russian peoples respectively". Erdogan, Ahmedinejad, Netenyahu and Karamanlis are the "democratically elected representatives of Turkey, Iran, Israel and Greece" respectively. Husnu Mubarek is the ""democratically elected representative of Egypt" and Serdai is the ""democratically elected representative of Pakistan". Yes, lots of "peoples" in lots of countries have elections in which they "democratically elect representatives".

Communists know that all democratically elected representatives of the "people" are in reality only representatives of the ruling class, and call for their overthrow, for the destruction of all bourgeois democratices and for the establishment of proletarian dictatorship.

[Pogue]

Good question - and I think you're right. Hamas won't ever be able to overthrow the Israeli state and address the grievances of the Palestinian people for two basic reasons. Firstly, Israel is a country that receives vast amounts of economic and military support from the United States each year due to its role as a forward base for imperialism in the Middle East, and despite the effective use of guerrilla tactics by Hamas and other organizations such as Hezbollah in recent conflict, it would be naive on that basis to assume that Hamas would be able to take on the whole of the IDF, especially given that the US would be likely to intervene or provide even greater support if Israel was ever seriously threatened. Secondly, and more importantly from a Marxist point of view, Hamas is an organization that is led by the petty-bourgeoisie, and so whilst its leaders do engage in military conflict with imperialism, they are also happy to enter into compromises with Israel when the opportunity presents itself - we've already seen this happen with Fatah in the West Bank, but Hamas has also offered Israel a peace deal on the condition that Israel agrees to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders, which clearly signifies a betrayal of Palestinian workers, given that the injustices committed against Palestinians stretch back to the Naqba in 1948 and even previous events. I also think that the Israeli working class is not capable of becoming revolutionary and challenging capitalism as the current point in time (this (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.isreview.org/issues/23/class_character_israel.shtml) article does an excellent job of explaining why) and so the liberation of Palestine as well as the overthrow of capitalism throughout the Middle East ultimately depends on the struggles of workers in surrounding Arab countries, who, by overthrowing the pro-imperialist regimes in their own countries, above all Mubarak's regime in Egypt, will be able to render full support to the Palestinian struggle, and eventually end the link between Israel and imperialism, thereby opening up the potential for class struggle within Israel, conducted through a joint movement consisting of both Jewish and Arab workers.

What does this set of dynamics mean for our approach to Hamas and the Middle East? It underlines the need for socialists in all countries to forge their own organizations that represent the genuine interests of workers everywhere and take a progressive position on issues that have traditionally been ignored by Islamists, such as the women question, and the struggle against homophobia. This much should be obvious. However, the fact that Hamas is not capable or willing to liberate Palestine all by itself does not negate the progressive nature of the resistance that is being conducted through Hamas, because it is only through this resistance that workers are able to retain the small amount of autonomy that they currently have, and would cease to have if the IDF were able to establish hegemonic control over Gaza. This brings us back to the issue of where oppression is coming from. There are of course many ways in which Hamas is oppressive, not least its attitude towards the trade-union movement, but as long as Hamas continues to fight back and there is no other organization that is capable of doing so, workers are going to keep siding with Hamas, because giving up the right to go on strike and not be forced to go back to work is acceptable (from the viewpoint of Palestinian workers) if it means not living under occupation, and being able to inflict military defeats on the IDF. The only way socialists will be able to smash the links between Hamas and the working class is if they become part of the resistance and show that they are able to do a better job of fighting Israel than the Islamists, which necessarily involves arming the working class - something that Hamas is unable to do because it would allow workers to challenge their power. This may require us to fight alongside Hamas and even enter into a united front with that same organization when it comes to anti-imperialism simply because socialists will not be able to lead the resistance from day one, and if this does become necessary, it is essential that socialists do retain their political independence, so they don't end up apologizing for Hamas when they attack striking workers, or close down universities that contain female students. At the same time, socialists in the imperialist countries which currently support Israel, including the UK, as well as Israel itself, must render full support to the struggles of Palestinian workers (even when they are conducting their struggle through Hamas, as is currently the case) to break the chauvinism of the workers in their own countries, in the same way that Marx and Lenin supported the Irish independence struggle. That's the path to socialist revolution in the era of imperialism.

