Association for Workers Liberty (AWL) information demand

[Red Dreadnought]

As much as I know the reclaim em as trotskists, but the defend a sort of theses about USSR was state capitalism (or may be "burocreatic collectivism"). And they defended "right of Israel to defense from Iran".
And their favorite sport seems to be criticism about SWP.

Could you give me more information?

[BobKKKindle$]

They are called Alliance for Workers Liberty. They oppose immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. They oppossed Hong Kong being returned to China when it was still part of the British empire. They describe Hamas and the Iraqi resistance as "islamo-fascists". They oppose a single-state solution in Palestine and argued in 2006 that it would be difficult to condemn Israel if they launched an attack on Iran. They picket the annual Al Quds march.

[Red Dreadnought]

Well a sort of Schatmannism, that abduced by "democratism" justified "democratic block" actions like a lesser evil, may be.

But I agree with their criticism about Hamas or so called "Iraqui resistance", and I'd add Iran or Al-Qaeda. I'm not sure if the concept islamo-fascism it's tecnically correct; but those ideologies have clear analogies with fascism. We must avoid any support both "occidental democracies" or "islamic antiimperialis" like furious anti-proletarian ideologies.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

They are deeply flawed, but they do have positive features: they call for a genuine working-class anti-fascism and oppose popular frontist collaborations with anti-working-class politicians. They caused a great deal of fuss in the left at the start of this year when they went on a demonstration against Israel's massacre in Gaza with an internationalist placard saying "No to the IDF, No to Hamas" on one side and "Solidarity with workers, women and the left" on the other, which was seized and destroyed, because apparently many leftists find internationalist positions at anti-war demos are so unacceptable they have to be censored. Do quite a lot of work around women's issues. Have lots of front groups, like many trot organisations, and are relatively willing to work productively with others. Also one of the few groups who're prepared to spend a lot of time arguing for a socialist perspective within the climate movement. One of the less bad Trot groups, IMO.

[h0m0revolutionary]

They are deeply flawed, but they do have positive features: they call for a genuine working-class anti-fascism and oppose popular frontist collaborations with anti-working-class politicians. They caused a great deal of fuss in the left at the start of this year when they went on a demonstration against Israel's massacre in Gaza with an internationalist placard saying "No to the IDF, No to Hamas" on one side and "Solidarity with workers, women and the left" on the other, which was seized and destroyed, because apparently many leftists find internationalist positions at anti-war demos are so unacceptable they have to be censored. Do quite a lot of work around women's issues. Have lots of front groups, like many trot organisations, and are relatively willing to work productively with others. Also one of the few groups who're prepared to spend a lot of time arguing for a socialist perspective within the climate movement. One of the less bad Trot groups, IMO.

Where are they against popular frontism? This simply isn't true, they're part and parcel of all the major popular front groups. Moreover when are they decent on anti-fascism? Was they in Codnor 2008 when they, against a democratic vote to do otherwise, collaborated with the police, costing the militant anti-fascists any opportunity to get near the BNP camp?

They can go into climate change front groups, they can hate islamist groups.

But that doesn't detract away from their first-campism. They are not one of the better socialist groups surely. Refusing to call for the troops out of Iraq? Saying "nearly all [colonial] occupations [By Britain] are a bad thing" and asking "in the name of what alternative would we condemn an attack on Iran" makes them pro-imperialist.

They were one of two groups in the UK that published the Jyllands-Posten pictures that depicted Mohammed. The AWL and the BNP. They are anti-arab to their core, they don't call for the de-zionisation of israel and when Israel occupies Plaestine, with 93% of Israeli land reserved for Jewish use, they say nothing, Instead AWL repeat the mantra about the necessity for a Jewish State to exist.

Racist and imperialist. But their imperialism takes precedence, when the Mujahideen was resisting Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there was no more outspoken supporters of "islamo-fascism" on the British left than the AWL, For the AWL the wishes of imperialists are their core concern. The worst group on the British left.

[Ravachol]

They are called Alliance for Workers Liberty. They oppose immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. They oppossed Hong Kong being returned to China when it was still part of the British empire. They describe Hamas and the Iraqi resistance as "islamo-fascists". They oppose a single-state solution in Palestine and argued in 2006 that it would be difficult to condemn Israel if they launched an attack on Iran. They picket the annual Al Quds march.

They sound like part of the Anti-Deutsche tendency, the hardline Bahamas faction which actually called for 'unconditional support' for Milosovic regime against German Imperialism during the Yugoslav Wars :thumbdown:

[Devrim]

But I agree with their criticism about Hamas or so called "Iraqui resistance",

But basically, they are against HAMAS because they are supporting Israel.


They oppossed Hong Kong being returned to China when it was still part of the British empire.

It goes in with all the democratism really, doesn't it. It is not a question that revolutionaries should be taking either side on though.

Devrim

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Where are they against popular frontism? This simply isn't true, they're part and parcel of all the major popular front groups. Moreover when are they decent on anti-fascism? Was they in Codnor 2008 when they, against a democratic vote to do otherwise, collaborated with the police, costing the militant anti-fascists any opportunity to get near the BNP camp?
I think Codnor 2008 was fucked over by UAF pure and simple, any damage the AWL did was secondary to that.


