Why did Maoist groups in Afghanistan (ALO/RAWA) back the Mujahideen?

[Cheung Mo]

Was the Soviet Union really so vile that they needed to ally with America's fascist handmaidens? Was Meena Kamal really that clueless of what the implications of her treachery would have toward her Afghan sisters, or did she betray the revolution just because she was fucking Faiz Ahmad?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It seems they fought against both groups during the war and continued fighting against the mujahideen groups after. Weren't both of the people you singled out killed by mujahideen assassins?

It certainly looks like an ultra-leftist position in hindsight.

[Babeufist]

But some Khalq PDPA members (e.g. Shanawaz Tanai) supported the Taliban.

[A Marxist Historian]

Was the Soviet Union really so vile that they needed to ally with America's fascist handmaidens? Was Meena Kamal really that clueless of what the implications of her treachery would have toward her Afghan sisters, or did she betray the revolution just because she was fucking Faiz Ahmad?

Well, Mao his very own self allied with apartheid South Africa in Angola vs. the Soviet-backed MPLA, so we don't have to look at her sex life to understand her position. She was just being a good orthodox Maoist.

I understand Mao even had a theory to justify this, called the "Three Worlds Theory," according to which the US was better than the Soviets.

-M.H.-

[Yehuda Stern]

Was the Soviet Union really so vile that they needed to ally with America's fascist handmaidens? Was Meena Kamal really that clueless of what the implications of her treachery would have toward her Afghan sisters, or did she betray the revolution just because she was fucking Faiz Ahmad?

I love the implication that women are so mindless that they make decisions based on who they are "fucking".

[Yoseph]

Well, Mao his very own self allied with apartheid South Africa in Angola vs. the Soviet-backed MPLA, so we don't have to look at her sex life to understand her position. She was just being a good orthodox Maoist.

I understand Mao even had a theory to justify this, called the "Three Worlds Theory," according to which the US was better than the Soviets.

-M.H.-
What do you mean by "apartheid South Africa in Angola"? In the days of colonial war, or war of independence, Angola was a province of Portugal, Had not a party of white "race", or own a government, the sides who were fighting were the fascist government of Portugal(European), MPLA(leftwing, pro-Soviet), UNITA(rightwing). FNLA(Supported by the Chinese obvious interests). After the Portuguese revolution of 75 and recognition of Angola's independence, Portuguese soldiers Went away. Until this moment, they were all fighting the Portuguese. Then Began the civil war, UNITA was merged with the FNLA which was weakened by clashes with the Portuguese, and Had the support of China, U.S.A, South Africa [with the apartheid regime)] and many others. Against the MPLA supported by the USSR, Cuba and Nicaragua.
The MPLA won and still rules the country.

[A Marxist Historian]

What do you mean by "apartheid South Africa in Angola"? In the days of colonial war, or war of independence, Angola was a province of Portugal, Had not a party of white "race", or own a government, the sides who were fighting were the fascist government of Portugal(European), MPLA(leftwing, pro-Soviet), UNITA(rightwing). FNLA(Supported by the Chinese obvious interests). After the Portuguese revolution of 75 and recognition of Angola's independence, Portuguese soldiers Went away. Until this moment, they were all fighting the Portuguese. Then Began the civil war, UNITA was merged with the FNLA which was weakened by clashes with the Portuguese, and Had the support of China, U.S.A, South Africa [with the apartheid regime)] and many others. Against the MPLA supported by the USSR, Cuba and Nicaragua.
The MPLA won and still rules the country.

Funny! Jonas Savimbi's UNITA had simply become a South African puppet by the late '70s at the latest. Holden Roberto and his FNLA only a slightly more complicated story.

After the Portuguese went away, South African troops in South African uniforms, occupying the southern half of the country, were Savimbi's real military force and support

The Angolan Civil War was ultimately not even a civil war. Its decisive battle was between Cuban and South African troops.

-M.H.-

[Obs]

Basically, this whas what every Maoist group did up until the Soviet Union collapsed - side with and support anyone opposing the USSR, regardless of ideology and other allegiances, ignore class entirely, profit. Only after the USSR disintegrated and China started to turn out just as bad, if not worse, did the Maoists of the world seem to start getting their act together. They're decent enough sorts now, I guess.