I think your party would come under less criticism if they made their position on this more clear. My position is that I support the resistance of the Palestinian working class against the IDF, i.e. their self-defence. I do not see this as meaning I support Hamas, even militarily. I support the acheivments and struggles of the Palestinian working class in my capacity (which is obviously limited to the money I donate to medical aid and the demonstrations I attend, as I did, nothing helps you get into the mood of proletarian internationalism than getting gassed by the pigs whilst protesting against the gassing of Palestinian civilians :rolleyes:).

If a worker sees Hamas as the only institution in which they can survive, then I understand that fully, the same way I understand people, say, accepting social welfare from a capitalist government because they need it. However, I do not support Hamas, and I think this is essentially what the SWP are saying but in a language which seems to only develop confusion, as if you feel saying you support Hamas would have some political advantage over just saying you support the struggles and defence of the working class in Palestine.

Also, you have accepted that the only way the imperialism of the IDF and USA could be defeated is by struggle in all the Arab nations by the working class against imperialism (and following your partie's theory, against the new 'national' bourgeoisie, to use a Maoist term, too). But then anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist struggle can only come about through the struggle of the working class, manifested in strikes, something which Hamas restricts.

As you yourself said, the petit-bourgeoisie leadership of Hamas will capitulate to the Isralei state and betray the working class, and as such independent working class action is needed for true emancipation of Palestinian workers. In my opinion this fits into the line I have always held, i.e. that as revolutionaries we should support a worker's militia breaking away and defending the Palestinian working class (more adequately than Hamas could, due to the inherent petit-bourgeoisie nature of Hamas), whilst at the same time facilitating for the wider struggle against capitalism and imperialism by means of building up workers organisations linking across borders to facilitate a regional class based revolt against imperialism and capitalism, as part of international class struggle. I think such a position is more inherently socialist.

I understand the circumstances at the present time in palestine do not cater for this, as people trust Hamas and are fighting for their lives, but as revolutionaries we recognise we have to fight hard, in hard circumstances. Faciliating workers organisations for self-defence and emancipation in Palestine would be difficult, but then again, when is revolution ever easy? I think the SWP should move directly to this idea - it seems to be what you hope will wind up being the situation anyway (i.e. the Arab working class fighting the Arab ruling class, alongside the Israeli working class fighting the Israeli ruling class) and avoids any of the confusion or criticism that derives from having a position which seemingly advocates support (albeit of the 'military' kind) for a reactionary movement when really what you want is support for the Palestinian working class.

[Agrippa]

We can all agree that Hamas is not a revolutionary party, and the overthrow of capitalism in Palestine and throughout the Middle East will inevitably involve challenging Islamist organizations that currently draw their support from the proletariat, and frequently promote all sorts of misogynistic and homophobic ideas. This much we can agree on. However, the fact of the matter is that Hamas cannot be understood simply as an organization that reflects the interests of the local bourgeoisie and plays workers off against each other to enhance its own interests. This kind of understanding ignores the fact that during the age of imperialism it is actually impossible for the bourgeoisie to lead a successful struggle against national domination (even in the sense of gaining political independence, which is obviously not the same as being independent from economic coercion and the capitalist world-system - that can only come about through international socialist revolution) because the ruling class recognizes that doing so would lead to the proletariat becoming more confident in its own abilities and ultimately seeking to further its own goals at the expense of the bourgeoisie. For this reason we find that national liberation movements have historically been led by the petty-bourgeoisie whilst the bourgeoisie has affiliated itself with an imperialist power, as Trotsky understood in his theory of permanent revolution. What then does this mean for Hamas and the class interests of the proletariat? An empirical fact that cannot be denied is that Hamas does command mass support. This is why Hamas was able to win a significant majority in the elections for the PA, and has been able to maintain support over a long period of time. We are therefore faced with the need to explain why it is that Hamas continues to receive this support from workers despite its repeated attacks on trade unions and its reactionary attitude towards oppressed groups such as women. It seems that the Left-Communist response to this issue is to assert that the only reason workers would ever support Hamas is because they are completely blind of where their real interests lie and have effectively been brainwashed into thinking that what Hamas is doing is actually in their own interests when it is not. In other words, we have an accusation of false consciousness that applies to all national liberation movements.

