Die Neue Zeit
22nd July 2009, 03:11
In some of the more recent discussions on imperialism, war, and defeatism, this revolutionary-centrist has noted quite a number of politically crude positions.
I know that there are "anti-imperialist" protests occurring when an imperialist country like the US attacks another country, but I get the feeling that the protesters themselves subliminally reduce their opposition to a form of pacifist anti-militarism.
"Now, there is another sense of the term that is used outside of leftist circles that focuses on the activities of the nation state. Thus it was "imperialism" whenever, say, country A conquers or subjugates country B. And criticizing leftist activism restricted to that kind of imperialism is a valid endeavor. But I think it is important to distinguish the two." (MarxSchmarx)
Indeed, I don't see protests (or, better yet, superior organizational activity) occurring when "a powerful country strong-arms a 3rd world country into letting said multinational corporation set up shop, even though that country's people don't want it to."
Speaking of reductionism, there is the rather controversial group of positions that are collectively called "defencist." What these positions pose, however, is the left's need to re-examine its positions on war. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-defeatism-revolutionary-t108090/index.html)
I apologize for not making things clearer in past threads, and in so doing present a two-dimensional illustration through which positions can be debated:
Y-Axis: Level of working-class consciousness and organization - Low (1), Organized but solidifying (2), Ready to take power (3).
X-Axis: Position of country in the global bourgeois-capitalist system - Aggressor (1), Bystander (2), Defender (3). Notice that economic imperialism is relegated to a secondary role here. Both Bystanders and Defenders can be imperialist, semi-imperialist/semi-peripheral, or peripheral.
(1,3) (2,3) (3,3)
(1,2) (2,2) (3,2)
(1,1) (2,1) (3,1)
With enough history behind us, it should indeed be said that "revolutionary defeatism" (conceptualized by Kautsky in 1909 and not his disciple Lenin, by the way) is a supremely valid position only when two areas are filled in at the same time - (1,2)/(1,3) for the aggressor country and (3,2)/(3,3) for the defending country.
For the bystander countries, the question is irrelevant, since the workers should organize to take power irrespective of the war.
What happens, though, when (1,1) is filled instead of (1,2) or (1,3) - i.e., the workers in the aggressor country aren't ready? The answer now depends on which other area is filled in regards to the defending country, but is alluded to in this quote:
Such a tactic, as I have discussed with two Trotskyists on the Falklands war here, here, and here would have to be one also based on the independent centrist (not vulgar "centrist") tendency in the Second International, but this would probably entail a sort of practical class-strugglist apathy on the question of imperialist wars outside of revolutionary periods (limited to at best token sympathy for the revolutionary defencism in the bullied countries), focusing instead on building the worker-class movement at home, including within the military.
Almost everywhere, the current situation is that of (3,1) for defending countries. It can indeed be said that much of today's "anti-imperialism" and "revolutionary defeatism" (in fact vulgar defeatism) are forms of tactical opportunism, easily "used as an excuse to support nationalist or reactionary movements" (Lynx), in the hopes of "developing its own praxis separate from the broader leftist movement" (MarxSchmarx). The most extreme end result is Balkanization, the proliferation of an excess number of nation-states.
As the Irish Republican Socialist James Connolly noted:
"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the Green Flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the socialist republic, your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule through her capitalists, her landlords, financiers, and through the whole array of commercial and industrial institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs. England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical homage at the shrine of that freedom whose cause you betrayed."
In this case, organizational efforts that have been diverted to "anti-imperialist" opportunism would be better aimed at building worker-class movements (including within the respective militaries) in the respective countries on the socialist struggle, more basic economic struggles (including action sloganeering that passes as "transitional") (http://www.revleft.com/vb/transitional-program-updated-t99491/index.html), and the woefully underrated political struggle (extreme democracy).
But what if higher positions apply to the defending country? What if the class is more conscious and organized? What if (3,2) or (3,3) are filled?