But that doesn't detract away from their first-campism. They are not one of the better socialist groups surely. Refusing to call for the troops out of Iraq? Saying "nearly all [colonial] occupations [By Britain] are a bad thing" and asking "in the name of what alternative would we condemn an attack on Iran" makes them pro-imperialist.
All the Leninist groups are pro-imperialist; they just happen to be pro-US/UK imperialism rather than pro-Iranian imperialism, pro-Venezuelan imperialism or pro-Chinese imperialism.


They were one of two groups in the UK that published the Jyllands-Posten pictures that depicted Mohammed. The AWL and the BNP. They are anti-arab to their core, they don't call for the de-zionisation of israel and when Israel occupies Plaestine, with 93% of Israeli land reserved for Jewish use, they say nothing, Instead AWL repeat the mantra about the necessity for a Jewish State to exist.

Racist and imperialist. But their imperialism takes precedence, when the Mujahideen was resisting Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there was no more outspoken supporters of "islamo-fascism" on the British left than the AWL, For the AWL the wishes of imperialists are their core concern. The worst group on the British left.

All the left groups have terrible politics on one thing or another - the SWP are terrible on Islamism, the SP are terrible on screws and nationalism, the CPGB are terrible at actually doing anything, etc, etc. In my experience, the AWL are more willing to do practical work alongside others in groups they don't completely control than most of the others are, therefore I have more sympathy for them than most of the others. And I didn't really need to point out their bad side, since BK had rushed to do that already. Although I'll add that they're inexplicably soft on the Labour party sometimes and a really high proportion of their members come from Oxbridge, FWIW.
By the way, are you not still in Education Not For Sale?

[h0m0revolutionary]

..and a really high proportion of their members come from Oxbridge, FWIW.

Yeah I know it's bad to say so, but I think that speaks volumes.



By the way, are you not still in Education Not For Sale?

I am indeedy. I am looking at ASN [Autonomous Student's Network] but so far they've done nothing. ENS does have some AFed involvement above just me (fortunately) but I don't withhold criticism and even though I am critical, i certainly don't think it's simply an AWL front.

[ls]

All the Leninist groups are pro-imperialist; they just happen to be pro-US/UK imperialism rather than pro-Iranian imperialism, pro-Venezuelan imperialism or pro-Chinese imperialism.

Except the AWL are racists as well whereas many other groups aren't, also by "Leninist" do you mean those such as the ISL in Israel who are against both sides? I suppose just because they happen to use the word Leninist it automagically makes them so much worse than all anarchists, even platformists who sympathise with the Israeli state (whom I've met about 4 of).

Incidentally, I've heard of a couple more who actually work with the AWL, in fact the AWL seem to like anarchists apparently. There seems to be no shortage of those who sympathise with the need for an Israeli state.


All the left groups have terrible politics on one thing or another - the SWP are terrible on Islamism, the SP are terrible on screws and nationalism, the CPGB are terrible at actually doing anything, etc, etc. In my experience, the AWL are more willing to do practical work alongside others in groups they don't completely control than most of the others are, therefore I have more sympathy for them than most of the others.

This is a very odd way of looking at it, the labour party activists like galloway and co do loads too so by that logic we should support them eh?

Well why not? It's where your logic leads......

[Pogue]

Except the AWL are racists as well whereas many other groups aren't, also by "Leninist" do you mean those such as the ISL in Israel who are against both sides? I suppose just because they happen to use the word Leninist it automagically makes them so much worse than all anarchists, even platformists who sympathise with the Israeli state (whom I've met about 4 of).

Incidentally, I've heard of a couple more who actually work with the AWL, in fact the AWL seem to like anarchists apparently. There seems to be no shortage of those who sympathise with the need for an Israeli state.



This is a very odd way of looking at it, the labour party activists like galloway and co do loads too so by that logic we should support them eh?

Well why not? It's where your logic leads......

Well if you were strongly commited tot he idea of imperialism as a world system which any faction is capable at becoming a prepretator of, then supporting, on some fucked up lines, the UN being involved in Iraq/Afghanistan is no worse than many Leninists group's positions on Iran, etc.

The AWL do seem more happy to work with others, which is refreshing. I've noticed that alot recently.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I am indeedy. I am looking at ASN [Autonomous Student's Network] but so far they've done nothing. ENS does have some AFed involvement above just me (fortunately) but I don't withhold criticism and even though I am critical, i certainly don't think it's simply an AWL front.
If it's not simply an AWL front (I haven't made my mind up myself), then that in itself says something - there's no way the SWP, for instance, would be that willing to get so heavily involved in a group that they didn't completely dominate. If the AWL don't completely dominate ENS, and they're still willing to put that much energy into it, then that's a point in their favour, IMO.

Except the AWL are racists as well whereas many other groups aren't
In my experience of working with the AWL I've never found them to be racists.

I suppose just because they happen to use the word Leninist it automagically makes them so much worse than all anarchists, even platformists who sympathise with the Israeli state (whom I've met about 4 of).
I'd have thought platformists would be much more likely to support Hamas. Either way, being an anarchist doesn't make you immune to having dodgy politics, but being a Leninist means it's pretty much inevitable.


This is a very odd way of looking at it, the labour party activists like galloway and co do loads too so by that logic we should support them eh?