I find this sort of explanation rather unsatisfactory because it is based on the assumption that workers are liable to be "tricked" by the power of ideology, whereas I've always felt that we should treat workers, like every other political actor in any society, as rational agents, who know what their interests are, and act in defense of those interests. If we adopt that analytical approach then we can see that there are plenty of reasons as to why a worker might choose to become part of Hamas or vote for them in elections. The most immediate is the fact that Hamas is the sole provider of basic services such as education and the reconstruction of homes that have been damaged as a result of persistent attack from Israel, but what really has really allowed Hamas to position itself as the dominant political force in Gaza is its role as the leading section of the resistance against Israel, and its willingness to fight back. This second aspect is important because the key source of pain and oppression for workers in Gaza is not the national ruling class, insofar as it even makes sense to speak of a coherent and stable ruling class in Gaza, but the threat of Zionist attack, and the destruction that the IDF imposes on Palestinian communities when it does launch military operations, as we saw earlier this year. Workers are not going to form a revolutionary party or campaign for the overthrow of capitalism when they are faced with the daily threat of having their houses and families bombed by one of the most advanced military powers in the region, and when they see that there are some people who do fight back, and succeed in pushing back the forces of imperialism, it is logical that they would identify with those people, which in the context of Gaza means Hamas. The effect of Palestine being liberated from imperialism, or workers in Gaza being given a bit more "space" in which to operate if Israel is forced to make concessions after suffering a military defeat, would be to reduce the external source of oppression, and to turn the anger of workers against the domestic ruling class, i.e. Hamas, or to be a bit more precise, the petty-bourgeois leadership of that organization. This is supported by historical examples - the "revolution of flowers" that brought down fascism in Portugal in 1974 broke out after a revolt in the army in Portuguese colonies, the collapse of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1989 was a harbinger of upheaval across the Russian empire, and the resistance to US troops in Vietnam was a major factor in crises that rocked the US in the 1960s and 70s - but the dominance of Stalinist parties within imperialist countries and oppressed nations has often prevented these positive results from developing into more radical struggles.

In this context, Trotskyists have always given military support to resistance movements against imperialism. "Military support" in this context does not mean that we want to send weapons over to countries which are being invaded, it simply means that we would prefer one side to win over the other, because we think that it would enhance the ability of workers to liberate themselves from oppression. This kind of support is distinct from "political support", which would mean identifying with the ideas and methods of the resistance. This is not appropriate unless the resistance is being led by revolutionary socialists, because there are countless ways in which we disagree with forces such as Islamists and Stalinists.

So, to answer the OP's question, saying "national liberation vs revolution" as if we have to choose one over the other really is a false dichotomy, because in oppressed nations they are always bound up with one another, and together form an anti-capitalist dynamic. It is frankly silly to assume that the first struggle that workers enter into is always going to be absolutely clear in terms of what the participants are working towards and which class forces they are fighting against, because any successful socialist revolution will only occur as the conclusion of a long series of struggles, with each victory teaching workers lessons about how to assert themselves, and increasing their confidence, and ability to struggle in the future. Or, as Lenin put it, when referring to the sectarianism of those Bolsheviks who dismissed the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin as a mere “putsch” by petty bourgeois nationalists:

From Lenin's Collected Works, vol.XXII, pp.355-356 (1964)

A more extended discussion of national liberation can be found in this essay: Hal Draper, The ABC of National Liberation Movements (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1969/abc/abc.htm#CHAPTER13-1)

What I got out of this big, long post is that even though Hamas oppresses women and homosexuals, crushes labor movements, and subjugates people in general to capitalist exploitation, resistance by the Palestinian people to oppression at the hands of Hamas needs to be withheld and suspended until an unspecified future date of vague uncertain "victory" of Hamas against the forces of Israeli imperialism.

Whether or not "the key source of pain and oppression for workers in Gaza is not the national ruling class, insofar as it even makes sense to speak of a coherent and stable ruling class in Gaza" is for the people who are immediately effected by these circumstnaces to decide, not professional revolutionares who may not even be personally involved in the struggle at all.