The revolutionary-centrist route of Engels in the above scenario lies not in vulgar defeatism claiming to be "revolutionary," but in revolutionary defencism. This by no means entails giving active support to the imperialist government that is being attacked, since the national-liberation lessons dealing with the "national bourgeoisie" and nationalist petit-bourgeoisie can also be applied to the defending bourgeois imperialists.
In fact, revolutionary defencism provides the opportunity to topple the defending bourgeois imperialists - once the aggressor is no longer in a position to threaten the defending country.
In terms of historical context, when Engels wrote the material below, Germany was to be the defender against an Entente/Allied retribution for the Prussian siege of Paris in 1870.
http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891/letters/91_09_29.htm
You are right, if it comes to war we must demand the general arming of the people. But in conjunction with the already existing organisation or that specially prepared in case of war [...]
As soon as our Party comes to power it will be unable to exercise that power unless Alsace-Lorraine freely determines its own future, but that if war is forced upon us, and moreover a war in alliance with Russia, we must regard this as an attack on our existence and defend ourselves by every method, utilising all positions at our disposal [...]
If we are beaten, every barrier to chauvinism and a war of revenge in Europe will be thrown down for years hence. If we are victorious our Party will come into power. The victory of Germany is therefore the victory of the revolution, and if it comes to war we must not only desire victory but further it by every means [...]
What should have been categorically stated [by Bernstein] was that if France formally represents the revolution in relation to Germany, Germany, through its workers' Party, stands materially at the head of the revolution, and this is bound to come to light in the war--in which we, and with us the revolution, will either be crushed or else come to power.
Also:
A war against Germany through a coalition with Russia is also for most a war against the strongest and most combative socialist party in Europe, and that there is nothing left for us but to strike back against every attacker who's helping Russia.
On a more humorous note, a purely hypothetical attack on Sweden by "Anglo-American capitalism" in today's geopolitical climate should precipitate a revolutionary-defencist policy in favour of Swedish workers, regardless of how "dear" IKEA is to consumers' hearts. :D
I know that there are "anti-imperialist" protests occurring when an imperialist country like the US attacks another country, but I get the feeling that the protesters themselves subliminally reduce their opposition to a form of pacifist anti-militarism.
"Now, there is another sense of the term that is used outside of leftist circles that focuses on the activities of the nation state. Thus it was "imperialism" whenever, say, country A conquers or subjugates country B. And criticizing leftist activism restricted to that kind of imperialism is a valid endeavor. But I think it is important to distinguish the two." (MarxSchmarx)
Indeed, I don't see protests (or, better yet, superior organizational activity) occurring when "a powerful country strong-arms a 3rd world country into letting said multinational corporation set up shop, even though that country's people don't want it to."
Speaking of reductionism, there is the rather controversial group of positions that are collectively called "defencist." What these positions pose, however, is the left's need to re-examine its positions on war. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-defeatism-revolutionary-t108090/index.html)
I apologize for not making things clearer in past threads, and in so doing present a two-dimensional illustration through which positions can be debated:
Y-Axis: Level of working-class consciousness and organization - Low (1), Organized but solidifying (2), Ready to take power (3).
X-Axis: Position of country in the global bourgeois-capitalist system - Aggressor (1), Bystander (2), Defender (3). Notice that economic imperialism is relegated to a secondary role here. Both Bystanders and Defenders can be imperialist, semi-imperialist/semi-peripheral, or peripheral.
(1,3) (2,3) (3,3)
(1,2) (2,2) (3,2)
(1,1) (2,1) (3,1)
With enough history behind us, it should indeed be said that "revolutionary defeatism" (conceptualized by Kautsky in 1909 and not his disciple Lenin, by the way) is a supremely valid position only when two areas are filled in at the same time - (1,2)/(1,3) for the aggressor country and (3,2)/(3,3) for the defending country.