For one thing, it's been quite a while since Galloway was in the Labour Party. For another, if I met Labour activists who were willing to co-operate with anarchists and unaligned anti-capitalists in taking direct action, I'd be surprised, but I would have some respect for them, yes.
I also think the portrayal of the AWL as being straightforwardly pro-Israeli is a bit inaccurate. F'r instance, I think the Shministim (http://www.shministim.com/) have probably done more to actually practically damage the effectiveness of the Israeli military than most Palestine solidarity protests here have (that's still not a massive deal, but it's a decent start), and it was the AWL who organised their speaking tour over here (http://www.workersliberty.org/tamar). That's clearly not the behaviour of straightforward Zionists.

[Yehuda Stern]

AWL leader Sean Mantagma openly refers to himself as a Zionist. A lot of left communists and Anarchists admire the AWL's Arab and Muslim bashing, but they have a bit more of a problem with someone who openly supports Israel. Then again, anyone who opposes the right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation is in essence a supporter of Israel.

As a side note, one AWL sympathizer in Israel has written an article on the left in Israel (http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/02/25/update-left-israel) which mentions the ISL. It is petty, slanderous and offensive, like everything the AWL writes in relation to Israel.


F'r instance, I think the Shministim (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.shministim.com/) have probably done more to actually practically damage the effectiveness of the Israeli military than most Palestine solidarity protests here have (that's still not a massive deal, but it's a decent start), and it was the AWL who organised their speaking tour over here (http://www.workersliberty.org/tamar).

The Shminstim's actions are admirable, but they certainly haven't done more than protests to fight Israeli brutality. In fact, since they are confined to Israel mostly, they have had almost no effect.


That's clearly not the behaviour of straightforward Zionists.

Nope. It's the behavior of left Zionists, which again, is exactly how Sean Mantagma refers to himself.

[Pogue]

AWL leader Sean Mantagma openly refers to himself as a Zionist. A lot of left communists and Anarchists admire the AWL's Arab and Muslim bashing, but they have a bit more of a problem with someone who openly supports Israel. Then again, anyone who opposes the right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation is in essence a supporter of Israel.

As a side note, one AWL sympathizer in Israel has written an article on the left in Israel (http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/02/25/update-left-israel) which mentions the ISL. It is petty, slanderous and offensive, like everything the AWL writes in relation to Israel.

Can we see some evidence of this left communist and anarchist admiration of the AWL's Arab and Muslim bashing (and 'alot' of it, please), or should we just assume this is mroe of the mindless slander we see on this board on a regular basis?

[Yehuda Stern]

You can see it right in this thread; you just call it "anti-Hamas" instead.

[Pogue]

You can see it right in this thread; you just call it "anti-Hamas" instead.

Right, so as I thought its just more slander. :rolleyes:

[bricolage]

I am looking at ASN [Autonomous Student's Network] but so far they've done nothing.

ASN isn't an alternative to ENS, ENS is an organisation with campaigns, committees etc, ASN is just a networking tool for communicating with people across the country, sharing ideas and that, for example there have been people make posters for each other on it or arrange to meet up on marches. Pretty minimal stuff. At the moment I can't see any reason for it become more than a set of principles/forum/email list. Quite a lot of people on ASN are in ENS and as far as I know those that aren't aren't trying to make ASN an alternative.

[ls]

Well if you were strongly commited tot he idea of imperialism as a world system which any faction is capable at becoming a prepretator of, then supporting, on some fucked up lines, the UN being involved in Iraq/Afghanistan is no worse than many Leninists group's positions on Iran, etc.

Where have I ever attacked the fact that capitalist-imperialism is a world system? What I said was quite simple: the AWL are anti-Islamic, I've seen what they write constantly about 'political Islam' being such a grave threat.

Tell me, have they ever written an article about the disgusting corrupting effect of political judaism and zionism in Israel? Naah that's no worry is it. This is a case of what they don't say says more than what they do say.


The AWL do seem more happy to work with others, which is refreshing. I've noticed that alot recently.

Excellent, they have probably turned a bunch of decent anarchists into pro-zionists, congrats to them.


In my experience of working with the AWL I've never found them to be racists.

Then how do you account for them never discussing political Judaism? Have they ever, ever brought it up?

I've seen some article about not immediately denouncing people cuz they were Zionists from the AWL, they never say the same thing about Muslims. Obviously Muslims must be naturally worse cuz Islam is such a barbaric fascist religion and currently more of a threat to the world than any other one right?


I'd have thought platformists would be much more likely to support Hamas. Either way, being an anarchist doesn't make you immune to having dodgy politics, but being a Leninist means it's pretty much inevitable.

It doesn't make you 'immune' whatsoever, that's ridiculous.


For one thing, it's been quite a while since Galloway was in the Labour Party. For another, if I met Labour activists who were willing to co-operate with anarchists and unaligned anti-capitalists in taking direct action, I'd be surprised, but I would have some respect for them, yes.

Yeah, I wasn't saying anything against labour rank-and-file-ers, it's interesting you point out Galloway WAS in the labour party, so you would've worked with him if he was?


I also think the portrayal of the AWL as being straightforwardly pro-Israeli is a bit inaccurate. F'r instance, I think the Shministim (http://www.shministim.com/) have probably done more to actually practically damage the effectiveness of the Israeli military than most Palestine solidarity protests here have (that's still not a massive deal, but it's a decent start), and it was the AWL who organised their speaking tour over here (http://www.workersliberty.org/tamar). That's clearly not the behaviour of straightforward Zionists.

No, they are good at covering it up.

Also, please note I am not saying every person in AWL is bad, but as a whole the organisation does have a lot of people who clearly have stupid views.