[Yoseph]

Funny! Jonas Savimbi's UNITA had simply become a South African puppet by the late '70s at the latest. Holden Roberto and his FNLA only a slightly more complicated story.

After the Portuguese went away, South African troops in South African uniforms, occupying the southern half of the country, were Savimbi's real military force and support

The Angolan Civil War was ultimately not even a civil war. Its decisive battle was between Cuban and South African troops.

-M.H.-
Sorry, my mistake. I thought you were saying that there was an apartheid regime in Angola! I agree with you on the main issue, the Maoists almost always supported those who fought against the Soviets interests. The South African army and Zaire withdrew in March 76 after they invaded in October. In 1981 the South African army invade the country again. About the war i think it was a civil war, first because the differences between the various parties, were more ethnic and tribal differences than ideological. Then, because the civil war lasted until 2002 with the death of Savimbi and the Cuban soldiers had already gone in 1991 .. Yes I know that the war was marked and perhaps decided by foreign interests, but IMHO it was a civil war and a bloody one. Cheers Comrade, sorry again for not having understood what you said

[Red Future]

Roberto's troops were supplied with outdated US weaponry that was smuggled through Zaire,alongside China, Romania also supplied weapons to the FNLA.Furthermore Robeto was actually attached to Zaire and Mobutu via his marriage to a member of Mobutu's family.

[Red Future]

To expand on the previous post the link with Romania was likely something diplomatically related to Ceaucescu's close relationship with Mobutu.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Was the Soviet Union really so vile that they needed to ally with America's fascist handmaidens? Was Meena Kamal really that clueless of what the implications of her treachery would have toward her Afghan sisters, or did she betray the revolution just because she was fucking Faiz Ahmad?

It has a lot to do with the constant Maoist rhetoric against "social imperialism." I disagree with social imperialism also, but I would never support a bunch of capitalist supported reactionaries just to get an ideological point across.

[NorgeKommunistAntiIsrael]

But some Khalq PDPA members (e.g. Shanawaz Tanai) supported the Taliban.



Yeah, in the later part of the war, yes, but Shanawaz Tanai was with the democratic government until 1990, only 2 years before the fall of democracy in Afghanistan.

[A Marxist Historian]

Yeah, in the later part of the war, yes, but Shanawaz Tanai was with the democratic government until 1990, only 2 years before the fall of democracy in Afghanistan.

When the PDPA regime fell apart, quite a few PDPA folk of both factions went over to the US side, or the Mujahedeen, which at that point was exactly the same thing.

Gorbachevism in action. And the PDPA had its own Boris Yeltsin's as well.

-M.H.-

[khad]

Many of them paid for it with their blood, which is perhaps less than they deserved.

Honestly, did they expect that Hekmatyar's goons wouldn't try to exterminate them?

All Maoism is is an after-the-fact rationalization of every bullshit geopolitical move China made following the Sino-Soviet split. It's not so much a theory as an incoherent smattering of political opportunism.

Interestingly enough, China jump started its own Islamic jihad movement with the arms and training it sent to the Mujahideen. Chinese-supplied explosives were used in the wave terror attacks that hit Xinjiang in the 1990s, and one can easily say that what is happening today is a direct consequence of that.

[Blake's Baby]

Hey, Khad posted something I substantially agree with. Who knew that could happen?

In 1974 America withdrew from Vietnam. That was a result of Nixon's visit to Beijing. China became America's ally against the USSR. My enemy's enemy is my friend. China's price for moving into the American orbit was a free hand in Indo-China.

Sino-American collaboration was aimed at 1-the USSR; 2-India; both threatened China's imperialist interests in Central, East and South Asia. The situation lasted until the break-up of the blocs. Now, Russia and China are making something of a rapproachment but only because they realise thay can't challenge American hegemony alone; and it certainly seems the case that now Russia is the junior partner.

[NorgeKommunistAntiIsrael]

Was the Soviet Union really so vile that they needed to ally with America's fascist handmaidens? Was Meena Kamal really that clueless of what the implications of her treachery would have toward her Afghan sisters, or did she betray the revolution just because she was fucking Faiz Ahmad?


Faiz Ahmad and Meena Kamal were killed by the Hezb-e-Islami terrorist militia, right? Actually, they were not pro-Islamist, nor pro-Soviet/pro-government. They fought both, and that's the reason that these groups are almost dissolved now. For instance, the webpage of the ALO is also powered on a Russian server, with exiled members of it in Russia.