People have the right to resist all forms of oppression, regardless of whether or not revolutionary intellectuals believe the historical conditions are right. You say we should "root for" Hamas against Israel. What would we concretely gain in doing so? What would it entail? Would it be worth the obvious sacrifice to our true values, (Anti-patriarchy, anti-homophobia, etc.) and the further oppression it could perpetuate? What if someone gave an explaination, using Marxist, academic jargon, as to why the victory of Israel would create the conditons for proletarian revolution. Would that justify the Palestinian people laying down their arms and allowing Israel to roll over them? How are the petit-bourgeois, Islamic-fascist totalitarians of Hamas any different?

The Salvation Army is also popular among many workers for its charity work. Racist militias in the US are also very popular among workers for their armed resistance. Pretending like all workers are "rational agents" just ignores the obvious reality we face in terms of the job ahead of us we have educating others.

[BobKKKindle$]

resistance by the Palestinian people to oppression at the hands of Hamas needs to be withheld and suspended until an unspecified future date of vague uncertain "victory" of Hamas against the forces of Israeli imperialism.That's for workers in Palestine to decide - but it strikes me as strange to suggest that the key role of socialists in Gaza should be to try and undermine the Hamas government through sabotage, or to view the IDF and Hamas as basically the same, because the overthrow of Hamas and the creation of a socialist Palestine as part of a broader socialist confederation of the Middle East will only be viable when workers have been won over to socialism as the outcome of a series of progressive struggles. It won't be viable if socialists in Palestine and throughout the world say that Hamas and Israel are just as bad as each other and criticize workers for not spontaneously rising up to destroy both - that would be an ultra-left position and evidence of a failure to acknowledge that workers will be in a better position to fight for their class interests if Gaza is not under the direct occupation of the Israeli state. I certainly don't think that socialists should endorse the use of violence against trade unionists, or condone the mistreatment of women, but that doesn't mean we should throw away an informed analysis of the relationship between Hamas and the Palestinian working class, or refuse to support workers when they fight back against a military incursion.


...is for the people who are immediately effected by these circumstnaces to decide, not professional revolutionares who may not even be personally involved in the struggle at all.I wholeheartedly agree - which is why it doesn't surprise me in the least that workers in Gaza support Hamas despite the fate of the trade-union movement at the hands of that organization. The fact that they are doing so suggests that Hamas does something for them, and given that the main activity of Hamas during the conflict earlier this year was to fight against the IDF, I would argue that workers in Gaza do see whether their country is under occupation or not as important. If you think that Hamas actually has nothing to offer the working class (which is what you seem to be suggesting based on your comments) then I would be interested to hear your opinion on why it is that Hamas is still so popular, and was able to score such an impressive electoral victory in January 2006.


People have the right to resist all forms of oppressionOnce again, I agree - so when workers are faced with the IDF dropping bombs on their homes and depriving their families of access to healthcare and basic foodstuffs - a serious form of oppression by any standard - and they fight back, we should support them in that endeavour, and hope that they are able to inflict a defeat on imperialism, even when the resistance is being led by Hamas, or another reactionary organization such as the Vietcong, or Hezbollah. I've never argued that such a position should come at the expense of supporting the struggles of women against patriarchy or any other struggle directed against social and political oppression. That's why I emphasized political independence in my first post - we cooperate with Hamas when we have the same objectives, i.e. fighting Israeli imperialism, whilst also opposing them in areas where we disagree, or if they make compromises during the course of the anti-imperialist struggle, as all petty-bourgeois movements are liable to do at some point.


if someone gave an explaination, using Marxist, academic jargon, as to why the victory of Israel would create the conditons for proletarian revolutionI don't think I used any jargon, if that's what you mean. As for that kind of analysis, I don't think it would be correct, because there has been no case of workers ever benefiting from an imperialist occupation, either in terms of their immediate material interests, or their ability to wage class struggle and overthrow capitalism. How much jargon the person in question used would be irrelevant to the truth-value (or lack thereof) of their argument.


How are the petit-bourgeois, Islamic-fascist totalitarians of Hamas any different? What makes you think that Hamas are "fascist"? I don't think that's an accurate way to describe their political orientation because "fascist" is not just a word that you can use to throw around to undermine any group tht you happen to dislike - instead, it refers to a political phenomenon that arises under specific circumstances, namely, when the threat of social revolution presents itself, and the bourgeoisie turns to anti-democratic forces in order to maintain their class rule.