AWL leader Sean Mantagma openly refers to himself as a Zionist. A lot of left communists and Anarchists admire the AWL's Arab and Muslim bashing, but they have a bit more of a problem with someone who openly supports Israel. Then again, anyone who opposes the right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation is in essence a supporter of Israel.

To be fair, I highly doubt any left-communists would praise the AWL, I haven't seen any in this thread at all.


The Shminstim's actions are admirable, but they certainly haven't done more than protests to fight Israeli brutality. In fact, since they are confined to Israel mostly, they have had almost no effect.

Yes, that's the impression I got too. Also, I highly doubt that people from groups like AATW would praise the likes of the AWL.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

It doesn't make you 'immune' whatsoever, that's ridiculous.

That's what I said!

being an anarchist doesn't make you immune to having dodgy politics.


Yeah, I wasn't saying anything against labour rank-and-file-ers, it's interesting you point out Galloway WAS in the labour party, so you would've worked with him if he was?
I think there's a massive difference between any rank-and-file activist and an MP. I can't see Galloway wanting to get involved in any group that didn't have shit politics, so it's a bit of a non-issue.


To be fair, I highly doubt any left-communists would praise the AWL, I haven't seen any in this thread at all.

To be fair, the left-communists never ever praise anyone, so that's not saying much. The OP is a left-commie, and he seemed curious about them.

[Leo]

A lot of left communists (...) admire the AWL's Arab and Muslim bashingThis is a despicable slander and you know it Yehuda.

[Red Dreadnought]

This is a despicable slander and you know it Yehuda.

Well, probably he knows, but I`ll explain the obvious. I can't talk for anarchist's, but intenationalists anarchist's, share with left commnunists or with councilists, even with SPGB an strict politic of not supporting every faction of capital. That's; AWL politics are shamefull, also like SWP supporting islamist block like "antiimperialists", with its adventure at RESPECT that's Nobel Award of Opportunism.

Salud

[Yehuda Stern]

This is a despicable slander and you know it Yehuda.

I wish it was. All too often it seems like LCs and Anarchists are rushing in to defend (if not support) tendencies that are anti-Muslim just because they like that they are against national liberation movements. For most leftists the AWL is still way too far to the right to give it any praise; but already two Anarchists in this thread found the silver lining: "they're good at cooperating with other groups." I wonder if an Anarchist would ever say that about, for example, Hamas, which before its rise to power regularly collaborated with left wing groups like the PFLP and the PPP.

[Leo]

I wish it was. All too often it seems like LCs and Anarchists are rushing in to defend (if not support) tendencies that are anti-Muslim

You can not point to a single left communist poster who supports or defends any islamophobic tendency. Left communists are the only current to have opposed the state of Israel, Zionism and the actions of various imperialist powers consistently and from the beginning, and have always been intransigent opponents of not only groups that are openly supportive of Israeli or "democratic" imperialist power in general such as the AWL or the Schachtmanites but also of more covert allies of islamophobia, such as the Iranian Worker Communist Parties.

Defending the interests of Palestinian and the other middle eastern workers against their native nationalist bourgeois butchers, saying that the native nationalist bourgeois butchers of the Palestinian and other middle eastern workers has never been and will never be an equivalent of "defending tendencies that are anti-muslim", and claiming it to be so is nothing less than an openly told lie.

[black magick hustla]

i think he probably thinks that anybody who considers himself a "marxist" but not a "leninist" is a left com, which is a very popular view. left communists are associated with left communist organizations, period.

[h0m0revolutionary]

You've got to admit Leo that there is a discrepancy between anarchists pointing out positives of the AWL and refusing to do so for Hamas.

The AWL, for reasons I can't work out, have several anarchists around them and perhaps the occasional left-communist (i'm not sure of the latter). For some reason despite their disgusting politics, they're kept in much higher regard than national liberation groups.

Now i'm not alleging racism or anything, but when people highlight the positives within overtly pro-imperialist groups, but don't do the same for those groups that, however reactionary, are seeking to throw off the rule of the major imperialist powers, people like Yehuda are going to get angry.

Surely we take a third-camp position (/pun) on this question and we have nothing to do with imperialist forces, whether in the sway of apologists for British and US imperialism or with Hamas and their ilk.

[Leo]

You've got to admit Leo that there is a discrepancy between anarchists pointing out positives of the AWL and refusing to do so for Hamas.

There might be, there are lots of anarchists who argue for the most reactionary positions anyway. There are some who don't of course.


The AWL, for reasons I can't work out, have several anarchists around them and perhaps the occasional left-communist (i'm not sure of the latter).

The AWL has no left communists "around them". A left communist is a member or a sympathizer of a left communist organization. The three left communist comrades other than myself, that is Red Dreadnought, Devrim and Marmot all made it clear that they think the AWL is a shameful and pro-imperialist organization in this very thread.


Surely we take a third-camp position (/pun) on this question and we have nothing to do with imperialist forces, whether in the sway of apologists for British and US imperialism or with Hamas and their ilk.

Yes, but surely calling it an internationalist position sounds much better than calling it a "third-camp position" :)

[Hit The North]

All the Leninist groups are pro-imperialist; they just happen to be pro-US/UK imperialism rather than pro-Iranian imperialism, pro-Venezuelan imperialism or pro-Chinese imperialism.


Whaaat? "Venezuelan imperialism"? You must be using a hitherto unknown definition of imperialism to make this fit. What nonsense!