The reason why they didn't supported the People's Democratic Party, was the split between China and the Soviet Union that started when Khrushchev tried to get the USSR more back to Leninism from the brutal Stalinism. Mao didn't like that, and that's the reason for the split. And the ALO, as Maoists and inspired by China, had to follow Chinese interrests and opposed the Soviet-friendly PDP government, that they called "false Marxists".

[khad]

Faiz Ahmad and Meena Kamal were killed by the Hezb-e-Islami terrorist militia, right? Actually, they were not pro-Islamist, nor pro-Soviet/pro-government. They fought both, and that's the reason that these groups are almost dissolved now. For instance, the webpage of the ALO is also powered on a Russian server, with exiled members of it in Russia.
Hezb-i-Islami means party of Islam, and it was led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who is and has always been an Islamist jihadi. He had an on-again off-again relationship with various factions because of his political ambitions to rule Afghanistan, and having established contacts in the 1970s (his first terror campaign against the Afghan state was in 1975, 2 and a half years before the PDPA administration), he was the most powerful Mujahideen warlord and the preferred client of the Pakistani ISI. The only reason why he didn't manage to take control of Afghanistan was because PDPA forces wiped out a third of his forces at Jalalabad in 1989. Following the collapse of the PDPA government, he then helped start a brutal civil war in which various factions fought and tried to out-rape each other, with none gaining the upper hand until the Taliban chased them out.

Hekmatyar briefly returned and resurfaced as a politician following the American invasion, but he soon announced his intention to join Al-Qaeda. Since about 2008 his fighting group has been a major player in the Afghan insurgency.

As for RAWA, if you've read their statements for the past 10 years, you'd think they're monarchists since they supported the restoration of Zahir Shah until the day that old fucker died. They have this loony idea that the time of the monarchy when everyone was eating dirt and there wasn't a single hospital or road in 95% of the country was a golden age where "no one suffered." They're another politically opportunist group just thrown in to muddy the waters. Then again, Beijing hosted Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia and helped install him as king, so this kind of garbage is par for the course.

Maoism: Anything but communism.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Maoists are right wingers.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Sounds like a part of the Sino-Soviet split. The PRC and the USSR hated each others guts.

Look up the 1969 border conflicts, Pol Pot etc. Mao pretty much gave up his principles when he met Nixon.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Because Maoism is class collaborationist.

[A Marxist Historian]

Hey, Khad posted something I substantially agree with. Who knew that could happen?

In 1974 America withdrew from Vietnam. That was a result of Nixon's visit to Beijing. China became America's ally against the USSR. My enemy's enemy is my friend. China's price for moving into the American orbit was a free hand in Indo-China.

Sino-American collaboration was aimed at 1-the USSR; 2-India; both threatened China's imperialist interests in Central, East and South Asia. The situation lasted until the break-up of the blocs. Now, Russia and China are making something of a rapproachment but only because they realise thay can't challenge American hegemony alone; and it certainly seems the case that now Russia is the junior partner.

And Blake has made a posting much of which I agree with, though neither China nor Putin's Russia is really up to challenging US hegemony, they just don't like getting totally rolled over. Neither country has ever resisted the "war on terror," instead they have done their best to get on the bandwagon. And in the last analysis, Russia is still more powerful on the world scale than China, as it has far, far more nuclear weapons.

Except for the "Chinese imperialism" part, it is silly to think that China invaded Vietnam in 1978 'cuz Chinese capitalists wanted to set up garment sweatshops in Hanoi or something. Even more absurd if applied to Chinese-Indian border conflicts in '62. There, Khruchchev played a particularly scuzzy role, as India then, despite all Nehru's "anti-imperialist" and "socialist" rhetoric, was still pretty much a British and American neo-colony.

Rather, it was very like intra-union conflicts, such as, in America, the infamous assault of the Teamsters on Cesar Chavez's United Farm Workers union, which took place around about the same time. Or, more recently, the Operating Engineers local acting as a cats paw against the ILWU at Longview.

I'm not familiar enough with the British labor scene to come up with parallels BB would be familiar with, but I'll betcha there are some.

-M.H.-

[Chrome_Fist]

Well, some would say that the Chinese were backing an Anti-Imperialist force, much like how the modern 'anti imperialists' backed Gaddafi and Assads thugs.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, the unions are part of capitalism too MH.