Pretending like all workers are "rational agents" just ignores the obvious reality we face in terms of the job ahead of us we have educating others.Recognizing that workers are rational agents doesn't mean that socialists have no educative or leadership role. However, if you're going to say that it's illogical for workers to fight back against imperialism, and that supporting Hamas cannot be understood in terms of working-class interests, then you'd better offer a good explanation as to why workers do support Hamas, and what the alternative is.

[Agrippa]

That's for workers in Palestine to decide - but it strikes me as strange to suggest that the key role of socialists in Gaza should be to try and undermine the Hamas government through sabotage, or to view the IDF and Hamas as basically the same, because the overthrow of Hamas and the creation of a socialist Palestine as part of a broader socialist confederation of the Middle East will only be viable when workers have been won over to socialism as the outcome of a series of progressive struggles.



It won't be viable if socialists in Palestine and throughout the world say that Hamas and Israel are just as bad as each other and criticize workers for not spontaneously rising up to destroy both - that would be an ultra-left position and evidence of a failure to acknowledge that workers will be in a better position to fight for their class interests if Gaza is not under the direct occupation of the Israeli state.[quote]

But would a neo-colonial Islamist theocracy that crushes the workers' movement with as every bit of ruthlessness as the Israeli regime be a "better position", at all? I could see it being better in some ways and worse in others....

[quote]that doesn't mean we should [...] refuse to support workers when they fight back against a military incursion.

That's a position that has yet to be argued. We all support workers when they fight back against a military incursion. You're the one who is refusing to support any workers that happen to see Hamas for what it is and fight back not only against their colonial oppressors but their neo-colonial oppressors as well...


The fact that they are doing so suggests that Hamas does something for them

OK, a good many workers in the US support the Republican party because it "does something for them", ie: lowers their taxes and gives them tax refunds. Regardless of how much public support any bourgeois political party can bribe itself into posessing, we should be uncomprimising in our struggle....


and given that the main activity of Hamas during the conflict earlier this year was to fight against the IDF, I would argue that workers in Gaza do see whether their country is under occupation or not as important.

Just because resisting Israel is their "main activity", does not make their "secondary" activities (oppression women, religious minorities, homosexuals, etc.) inconsequential.


If you think that Hamas actually has nothing to offer the working class

It offers the working class nothing that the communist movement itself can't offer, and can't offer better. If we allow the Islamists and other reactionaries to offer these things instead of ourselves, we are allowing them to recruit away from our political projects to strengthen their numbers, we are allowing them to develop the means to create a new bourgeois state while ensuring our own total powerlessness in the reigon.


I would be interested to hear your opinion on why it is that Hamas is still so popular, and was able to score such an impressive electoral victory in January 2006.

Were you to write these words after the 2000 election in the US, you could just as easily argue that the Bush administration has "something to offer the working class" due to its popularity and electoral victory....


Once again, I agree - so when workers are faced with the IDF dropping bombs on their homes and depriving their families of access to healthcare and basic foodstuffs - a serious form of oppression by any standard - and they fight back, we should support them in that endeavour

But that doesn't mean supporting Hamas under any circumstance any more so than supporting the French Resistance means supporting De Gaulle.


and hope that they are able to inflict a defeat on imperialism, even when the resistance is being led by Hamas, or another reactionary organization such as the Vietcong

The victory of the Vietcong did not "inflict a defeat on imperialism" as modern-day Vietnam is a testament to.


I've never argued that such a position should come at the expense of supporting the struggles of women against patriarchy or any other struggle directed against social and political oppression.

But in practical terms that's what any comprimise with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah entails.


That's why I emphasized political independence in my first post - we cooperate with Hamas when we have the same objectives, i.e. fighting Israeli imperialism whilst also opposing them in areas where we disagree

And do you think Hamas will merely allow our "opposition" to every facet of their patriarchal, capitalist rule continue to exist, or do you think they will violently supress us once we are no longer useful to them?


As for that kind of analysis, I don't think it would be correct, because there has been no case of workers ever benefiting from an imperialist occupation, either in terms of their immediate material interests, or their ability to wage class struggle and overthrow capitalism.