[Devrim]

Whaaat? "Venezuelan imperialism"? You must be using a hitherto unknown definition of imperialism to make this fit. What nonsense!

It is perfectly in accordance with Rosa Luxemborg's definition of imperialism. She was a reasonably famous german socialist, you know? I suggest the fact that you aren't aware of these views has more to do with your own organisations standards of internal education than people using unknown definitions.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

It is perfectly in accordance with Rosa Luxemborg's definition of imperialism. She was a reasonably famous german socialist, you know? I suggest the fact that you aren't aware of these views has more to do with your own organisations standards of internal education than people using unknown definitions.

Devrim

Instead of acting like the patron saint of patronising windbags, why don't you just tell me how Venezuela conforms to Luxemburg's definition :rolleyes:

[Leo]

"Serbia is formally engaged in a national war of defence. But its monarchy and its ruling class are filled with expansionist desires as are the ruling classes in all modern states... Thus Serbia is today reaching out towards the AdriaticCoast where it is fighting out a real imperialist conflict with Italy on the backs of the Albanians."

"The small nations, the ruling classes of which are the accomplices of their partners in the big states, constitute only the pawns on the imperialist chessboard of the great powers, and are used by them, just like their own working masses, in wartime, as instruments, to be sacrificed to capitalist interests after the war."

"Today the nation is but a cloak that covers imperialistic desires, a battle cry for imperialistic rivalries, the last ideological measure with which the masses can be persuaded to play the role of cannon fodder in imperialistic war."

(Junius Pamphlet)

[Devrim]

Instead of acting like the patron saint of patronising windbags, why don't you just tell me how Venezuela conforms to Luxemburg's definition :rolleyes:

Leo seems to have provided a suitable quotation. I don't think you should be surprised if people mock you when you sytart by mocking others, especially when you don't know what you are talking about.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

Leo seems to have provided a suitable quotation.

I beg to differ, as none of those gobbets explain why Venezuela is an imperialist power.

[Yehuda Stern]

Leo: your definition of left communism is interesting, but frankly has nothing to do with reality. I don't have to be a member of any organization to claim allegiance to some ideology. I could have very easily been alone in having ISL positions in Israel and I still would have every right to call myself a Trotskyist (at least as much right as I have now). So yes, I've seen people who considered themselves left communists defend or outright support Islamophobic tendencies, saying that they are better than Islamist movements, etc.

When you make all sorts of claims about Trotskyism and Trotskyists (that they sold out to the Allies in WWII, etc.), you bring up the example of how the FI capitulated to American and British imperialism, for example (which it did). Does any member of the FI from WWII post here? Seems unlikely. Do you know any member of the WWII-era FI? Obviously not, as it has been dead for around six decades now. Why should you get a special law that only people who are members of specific organizations can be called LCs, and therefore have their positions raised in debates? Obviously this is a stupid thing to say, and I'm surprised to hear it come from you.

As for the claim that LCs are the only tendency that has consistently defended Palestinians from the start, well, that's just ridiculous. Left communists always seem to object to any sort of resistance against Israel, even when this resistance does something perfectly acceptable, like defending a village from an Israeli attack. Your position is in fact a capitulation to imperialism's power, veiled by ultra-left rhetoric. You can say whatever you want; that sort of behavior certainly does not put you in the camp of Palestinian workers.

Devrim: the definition of imperialism as any expansionist activity is the classic liberal definition. This is why liberals used to claim that there is no more imperialism, because there were no more colonies; now there is imperialism because of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, if you want to define imperialism in the same way as a liberal, that is your prerogative. No one has to adopt specifically Leninist definitions, least of all someone who is not a Leninist. However, do note that such a definition really takes away imperialism's character as the epoch of imperialist decay: such imperialism, as we have seen, can come and go, and therefore its existence signals not the time for proletarian revolutions but for reforming the capitalist states into non-imperialist ones. Good luck with that.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I beg to differ, as none of those gobbets explain why Venezuela is an imperialist power.
Let's look at that again:

"[X] is formally engaged in a national war of defence. But its monarchy and its ruling class are filled with expansionist desires as are the ruling classes in all modern states...
Do you really not get it? I don't claim that Venezuela is an imperialist power to rival the US or Russia. But I also don't think, that, say, Serbia or Israel are imperialist powers to rival the US or Russia; that doesn't change the fact that they're countries with imperialist ambitions (like all nation-states) and their behaviour obeys the logic of imperialism. A small, relatively weak imperialist country is still imperialist.

[Leo]

Leo: your definition of left communism is interesting, but frankly has nothing to do with reality. I don't have to be a member of any organization to claim allegiance to some ideology.

Only if you have a liberal and individualist definition of ideologies.

If you claim allegiance to an ideology and do not want to be a member or a sympathizer of an organization claiming allegiance to that ideology, you either set up your own organization, or say you sympathize with some of the positions of that ideology but do not claim allegiance to it.


I've seen people who considered themselves left communists defend or outright support Islamophobic tendencies, saying that they are better than Islamist movements, etc.

Who? This question has been asked before, you failed to respond then and you will fail to respond now, because you know that I will be able to show that whoever you are talking about is not a left communist, and not only because he/she/they are not members or sympathizers of a left communist organization either.


I could have very easily been alone in having ISL positions in Israel and I still would have every right to call myself a Trotskyist (at least as much right as I have now). So yes,

If you set out to form a Trotskyist organization even if alone, then sure.