China - imperialist. The USSR - imperialist. America - imperialist. Britain - imperialist. India - imperialist (though on a smaller scale than the others). Even Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia was imperialist.

All countries are capitalist, all countries directly compete (or line up with a bigger country, or both) in the hope of advancing their own economic and strategic interests. That's imperialism - capitalist competition on the national scale. That's the history of the 20th century.

[A Marxist Historian]

Yeah, the unions are part of capitalism too MH.

China - imperialist. The USSR - imperialist. America - imperialist. Britain - imperialist. India - imperialist (though on a smaller scale than the others). Even Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia was imperialist.

All countries are capitalist, all countries directly compete (or line up with a bigger country, or both) in the hope of advancing their own economic and strategic interests. That's imperialism - capitalist competition on the national scale. That's the history of the 20th century.

So you thnk unions are capitalist institutions too? You get points for consistency.

Yes, anyone who thinks workers unions are capitalist institutions are perfectly consistent if they think workers states are capitalist institutions too. That is consistent ultra-leftism. Crazy IMHO, but at least highly logical.

-M.H.-

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

If the unions are satisfied to integrate into the capitalist framework, then what else could they be? Do they get the same treatment as 'workers' states? Where as long as they were created by people who at least claimed to be opposed to capitalism, they retain an anti-capitalist character forever regardless of what their actions are?

As far as crazy positions go I think you have the market cornered.

[Blake's Baby]

To be fair, EG, MH's position is consistent Trotskyism for you. Not coherent, but at least consistent. History stopped in 1920 or thereabouts, nothing changed. Unable to move towards socialism (because, even the Trotskyists agree that socialism will be global or not at all) but also unable to move backwards (because Leon was involved in establishing the first 'workers' state', how could that go bad?) the Soviet Union has to spend 70 years in a kind of ahistoric frozen limbo of history. At least the Stalinists think that the SU got worse after Stalin's death, even the Stalinists can acknowledge that history continued to happen, thinggs change; not so the ortho-Trots and their 'theory' (I use the term loosely) that for 70 years the Soviet Union was 'degenerated' without ever actually degenerating (as a process) or becoming degenerate (as a result).

Except, the unions had already been integrated into capitalism before 1914, confirmed by their role as the 'recruiting sergeants of capitalism' in 1914, so that's not so consistent; they've gone back on the clarity that Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg etc reached during (and even before) WWI, and that the CI reached in the immediate post-War period. But then again, given the 'French turn' in the 1930s, and the tactic of entryism into social-democracy, it makes sense to pretend that social-democracy and the unions weren't integrated into the capitalist state 100 or more years ago. The bankruptcy of Trotskyism as politial practice stems entirely from enshrining Trotsky's mistakes as a - indeed, the only - viable method.

[Hiero]

I don't think that the Maoist group was apart of the Mujahideen, but as someone said fought against both the Mujahideen. But then doesn't the Mujahideen translate as broad alliance resistance in Islamic countries?

From what I have been told, the PDPA was assassinating political opponents, including Maoists. Why didn't the PDPA initiate a broad alliance of Communist parties? The PDPA was obviously a better government then the Taliban, but none the less they come to power via coup, not a revolution. They took political direction from the Brezhnev government. That is a government in serious ideological decline, they were promoting pro-soviet coups and not revolution (the essence of Soviet Imperialism). While the PDPA government was progressive and socialist in policy, was it a very smart government? My understanding was that it became unpopular as days went on. Governments based on coups can bring progressive reform and have the risk of being toppled, this is not a social revolution.

The Maoist were fighting against a government that came to power from a coup, a government that did not consolidate power around a Communist alliance and a real revolution. It was following Soviet revisionism that was taking the USSR down the drain and with it the PDPA. How could a government based on the reliance of the USSR exist in a unipolar world? The USA was going to win in the proxy war and the Taliban to take its thrown. Maybe the Maoist were right to fight the government and continue to fight the Taliban, and the US invasion of Afghanistan.

Even a Dengist styled Afghanistan would have been better then a failed Soviet experiment.