Under a colonial system, colonial subjects are exposed to the naked truth of their subjugation. Under a neo-colonial system, they are duped into supporting their own subjugation, believing it to be in fact their empowerment and entitlement. You can just as easily make the argument that a neo-colonial system is more of a threat to one's ability to wage class struggle and overthrow capitalism than a colonial system as you could make the inverse argument. Hency the folly in declaring "better" or "worse" forms of capitalist exploitation.


What makes you think that Hamas are "fascist"?

Anti-Semitic conspiracy-theories? Check.
Reactionary patriarchalism? Check.
Ethnic/religious chauvinism? Check.
Violent opposition to the current ruling order? Check.
Anti-capitalist/populist rhetoric? Check.
Elliminating percieved competition from communist, anarchist, and Social Democratic workers' movements? Check.
Mercantilism/protectionism? Check.
Opposing the US on the grounds of its cultural decadence? Check.
Appealing primarily to declassed males? Check.


because "fascist" is not just a word that you can use to throw around to undermine any group tht you happen to dislike

I don't do that. I hate liberals, Social Democrats, establishment conservatives, and Marxist-Leninist regimes as much as I hate fascists. But Hamas is the Arabic equivilant of a fascist group.


instead, it refers to a political phenomenon that arises under specific circumstances, namely, when the threat of social revolution presents itself, and the bourgeoisie turns to anti-democratic forces in order to maintain their class rule.

That's bullocks. The bourgeoisie did not "turn to" fascism in Italy or Germany. The bourgeoisie was overthrown by the fascists, who made themselves the new bourgeoisie.


you'd better offer a good explanation as to why workers do support Hamas, and what the alternative is.

I doubt I can offer any fuller or more coherent explanation than yourself, however you are totally ignoring the reality of the situation. Most Palestinian workers (like most workers globally) identify far more strongly with ethnic and religious distinctions than with class....

[Dimentio]

Remind me to pop popcorn next time anyone is going to start a thread like this. ^^

[Random Precision]

the petit-bourgeois, Islamic-fascist totalitarians


every facet of their patriarchal, capitalist rule


a neo-colonial Islamist theocracy

Jargon is not a substitute for substance.

[Random Precision]

That's bullocks. The bourgeoisie did not "turn to" fascism in Italy or Germany. The bourgeoisie was overthrown by the fascists, who made themselves the new bourgeoisie.

Oh? So there was a fascist revolution? Would you care to describe when and how that happened?

[New Tet]

[...]
I find this sort of explanation rather unsatisfactory because it is based on the assumption that workers are liable to be "tricked" by the power of ideology, whereas I've always felt that we should treat workers, like every other political actor in any society, as rational agents, who know what their interests are, and act in defense of those interests. [...]

I disagree. The first point of contact any idea has with a person is emotional. Then, if it's lucky, it gets a full hearing from the committee of "rational agents".

[FreeFocus]

I disagree. The first point of contact any idea has with a person is emotional. Then, if it's lucky, it gets a full hearing from the committee of "rational agents".

Generally, I agree with this. People are not rational agents most of the time. It just isn't the way our brains developed. We're susceptible to suggestion and these susceptibilities are always manipulated by those in power (perfect example - Obama's brand of soft power imperialism).

[redSHARP]

thats kinda wrong. i mean the palestinians are being killed and brutalised, so its not really warhawkism for them to defend themselves. thats like saying the partisans in world war 2 were warhawks

let me correct my error;

warhawk is not a good term to use and i apolgize. i was trying to point out how both sides (refering to the working class who fight this war on the ground) don't see the common enemy of hierarchy capitalist rule, and play into the hands of israel/hamas.

i would like to point out that i was going for more of a theory based question. i always felt the ultra leftist view in this case was proper but most likely impractical. of course the israeli and palestinians should figure out the best course of action for them selves.

also, i feel that the goal of Marxism is worker liberation (lamest terms of course), and national liberation is fine, but as seen in africa, after the imperialist are kicked out, a new ruling class emerges. this hinders the ultimate goal of marxism. applied to israel; israel zionists gone, replaced by hamas or fatah (doesnt have to be those groups, but most likely will be one or the other i think) does not equal working class liberation. wouldnt a civil war have to be faught, right after a war of national liberation?

those are just some thoughts of mine.


p.s. we can all agree that the USA needs to get the fuck out of israel? right?

p.s.s. THANKS FOR THE GREAT THREAD GUYS!! i am learning a lot and the input is great!