When you make all sorts of claims about Trotskyism and Trotskyists (that they sold out to the Allies in WWII, etc.), you bring up the example of how the FI capitulated to American and British imperialism, for example (which it did). Does any member of the FI from WWII post here? Seems unlikely. Do you know any member of the WWII-era FI? Obviously not, as it has been dead for around six decades now.

I'm talking about the Trotskyist organizations of the time and again of the Trotskyist organizations carrying and claiming the legacy of the organizations of back then.

I am not talking about individuals when I condemn the betrayal of Trotskyism in the face of WW2. You are making a non-point.


As for the claim that LCs are the only tendency that has consistently defended Palestinians from the start, well, that's just ridiculous.

If you understand from "defending Palestinians" "defending the rights of the Palestinian bourgeoisie", then obviously.

The communist left and its predecessors, on the other hand are the only people to have consistently defended the interests of Palestinian workers and to have opposed Zionism.

You can read what Rosa Luxemburg, the shameful heretic who denounced all national liberation movements wrote about Zionism in The National Question if you want.


Left communists always seem to object to any sort of resistance against Israel, even when this resistance does something perfectly acceptable, like defending a village from an Israeli attack.

That is because "national resistance" is no resistance for the workers and gets them killed instead of defending and protecting them for the interests of an alien class.

We say the Palestinian workers should not be cannon fodder for the interests of their bosses. Defenders of nationalist "resistance" movements glorify and fetishize Palestinian workers being cannon fodder for the interests of their bosses, and condemning and throwing abuse at them at the smallest instance of their independent class movements. We have seen in lately how defenders of Palestinian nationalism threw abuses at the strikes in Gaza on Revleft itself.


Your position is in fact a capitulation to imperialism's power

"Defending the interests of Palestinian and the other middle eastern workers against their native nationalist bourgeois butchers, saying that the native nationalist bourgeois butchers of the Palestinian and other middle eastern workers has never been and will never be an equivalent of "defending tendencies that are anti-muslim", and claiming it to be so is nothing less than an openly told lie."

I have nothing to add in the face of this slander.

[Hit The North]

Let's look at that again:

Do you really not get it?

No. Irrespective of the weak theoretical basis for your appellation (as pointed out by Yehuda above), just because you claim that Venezuela's "ruling class are filled with expansionist desires" doesn't make it so. I'd like you - or Leo or Devrim - to post the evidence that this is the case. Then we can debate whether having "expansionist desires" is the defining characteristic of imperialism.


I don't claim that Venezuela is an imperialist power to rival the US or Russia.
I'm glad to hear it, but have the suspicion that you believe all states are imperialist, which reduces the term to a mere characteristic if the nation-state rather than a particular set of relations within the reproduction of global capital.

[Patchd]

Do you really not get it? I don't claim that Venezuela is an imperialist power to rival the US or Russia. But I also don't think, that, say, Serbia or Israel are imperialist powers to rival the US or Russia; that doesn't change the fact that they're countries with imperialist ambitions (like all nation-states) and their behaviour obeys the logic of imperialism. A small, relatively weak imperialist country is still imperialist.
Agreed, but even materially speaking actual imperialist powers, ie: capitalist powers with greater capability for imperialist ventures, are more of a threat to the working class. Not to say that the other state in question will not be opposed either, it is responsible for it's own role in the oppression and exploitation of the working class and should be smashed entirely. But it's the mere acceptance that a power like the USA, when it comes into question with a country like Iran is the greater threat to the working class as a whole, not only to the Iranian working class in terms of bombs or as social control is being increased, but also to the workers in it's own borders, and other influenced regions in the world, as it's economic and political power grows.

[Devrim]

No. Irrespective of the weak theoretical basis for your appellation (as pointed out by Yehuda above), just because you claim that Venezuela's "ruling class are filled with expansionist desires" doesn't make it so. I'd like you - or Leo or Devrim - to post the evidence that this is the case. Then we can debate whether having "expansionist desires" is the defining characteristic of imperialism.

No, having desires is not at all the basis of imperialism. To be honest I am a little disappointed with Yehuda's non-argument:


the definition of imperialism as any expansionist activity is the classic liberal definition. This is why liberals used to claim that there is no more imperialism, because there were no more colonies; now there is imperialism because of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, if you want to define imperialism in the same way as a liberal, that is your prerogative.

To be honest, I am surprised that he isn't aware of Luxemburg views. Obviously, we will have to assume that to be the case, otherwise he would be just mischaracteristing them.

This series of articles from our press lays out the argument on the national question (and therefore the question of views on imperialism)from all sides in the Marxist movement, and our take on it:
http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/339


I'm glad to hear it, but have the suspicion that you believe all states are imperialist, which reduces the term to a mere characteristic if the nation-state rather than a particular set of relations within the reproduction of global capital.

This is what the Luxemburgist view says. That imperialism in not a policy of specific states, but a general historical epoch in which all states are imperialist.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Leo: your definition of left communism is interesting, but frankly has nothing to do with reality. I don't have to be a member of any organization to claim allegiance to some ideology.

Being a communist isn't at all about 'claiming allegiance to some ideology'.

People are communists who are members or sympathisers of communist organisations, or in the absence of a suitable organisation, those who are actively working to establish one.

Of course this doesn't fit in with your attempts to smear left communists as 'Arab and Muslim bashers'. In fact the fact that you haven't been able to come up with the name of one example who even fits your definition of a left communist is very telling.