[Ismail]

As Hiero said, the government came to power in a coup and had no popular basis outside of the cities (and even here its popularity wasn't much.) It followed the Soviet revisionist course and was too weak to stand on its own, so its first leader Taraki pleaded for Turkmen, Uzbeks and other troops from Soviet Asia to disguise themselves as Afghans and help fight for the weak government. Taraki was overthrown by Amin, who the Soviets disliked both because he was more "radical" (didn't want to slow down progressive reforms) and because he wanted to pursue a more independent foreign policy; the Soviets then decided that losing Afghanistan would be bad for Soviet geopolitics, so they invaded it, shot Amin, and installed Karmal who slowed down reforms and was easily the least popular Afghan leader, being seen as a total pawn of the USSR.

As Hoxha wrote on January 5, 1980 in Zëri i Popullit, "This is a fascist-type aggression like the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968, a new edition of it, both from the stand-point of the military action and from the standpoint of the arguments used to justify it. The Soviet social-imperialists are trying to present the occupation of Afghanistan as a 'lawful' act carried out allegedly on the basis of the Afghan government's request for assistance and the 'treaty of friendship' which exists between the two countries to protect Afghanistan from external interference, and so on. All these 'arguments' are as stale as they are timeworn. They have been used by all aggressors at all times."

At this point the opposition to the PDPA regime was transformed into a national liberation war against the Soviet occupiers. Hoxha even wrote in his diary that, watching TV and reading the news on Afghanistan, the way the resistance fought (organizing the people, moving rapidly between natural cover like rocks and such, etc.) reminded him of the Albanian partisans in their own national liberation war against fascist occupation. As with the US in Vietnam, the Soviets enacted various brutal reprisals against villages suspected of sympathy with the Mujahidin, which of course had the effect of reinforcing opposition to the Soviet occupation. Also like US troops in Vietnam, the Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan became addicted to drugs, would come to suffer from PTSD, and so on as a result of the dehumanizing effects of occupation. In the USSR itself news about what was going on was hushed up since it was pretty obvious that Soviet soldiers were dying for no real reason except to satisfy Soviet social-imperialist aims.

Yet US imperialism ensured that the most reactionary elements of the Mujahidin (Hekmatyar and whatnot, backed by Pakistan) would emerge against any other tendency, Maoist included. Yet the struggle against the Soviet occupation was a popular one regardless, and the PDPA regime reacted by appealing to reactionary sentiments; Najibullah removed "Democratic" from the country's name and recognized Islam in the 1987 constitution, carried out prayers on TV and so on. He also became the Afghan Gorbachev, praising Perestroika as a "real revolution" not long before the PDPA itself changed its name and dropped any pretense of Marxism.

Najibullah barely outlasted the fall of the USSR itself. It is an example of how US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism combined to ensure an unnecessary tragedy for a country.

[khad]

I don't think that the Maoist group was apart of the Mujahideen, but as someone said fought against both the Mujahideen. But then doesn't the Mujahideen translate as broad alliance resistance in Islamic countries?
The Maoists in Afghanistan supported China. China supported Hekmatyar and the mujahideen. Do the math. You do can take a look at their united front they formed in 1979 with islamist forces:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahedin_Freedom_Fighters_Front_of_Afghanistan


From what I have been told, the PDPA was assassinating political opponents, including Maoists. Why didn't the PDPA initiate a broad alliance of Communist parties? If they weren't running around joining terrorist armies, then there'd be no reason to kill them.

But they did, so they deserved to be annihilated and more.


At this point the opposition to the PDPA regime was transformed into a national liberation war against the Soviet occupiers. Hoxha even wrote in his diary that, watching TV and reading the news on Afghanistan, the way the resistance fought (organizing the people, moving rapidly between natural cover like rocks and such, etc.) reminded him of the Albanian partisans in their own national liberation war against fascist occupation. As with the US in Vietnam, the Soviets enacted various brutal reprisals against villages suspected of sympathy with the Mujahidin, which of course had the effect of reinforcing opposition to the Soviet occupation. Also like US troops in Vietnam, the Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan became addicted to drugs, would come to suffer from PTSD, and so on as a result of the dehumanizing effects of occupation. In the USSR itself news about what was going on was hushed up since it was pretty obvious that Soviet soldiers were dying for no real reason except to satisfy Soviet social-imperialist aims..

Weh Weh you suppose. And how long did it take for your glorious socialist Albania to revert back to organ harvesting, slavery, and honor killings? Hoxha was just a malcontent who refused to dirty his hands when socialists actually needed help, and he certainly has a big mouth for someone who didn't manage to create anything more enduring.