[Agrippa]

Oh? So there was a fascist revolution? Would you care to describe when and how that happened?

Uhhh....the 1930s in Germany? What do you think would have happened if the German government hadn't recognized the Nazis' electoral victory? The Nazis siezed power under the premise of having obtained popular support and thus constituting a popular force. It was definitely not a peaceful electoral mass-movement, like, for example, the Obama campaign. It was definitely a violent insurrection

[Random Precision]

Uhhh....the 1930s in Germany? What do you think would have happened if the German government hadn't recognized the Nazis' electoral victory? The Nazis siezed power under the premise of having obtained popular support and thus constituting a popular force. It was definitely not a peaceful electoral mass-movement, like, for example, the Obama campaign. It was definitely a violent insurrection

But Hitler was given the chancellorship through the organs of the bourgeois democracy, with von Papen and Hindenburg collaborating. There was no insurrection, although you could make a case that the SA played a role in intimidation of the state apparatus.

And even had there been, you have yet to prove that the German bourgeoisie was expropriated, which would seem to be an integral part of "overthrowing" them. Also, from where and how did the new "Nazi bourgeoisie" take their place?

[Agrippa]

You are attempting to educate me on historical matters I am well-aware of. Hindenburg, if I recall, was senile at the time, and believed Hitler was Otto Von Bismarck... (or so the story goes) ...so I don't think his actions can really be said to reflect the rastional interests of the bourgeois establishment in Germany.

I don't see how anyone can claim the Nazi rise to power was something German bourgeoisie desired...why else would there have been an attempted coup by conservative German military officers?

[Random Precision]

I don't see how anyone can claim the Nazi rise to power was something German bourgeoisie desired...

The Nazis aimed to defend private property, which coincided with the interest of the German bourgeoisie. They also aimed to bring the East under German control, which coincided with the bourgeoisie's imperialist ambitions. And all this when they felt themselves threatened by a proletarian revolution.

You have yet to answer my question: How were the German bourgeoisie expropriated, and from where and how did the new "Nazi bourgeoisie" take their place? Also, you made a similar claim for Italy. How did it happen there?


why else would there have been an attempted coup by conservative German military officers?

Why was there not a coup attempt until 1944, when Germany was losing the war?

[Agrippa]

All you're saying is that the powers that be may have preferred Nazis to anarchists and libertarian communists. Which isn't much.

Dubya "aimed to bring" the Middle East under American control with the Iraq war. But the Iraq war was a disastrous failure and ultimately hurt the American imperialists. The fact that Hitler's imperial policies provoked a war that utterly destroyed the German empire shows that his leadership was contrary to the long-term survival of German imperialists.

I'm not suggesting that the Nazi rise to power was identical to, say, the Russian Revolution or the French Revolution. They're obviously quite different historical events. But the Nazi regime was still something forced on the German political establishment. The Nazis were allowed to assume power because the German political establishment wanted to curtail a popular fascist uprising, not because Nazi policies were in any way desirable from the perspective of the existing German political order. To suggest that the bureaucrats of the Weimar republic wanted a fascist coup is ridiculous.

[Random Precision]

All you're saying is that the powers that be may have preferred Nazis to anarchists and libertarian communists. Which isn't much.

What anarchists? I was talking about the threat of proletarian revolution, which in the day's Germany was perceived as coming from the Communist Party.


Dubya "aimed to bring" the Middle East under American control with the Iraq war. But the Iraq war was a disastrous failure and ultimately hurt the American imperialists. The fact that Hitler's imperial policies provoked a war that utterly destroyed the German empire shows that his leadership was contrary to the long-term survival of German imperialists.