Devrim

[Leo]

This series of articles from our press lays out the argument on the national question (and therefore the question of views on imperialism)from all sides in the Marxist movement, and our take on it:
http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/339 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/339)

Also for dealing with the economic basis of imperialism theories: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/019/on-imperialism

[Devrim]

Also for dealing with the economic basis of imperialism theories: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/019/on-imperialism

Actually that one is probably more relevant to the point. It was the one I was looking for but couldn't find an English version, thanks.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, as I can see it, Leo and Devrim's lame defense can be summed up in two points:

1) I cannot point to any left communists who post on this site or who are members of organizations that they approve of who exhibit the sort of Islamophobic traits I mentioned. That's quite easy when Leo says that whoever I metion, he will "show that he is not a left communist." Well, how about this; next time a left communist talks about Trotskyism having sold out to the Allies in WWII, I will simply say that I can show that whoever they are talking about is not really a Trotskyist (and I would actually be correct, too).

2) That I do not understand Luxemburg's definition of imperialism. Actually, that definition and my understanding of it are irrelevant; both Leo and Devrim have claimed that what makes countries like Iran and Venezuela imperialist is their imperialist desires. If anyone here fails to understand any reasonable Marxist definition of imperialism, it's them.

[Leo]

I cannot point to any left communists who post on this site or who are members of organizations that they approve of who exhibit the sort of Islamophobic traits I mentioned. That's quite easy when Leo says that whoever I metion, he will "show that he is not a left communist."

So you were lying when you said some left communists approve of who exhibit the sort of Islamophobic traits you mentioned. I take it that you admit it.


Well, how about this; next time a left communist talks about Trotskyism having sold out to the Allies in WWII, I will simply say that I can show that whoever they are talking about is not really a Trotskyist (and I would actually be correct, too).

OK, good luck trying to show that the entire leadership and an overwhelming majority of the rank and file of the organization which none other than Trotsky himself led were not Trotskyists.

Who were the Trotskyists then? Munis? Stinas? Zheng Chaolin? The Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg Front? Why did the militants of the Fourth International of the time who didn't betray at the time have to end up denoucning Trotskyism themselves, and in some cases going as far as completely rejecting and denouncing Trotsky himself?

I am not saying that Trotsky himself would have betrayed personally, but he certainly contributed to the opportunism of pre-WW2 Trotskyism, which led it to betrayal.


That I do not understand Luxemburg's definition of imperialism. Actually, that definition and my understanding of it are irrelevant; both Leo and Devrim have claimed that what makes countries like Iran and Venezuela imperialist is their imperialist desires. If anyone here fails to understand any reasonable Marxist definition of imperialism, it's them.

You are openly distorting positions, this is not at all what we are saying. If would like to make an actual criticism rather than a petty distortion of the analysis of Rosa Luxemburg which we defend, we have provided you enough links, and in addition you can take on The Accumulation of Capital and the Junius Pamphlet.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Well, as I can see it, Leo and Devrim's lame defense can be summed up in two points:

1) I cannot point to any left communists who post on this site or who are members of organizations that they approve of who exhibit the sort of Islamophobic traits I mentioned. That's quite easy when Leo says that whoever I metion, he will "show that he is not a left communist.".
You've not mentioned anyone so far. Who specifically are you talking about? Links pls.

That I do not understand Luxemburg's definition of imperialism. Actually, that definition and my understanding of it are irrelevant; both Leo and Devrim have claimed that what makes countries like Iran and Venezuela imperialist is their imperialist desires.As I understand the left-communist position on imperialism, it's not about any idealist concept of desires, it's about a materialist understanding that the logic of their situation compels them to behave in a specific way. Your neighbourhood corner shop is not in a position to behave the way that Wal-Mart does, but it's no less capitalist for all that, because the owners are still extracting surplus value, and if they were as powerful as Wal-Mart, they'd behave in the same way, not because they desire to, but because that's how the market works. Same for Venezuela.

[Pogue]

Yes, obviously any nation has the potential to be imperialist, which is why anti-imperialists don't call for the establishment of a rival imperialist bloc as a response to the current predominant mode of imperialism. If you follow a genuinely socialist national liberation path your not going to act as if the process stops when a nation gains independence from whatever has it in a stranglehold (lets say US imperialism), which is why it's vital our anti-imperialism is part of the struggle for working class control, and genuine working class control, as a means to defeat imperialism meaningfully.

[Red Dreadnought]

Yehuda, Why don't you read "The Accumulation of Capital" or the "Junius Pamphlet"? Why don't you think a little in her arguments and paradigma about Imperialism. Open your mind.:D

[Yehuda Stern]

Leo


So you were lying when you said some left communists approve of who exhibit the sort of Islamophobic traits you mentioned. I take it that you admit it. Actually, I was just mocking the argument that I need to run by you who I refer to as a left communist or not. Let me make it real simple for you: if someone refers to himself as a Trotskyist, that's good enough for you when you use something he said / did as an argument against Trotskyism. When I say that I've heard LCs make all sorts of arguments, I don't look for the ICC seal of approval for those people.


OK, good luck trying to show that the entire leadership and an overwhelming majority of the rank and file of the organization which none other than Trotsky himself led were not Trotskyists.Wll, by the relevant time Trotsky was already dead and therefore couldn't lead anything. But why should the facts interrupt our LC dogma.