You whine about Najibullah being an Afghan Gorbachev, even when it was clear that he was backed into a corner and had to compromise out the ass because he knew Gorbachev was planning to abandon him.
Since you're being unfair, I'll be unfair myself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_of_Albania
Liberal center-right party, formed in 1990, swept the Socialist Party of Albania (the party of labor had been dissolved in the previous year) out of power in 1992. But they called their party "democratic!" Glorious socialist legacy, comrade! :thumbup:

Furthermore, your majoritarian obsession reveals a certain bad faith and perhaps opportunism in throwing invective at Albania's enemies. By the same logic the Solidarity movement ought to have been supported because they had a measure of support from the Polish masses. Not that any of this is applicable to a country as historically fragmented as Afghanistan. It is pretty much a fact that the PDPA was, if not supported by the majority, the most popular Afghan faction because they could count on a measure of support across regional and ethnic lines, whereas mujahideen warlords only played to regional and ethnic ties. Even without Pakistani meddling, anyone could see that the next stage of the conflict would have been mujahideen vs mujahideen.

Well, all you got what you wanted--a "popular resistance" AKA an inter-tribal civil war that wrecked whatever was left of Afghanistan and plunged the nation into the dark ages. I guess that's a fair price for allowing Mr. Ham Hocks to score rhetorical points from the grave.

[Ismail]

Liberal center-right party, formed in 1990, swept the Socialist Party of Albania (the party of labor had been dissolved in the previous year) out of power in 1992. But they called their party "democratic!" Glorious socialist legacy, comrade!Except the word "Democratic" in "Democratic Republic of Afghanistan" obviously meant something quite different than the word in "Democratic Party of Albania." Not that the former was building socialism of course, but it just goes to show that even the façade was abandoned (in 1987) before it became fashionable worldwide to do so.


By the same logic the Solidarity movement ought to have been supported because they had a measure of support from the Polish masses.The Albanians made clear what the Marxist-Leninists in Poland should have done. An entire book was translated from Albanian into various languages (even Russian): http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_books/Archive/dede_spiro_the_counter-revolution_within_the_counter-revolution.pdf

Hoxha, too, wrote about Poland. He noted that neither the Polish state nor Solidarity (which he noted was backed by the CIA and Vatican) could better the working-class, and that only through independent, Marxist-Leninist trade unions could this be done. I don't have to remind you that the conditions in Poland had little resemblance to anything in Afghanistan except for a pseudo-socialist government at the helm.


It is pretty much a fact that the PDPA was, if not supported by the majority, the most popular Afghan faction because they could count on a measure of support across regional and ethnic lines, whereas mujahideen warlords only played to regional and ethnic ties.In Ethiopia the Amhara-speaking government under Mengistu claimed to transcend tribes as well. The theory was a bit less glorious in practice. Yes, the PDPA had a better record on this than the Mujahidin, but the PDPA getting support from a minority among the Uzbeks, Hazara, Pashtuns and whatnot does not change much anything.

[A Marxist Historian]

If the unions are satisfied to integrate into the capitalist framework, then what else could they be? Do they get the same treatment as 'workers' states? Where as long as they were created by people who at least claimed to be opposed to capitalism, they retain an anti-capitalist character forever regardless of what their actions are?

As far as crazy positions go I think you have the market cornered.

If unions are capitalist institutions, then what do you do when they go on strike? Scab on 'em?

And how about the ILWU at Longview? Since it's a capitalist institution, we should be against it having control over the docks there, and Occupy Oakland screwed up when they decided to march on the docks on its behalf. Right?

The unions have pro-capitalist worthless leaderships that are the labor lieutenants of capital, like ol' Dan De Leon said, and they have to be kicked out ASAP and replaced by militant revolutionaries. But the unions themselves are workers institutions, whose very existence depends on the support of their members, and of course the dues they pay to keep 'em going.

Same deal with workers states.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

To be fair, EG, MH's position is consistent Trotskyism for you. Not coherent, but at least consistent. History stopped in 1920 or thereabouts, nothing changed. Unable to move towards socialism (because, even the Trotskyists agree that socialism will be global or not at all) but also unable to move backwards (because Leon was involved in establishing the first 'workers' state', how could that go bad?) the Soviet Union has to spend 70 years in a kind of ahistoric frozen limbo of history. At least the Stalinists think that the SU got worse after Stalin's death, even the Stalinists can acknowledge that history continued to happen, thinggs change; not so the ortho-Trots and their 'theory' (I use the term loosely) that for 70 years the Soviet Union was 'degenerated' without ever actually degenerating (as a process) or becoming degenerate (as a result).