For the bystander countries, the question is irrelevant, since the workers should organize to take power irrespective of the war.
What happens, though, when (1,1) is filled instead of (1,2) or (1,3) - i.e., the workers in the aggressor country aren't ready? The answer now depends on which other area is filled in regards to the defending country, but is alluded to in this quote:
Such a tactic, as I have discussed with two Trotskyists on the Falklands war here, here, and here would have to be one also based on the independent centrist (not vulgar "centrist") tendency in the Second International, but this would probably entail a sort of practical class-strugglist apathy on the question of imperialist wars outside of revolutionary periods (limited to at best token sympathy for the revolutionary defencism in the bullied countries), focusing instead on building the worker-class movement at home, including within the military.
Almost everywhere, the current situation is that of (3,1) for defending countries. It can indeed be said that much of today's "anti-imperialism" and "revolutionary defeatism" (in fact vulgar defeatism) are forms of tactical opportunism, easily "used as an excuse to support nationalist or reactionary movements" (Lynx), in the hopes of "developing its own praxis separate from the broader leftist movement" (MarxSchmarx). The most extreme end result is Balkanization, the proliferation of an excess number of nation-states.
As the Irish Republican Socialist James Connolly noted:
"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the Green Flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the socialist republic, your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule through her capitalists, her landlords, financiers, and through the whole array of commercial and industrial institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs. England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical homage at the shrine of that freedom whose cause you betrayed."
In this case, organizational efforts that have been diverted to "anti-imperialist" opportunism would be better aimed at building worker-class movements (including within the respective militaries) in the respective countries on the socialist struggle, more basic economic struggles (including action sloganeering that passes as "transitional") (http://www.revleft.com/vb/transitional-program-updated-t99491/index.html), and the woefully underrated political struggle (extreme democracy).
But what if higher positions apply to the defending country? What if the class is more conscious and organized? What if (3,2) or (3,3) are filled?
The revolutionary-centrist route of Engels in the above scenario lies not in vulgar defeatism claiming to be "revolutionary," but in revolutionary defencism. This by no means entails giving active support to the imperialist government that is being attacked, since the national-liberation lessons dealing with the "national bourgeoisie" and nationalist petit-bourgeoisie can also be applied to the defending bourgeois imperialists.
In fact, revolutionary defencism provides the opportunity to topple the defending bourgeois imperialists - once the aggressor is no longer in a position to threaten the defending country.
In terms of historical context, when Engels wrote the material below, Germany was to be the defender against an Entente/Allied retribution for the Prussian siege of Paris in 1870.
http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891/letters/91_09_29.htm
You are right, if it comes to war we must demand the general arming of the people. But in conjunction with the already existing organisation or that specially prepared in case of war [...]
As soon as our Party comes to power it will be unable to exercise that power unless Alsace-Lorraine freely determines its own future, but that if war is forced upon us, and moreover a war in alliance with Russia, we must regard this as an attack on our existence and defend ourselves by every method, utilising all positions at our disposal [...]
If we are beaten, every barrier to chauvinism and a war of revenge in Europe will be thrown down for years hence. If we are victorious our Party will come into power. The victory of Germany is therefore the victory of the revolution, and if it comes to war we must not only desire victory but further it by every means [...]
What should have been categorically stated [by Bernstein] was that if France formally represents the revolution in relation to Germany, Germany, through its workers' Party, stands materially at the head of the revolution, and this is bound to come to light in the war--in which we, and with us the revolution, will either be crushed or else come to power.
Also:
A war against Germany through a coalition with Russia is also for most a war against the strongest and most combative socialist party in Europe, and that there is nothing left for us but to strike back against every attacker who's helping Russia.
On a more humorous note, a purely hypothetical attack on Sweden by "Anglo-American capitalism" in today's geopolitical climate should precipitate a revolutionary-defencist policy in favour of Swedish workers, regardless of how "dear" IKEA is to consumers' hearts. :D