As for the Rosa Luxemburg issue, it's condescending enough to claim that I don't know about Luxemburg's theories, but to tell me that you have given links to articles and whatnot and therefore you don't have to say anything else on the subject is really something else. Let's put it this way: what Luxemburg's theory says is irrelevant, as the only argument that you have suggested for why Venezuela could be imperialist is that it has "expansionist desires." Do you have any others? If so, I'd like to hear them here instead of being asked to go through drab LC propaganda.

TUF

You say that the LC position is not that imperialism is defined by desires, but then, no one has offered a different definition. I've been asking for 3 posts now (including this one) and I'm still waiting. Now you chime in for the LCs and say that a certain logic makes these states behave a certain way. What is that logic and what is that way? No answers yet.

Your analogy fails as the owner's of the corner shop are petty-bourgeois, not capitalist, and as such behave quite differently from capitalist (and are thus treated differently by Marxists). But even if it didn't, it doesn't matter - an analogy isn't a proof, it just illustrates a proof. And none of you have managed to prove that Venezuela is imperialist in any Marxist sense - which is understandable, as none of you have given any meaningful definition of the thing.

Pogue

The theory of permanent revolution means exactly (among other things) that the revolution doesn't stop "when a nation gains independence from whatever has it in a stranglehold." The contention here is not that LCs want "a genuinely socialist national liberation path" but that they have no interest in national liberation, that they are fully content to preach to the third world masses that they must wait until they are good Marxists before they attempt any sort of national liberation, and that they may choke on their own blood in the meantime.

The problem is that the left-communists, behind the veil of ultra-left pronouncements, in practice serve to demobilize the anti-imperialist struggle, and thus in fact leave it in the hands of those butchers they complain that Trotskyists serve by wanting to participate in the struggle and fight against its bourgeois leadership.

[Pogue]

The theory of permanent revolution means exactly (among other things) that the revolution doesn't stop "when a nation gains independence from whatever has it in a stranglehold." The contention here is not that LCs want "a genuinely socialist national liberation path" but that they have no interest in national liberation, that they are fully content to preach to the third world masses that they must wait until they are good Marxists before they attempt any sort of national liberation, and that they may choke on their own blood in the meantime.

The problem is that the left-communists, behind the veil of ultra-left pronouncements, in practice serve to demobilize the anti-imperialist struggle, and thus in fact leave it in the hands of those butchers they complain that Trotskyists serve by wanting to participate in the struggle and fight against its bourgeois leadership.

Well I agree with you. As long as fighting the bourgeoisie leadership actually happens. I was sort of hinting at the Permanent Revolution theory in my post.

[black magick hustla]

i think the problem here is a problem of semantics also. obviously the "imperialism" we talk about is different than the imperialism m-ls, trots, and plataformists talk about. its not about accepting certain "definitions" of imperialism, but accepting certain geopolitcal and economic notions about the world. it doesnt matter if our "imperialism" is called "santana" or "cigarrettebutts", what matters is whether the effect we talk about is true.

maybe calling venezuela "imperialist" might sound odd, but what matters here is not the name but how venezuela as a state acts. i dont think its even a question of whether venezuela can be an imperialist superpower or not, but that national liberation is impossible, even in the strictest, m-l, trot sense. what happens with the shift of ruling class factions in third world countries is that the country will end up paying allegiance to another imperialist bloc, because every corner of the globe is integrated to world capitalism, making such things as economic and political independence meaningless. the PKK is a pawn of american imperialists and iran is in the pocket of german capitalists. if this is the case, then national liberation is nothing more than taking sides in imperialist war.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

If so, I'd like to hear them here instead of being asked to go through drab LC propaganda.
So you want to read an explanation of LCs think about imperialism without having to read LC propaganda? Good luck with that.


TUF

You say that the LC position is not that imperialism is defined by desires, but then, no one has offered a different definition. I've been asking for 3 posts now (including this one) and I'm still waiting. Now you chime in for the LCs and say that a certain logic makes these states behave a certain way. What is that logic and what is that way? No answers yet.
The LCs have already given links that they feel explain their understanding of imperialism. Now, are you going to explain who or what these supposed Islamophobic LCs are (preferably with links)? At the moment all you're telling us is that there are some left communists somewhere who aren't members of any left communist group and are Islamophobic and there's no evidence that they exist.

[Yehuda Stern]

maybe calling venezuela "imperialist" might sound odd, but what matters here is not the name but how venezuela as a state acts.

Yes, but what is that way? What about the way it acts "as a state" makes it imperialist? The only explanation one can glean from the LC posts in this thread: because it has "expansionist desires." And here we go back to the liberal, anti-Marxist, anti-revolutionary definition of imperialism. So, to reply to both this and TUF's latest: what is the LC definition of imperialism? Yes I want you to tell me without having me read LC propaganda. If you cannot summarize your definition for the needs of a debate, I'm afraid the definition is useless.

Until that happens, I'm going to have to assume that you are all simply avoiding the issue, links or not.

Of course national liberation can't be achieved without a workers revolution. Hey, ever heard of permanent revolution? That thing I raised in my last post here? Just two above yours?

By the way: Iran in the pocket of German imperialism? That German imperialism that's even more insistent on Israel's "right" to attack Iran than US imperialism? Is that the one you're talking about?

TUF, you and everyone else are more than welcome to not take my word. I'm afraid I haven't recorded every political exchange I've ever made (I know, I really should have).