Except, the unions had already been integrated into capitalism before 1914, confirmed by their role as the 'recruiting sergeants of capitalism' in 1914, so that's not so consistent; they've gone back on the clarity that Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg etc reached during (and even before) WWI, and that the CI reached in the immediate post-War period. But then again, given the 'French turn' in the 1930s, and the tactic of entryism into social-democracy, it makes sense to pretend that social-democracy and the unions weren't integrated into the capitalist state 100 or more years ago. The bankruptcy of Trotskyism as politial practice stems entirely from enshrining Trotsky's mistakes as a - indeed, the only - viable method.

The USSR did not stay still over those 70 years. Notably, Khrushchev coming in and de-Stalinizing, letting people out of the gulags etc. etc. was a big change and a good one. For which the credit goes not to K but to pressure from the working class, no longer willing to tolerate the extremes of Stalinism after they had defeated Hitler, removing Stalin's excuse for all that. The ultra-Stalinists who say things got worse under the big K have it exactly backwards, K was an improvement over Stalin in every way.

In fact, even on the foreign policy front, K was better than S during WWII and the immediate aftermath period, when Stalin thought he had a deal with Churchill and Roosevelt--just like he thought he'd had a deal with Hitler till Barbarossa. And it wasn't Khrushchev who had the bright idea of helping the Zionists win in Israel. Without all those tanks cranked out for the Zionists at the Skoda Works under Stalin's orders in Czechoslovakia, there would probably be no Israel.

So why did the USSR, which Trotsky thought was on the verge of collapse in the late 1930s, become so stationary for half a century? Because of the outcome of WWII.

The Nazis were not beaten by "the Allies," by the time of D-Day the war in Europe was effectively over. Nazism was eradicated from the face of the earth by the Soviet Army, then commanded by Stalin, with much less help from "the Allies" than the Western military historians like to claim.

This was a historic, transformative turning point in world history, and stabilized the Stalinist system for half a century, giving it legitimacy in the eyes of the Soviet working class, and much of the working class and oppressed peoples of the world. Which before that it really didn't have.

It wasn't until the WWII generation of both the bureaucracy and the working class in the USSR died off that the system collapsed. This is not accidental.

This is not just my own ideas (though some is), but stuff I've learned from the Spartacists. Their "Prometheus Bulletin" on WWII and Trotskyist policies during WWII was extremely educational for me, changed my own thoughts on several matters. And it's available on the Web.

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/icl-spartacists/prs2-pmp/index.htm

-M.H.-

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Them being in control or not, or occupy marching on the docks or not has done fuck all to challenge capitalism so who cares? By your simplistic logic if we can get 'our' guys into any institution we can use it as a vehicle for revolution, but why hasn't that happened? Why haven't the unions voted in militant leaders and crushed capitalism yet? Because they can't and they don't want to, without capitalism they don't have a reason to exist, why mess up a good thing?

[A Marxist Historian]

...
As far as crazy positions go I think you have the market cornered.

Yup, my position, unlike yours, goes against the usual public wisdom of Western capitalists, therefore is unpopular. (Though not against the policies of capitalist governments, which more and more are giving China the same kind of treatment they used to give Russia.)

But it's not as unusual as you think.

First of all, that's to one degree or another what most Chinese leftists think. A third of the human race lives there, and you'd think the Chinese themselves might know something more about China than your average Revleft poster or capitalist newspaperman.

The so called Chinese "New Left" has the opposite problem from that of all the "state caps" here on Revleft. They tend to think that you don't need a revolution in China, but instead just need to bring back the good old days of Maoism by supporting allegedly "left" factions in the top party leadership, like the crooked con artist who was running Sinkiang and got purged from the Politburo in the spring.

Also, you had a split in the IMT group, and the split out group, led by a guy who used to post here all the time (he was the one charging that the Pakistani IMT group were rapists), who is Chinese himself, has been arguing not only that China is still a "workers state," but went so far as, like a good IMT'er, to advocate entering the CCP! And not just saying that, he managed to get some articles published in the Chinese press praising the recent alleged "left turn" of the current Chinese leadership last year.