I guess Hindenburg's crystal ball must have been on the fritz the day he appointed Hitler chancellor, then. :rolleyes:


I'm not suggesting that the Nazi rise to power was identical to, say, the Russian Revolution or the French Revolution. They're obviously quite different historical events. But the Nazi regime was still something forced on the German political establishment. The Nazis were allowed to assume power because the German political establishment wanted to curtail a popular fascist uprising, not because Nazi policies were in any way desirable from the perspective of the existing German political order. To suggest that the bureaucrats of the Weimar republic wanted a fascist coup is ridiculous.

It was not a coup. It was an assumption of power that took place completely within the frames of bourgeois legality.

You have yet to answer my question. I'll repeat it once more: How were the German bourgeoisie expropriated, and from where and how did the new "Nazi bourgeoisie" take their place?

[Agrippa]

I'd like to take this time to break the etiquette of message boards and respond a second time. I am uninterested in this turning into another snarky, unconstructive back-and-forth.

All I am arguing is against the very simple interpretation of history that some are presenting. To say that fascism is merely some garden-variety ultra-totalitarian mode of capitalist life that develops as response to the threat of communist insurrection is absurd.

Clearly, in both Italy and Germany, when the fascists emerged, it was a bloody power-struggle. Yes, the organs of bourgeois democracy chose fascism as a survival method, but why? To deal with communists? No, conservatives and liberal democrats can send communists to jail or send police to shoot them just as easily as fascists can. No, because the workers wanted fascism, because the fascists had successfully organized - had rallied a force of workers, as the fascists are doing once again today as we speak - because fascism was chosen by the masses via electoral participation, and if the election wasn't upheld, the workers would have chosen fascism through acts of devastating violence as had already been seen.

That I referred to this as a "revolution" is not incorrect, because in my country the war of 1776 is referred to colloquially as a "revolution". Obviously neither of them are "revolutions" in the sense of abolishing private property, the state, etc. Then again, neither was Russia, neither was France.

[Random Precision]

All I am arguing is against the very simple interpretation of history that some are presenting. To say that fascism is merely some garden-variety ultra-totalitarian mode of capitalist life that develops as response to the threat of communist insurrection is absurd.

That is not at all what I've said, nor is it what I believe. Fascism is a response by the petty bourgeoisie to a situation in which the normal organs of the bourgeois state are unable to solve a capitalist crisis, brought on by an attempted proletarian revolution, an imperialist war, etc. It is taken up by the bourgeoisie as last-ditch attempt to solve the crisis on its own terms. While it does require handing over state power to the fascist movement, at no point in its history did it require fundamental economic change, namely, the expropriation of the bourgeois class.


To deal with communists? No, conservatives and liberal democrats can send communists to jail or send police to shoot them just as easily as fascists can.

But could they really? Fascism in both countries rose at the end of attempted proletarian insurrections, which threw the each bourgeois state into turmoil.


No, because the workers wanted fascism, because the fascists had successfully organized - had rallied a force of workers, as the fascists are doing once again today as we speak - because fascism was chosen by the masses via electoral participation, and if the election wasn't upheld, the workers would have chosen fascism through acts of devastating violence as had already been seen.

Prove it.


That I referred to this as a "revolution" is not incorrect, because in my country the war of 1776 is referred to colloquially as a "revolution". Obviously neither of them are "revolutions" in the sense of abolishing private property, the state, etc. Then again, neither was Russia, neither was France.

The American revolution succeeded in shaking off the mercantile control over the colonies by the British bourgeoisie, and established a new American bourgeois class. The French revolution ended the absolute power of the monarch, eliminated the class of landholders and established the capitalist mode of production in full. The Russian revolution ended Tsarist autocracy and the feudal system of production.

The Nazi "revolution" did not accomplish anything of the sort.

[Invader Zim]

The American revolution succeeded in shaking off the mercantile control over the colonies by the British bourgeoisie, and established a new American bourgeois class.

I wonder how accurate that actually is. Consider the fact that the 'founding fathers' were successful members of the migrant British bourgeoisie. George Washington was, for example, a relatively senior officer in the British Militia in the Colonies and was also a plantation owner of no small concern. It seems more realistic to say that the migrant British bourgeoisie cut its ties with the 'old world' rather than to say that their position of power and influence fundermentally changed. Rather they consolidated what they already had. But I'll be honest, while very interesting, this element of British/American history is not my strongest and I am open to education on the matter. It certainly raises some very interesting questions.