Finally, on a better note, I'll point out that Broody Guthrie's group has an analysis pretty similar to mine. They have some pretty good analyses of China on their website. I read the first part of a two part series on China they've written, and I'd have to say I agree with just about all of it. Pretty good stuff, with great info.

http://socialistorganizer.org/the-chinese-working-class-the-bureaucracy-and-obamas-american-pivot-to-asia-part-one/

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Them being in control or not, or occupy marching on the docks or not has done fuck all to challenge capitalism so who cares? By your simplistic logic if we can get 'our' guys into any institution we can use it as a vehicle for revolution, but why hasn't that happened? Why haven't the unions voted in militant leaders and crushed capitalism yet? Because they can't and they don't want to, without capitalism they don't have a reason to exist, why mess up a good thing?

Well, that's pretty clear. Your attitude to the Longview ILWU strikers and the port shutdown march in Oakland is, who cares, capitalism is still around, yawn.

A fine attitude for somebody whose entire political existence is on the Internet. But even here, I don't think you're gonna find too many folk who are as ultra-sectarian and contemptuous of ordinary working people as that.

By the way, just how do you feel about scabbing on strikes. For? Against? Or "who cares"?

-M.H.-

[~Spectre]

Was the Soviet Union really so vile that they needed to ally with America's fascist handmaidens? Was Meena Kamal really that clueless of what the implications of her treachery would have toward her Afghan sisters, or did she betray the revolution just because she was fucking Faiz Ahmad?

Ask youself what the most reactionary thing you could do is. Then count the seconds until Maoists do it.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Well, that's pretty clear. Your attitude to the Longview ILWU strikers and the port shutdown march in Oakland is, who cares, capitalism is still around, yawn.

A fine attitude for somebody whose entire political existence is on the Internet. But even here, I don't think you're gonna find too many folk who are as ultra-sectarian and contemptuous of ordinary working people as that.

By the way, just how do you feel about scabbing on strikes. For? Against? Or "who cares"?

-M.H.-

I recently used my unique position at work to force a significant pay raise that the boss was dead set against. I took back a tiny part of the owners profit, but that in itself isn't revolutionary. If they want higher wages then good for them they should strike or hold hands and sing, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that its revolutionary to do so. When they occupy the docks and demand an end to work I'll change my opinion.

You've backed off trying to explain how a capitalist institution can be considered anti-capitalist and resorted to attacking me but i won't hold it against you. However I will assure you, I spend whole hours outside of the internet, i certainly don't like it but such is life.

[A Marxist Historian]

I recently used my unique position at work to force a significant pay raise that the boss was dead set against. I took back a tiny part of the owners profit, but that in itself isn't revolutionary. If they want higher wages then good for them they should strike or hold hands and sing, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that its revolutionary to do so. When they occupy the docks and demand an end to work I'll change my opinion.

You've backed off trying to explain how a capitalist institution can be considered anti-capitalist and resorted to attacking me but i won't hold it against you. However I will assure you, I spend whole hours outside of the internet, i certainly don't like it but such is life.

OK fine, glad you got yourself a wage bump, even if through individual rather than collective working class action.

Is workers like yourself taking back a piece of the pie from the capitalists revolutionary, in and of itself? No. But it is part of the class struggle between the working class and the capitalist class.

Revolution comes when the workers win that struggle, so every gain wrested from the capitalists strengthens their position and weakens that of the enemy class. So not revolutionary in and of itself, but helpful to revolution.

As for unions being a capitalist institution, that is simply factually false. There are two fundamental opposed classes in capitalist society, the working class and the employing class. So when workers organize themselves vs. the capitalists, even if on a purely economic basis, that is working class by definition.

That unions and other working class organizations have found themselves stable niches within the capitalist system is besides the point. Capitalist society is not homogenous, if it were dreams of overthowing it would be absurd. Capitalism generates its own enemy, the working class, through its own workings.

Now, the labor bureaucracy that rules the unions and likes keeping the unions as merely reform pressure groups within capitalism, that is a phenomenon alien to the class nature of the working class, which is objectively revolutionary. So revolutionaries seek to resolve this contradiction by organizing the rank & file versus the labor fakers on a revolutionary socialist program. Or rather, they should.

-M.H.-