Marxism 2006

[YKTMX]

Anyone going to Marxism this year? I'm heading down to London tomorrow - looking forward to it.

Timetable (http://www.swp.org.uk/marxism/)

Highlights:

Ken Loach - 'nuff said
A introduction to the movie from the director of 'Battle of Algiers" (!)
Tariq Ali (always brilliant)
Tony Benn
China Mieville

Anyone in, or near, London should head down, it'll be good.

[More Fire for the People]

I'm an American (:() but I'm anxious for the Marxism 2006 audio recordings to be uploaded. Whenever I'm too tired to read I'll pop over to resistance mp3 and listen to various audio essays.

[Faceless]

I'm going, I'm caucasian, 19, and I have a pink/blonde mohawk. Look for Hands off Venezuela there

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 12:05 AM
I'm going, I'm caucasian, 19, and I have a pink/blonde mohawk. Look for Hands off Venezuela there
Look for a handsome boy with black hair, a morose look and a sweatband like my avatar :lol:

[afrikaNOW]

What are the purposes of these conferences?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 01:11 AM
What are the purposes of these conferences?
Socialism

[Honggweilo]

trotfest...

[TC]

I'll go on friday for part of it, and on saterday and sunday, maybe on monday.

[bolshevik butcher]

Just don't say anything too controversial facelss, I know a guy that got chucked outta marxism2005 for disagreeing with the swips stance on the israel/palestine conflict, and their stance on Venezeual seems to change every week thanks to a certian Mike Gonzales.

[Marion]

More info Clenched Fist??

[bolshevik butcher]

I'm not going to name names of individuals involved. What do you want to know?

[TC]

Does this mean i have to leave my mao messenger bag at home and can't wear my saddam hussien t-shirt? No kim jong il lunch boxs?

[Marion]

Certainly don't need to know the names of anyone involved at all and don't think its wise to do so (don't worry - I'm not SWP!).

Was just wondering what the disagreement over Israel/Palestine was about (value of national liberation??), and how their view of Venezuela has changed.

[bolshevik butcher]

On Venezuela, the SWP never seems to be sure if there is a revolution and a path to socialism at the moment and weather the Venezuelans are adnvancing towards socialism. Or if chavez is just a bourgeoirse democrat. They change their opinions quite often. The israle paliestine argument, i blieve that the guy I know was arguing that the solution did not lie inbacking the Palestiniean ruling class as he saw that was what the SWP was doing with their 'anti-imperialist' stance on the conflict, aka support for wheover is in power in Palestine because they are resisting Israel rather than a class based analysis.

[TC]

Lol @ the "palestinian ruling class". They have nothing to rule over and nothing to rule it with! The "Palestinian ruling class" is called the Israelis!

[bolshevik butcher]

So there is no class society in Palestine?

[TC]

Class exists but a ruling class apart from the colonial one does not, there is not large scale industrial bourgeoise for instance because there is not large scale industry!

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:14 AM
No kim jong il lunch boxs?
I want one.

[Andy Bowden]

More info Clenched Fist??

I think Clenched is reffering to some AWL members who got chucked out for handing out leaflets attacking Gilad Atzmon as anti-semitic.

Atzmon is a jazz musician who was invited to last years Marxism.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 12:07 PM
Class exists but a ruling class apart from the colonial one does not, there is not large scale industrial bourgeoise for instance because there is not large scale industry!
What about the middle class clerics though? They are not the Palestinian working class. Sociliasts should maintin an independant working class position on the Israel/Palestine conflict.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 6 2006, 12:51 PM

More info Clenched Fist??

I think Clenched is reffering to some AWL members who got chucked out for handing out leaflets attacking Gilad Atzmon as anti-semitic.

Atzmon is a jazz musician who was invited to last years Marxism.
Is he anti-semitic? On what basis were the claims made? Anyone remember?

[Andy Bowden]

Here's an article Gilad did on anti-semitism.

http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/onanti.html

"Even though the Jews only make up 1.9 per cent of the country's population,
an astounding 56 per cent of Clinton's appointees were Jews. A coincidence?
I don't think so."

He falls hook line and sinker for the idea that the reason the US backs Israel is cos of some evil Israeli Lobby that pulls the strings. The reality is of course that the US intervenes cos it's in it's interests to do so.

[Vanguard1917]

Is it just me or does the Marxism event get progressively uninteresting every year? Although this is quite interesting:

'SOAS Islamic society will kindly be hosting the prayer room at Marxism 2006. The women’s prayer room is located on the Brunei Gallery first floor. The men’s is in the main SOAS building basement next to L67– report to reception, say you are guests of an I-soc sponsored event and you will be given a pass to go in.'

http://www.swp.org.uk/marxism/practical.htm

It's in the Marxism website, under the title 'Practicalities' (along with information about the usual 'practicalities': such as accomodation, creche facilities for the kids, refreshments and wheelchair access).

Anyway, I'm not gonna be able to make it this year.

[Comrade-Z]

'SOAS Islamic society will kindly be hosting the prayer room at Marxism 2006. The women’s prayer room is located on the Brunei Gallery first floor. The men’s is in the main SOAS building basement next to L67– report to reception, say you are guests of an I-soc sponsored event and you will be given a pass to go in.'

Oh my... :o

A Marxism convention with prayer is like a frog with 5 legs.

It ain't supposed to happen!

[Amusing Scrotum]

They're allowing segregated prayer rooms? :blink:

Anyway, I thought Marxism was in like early June? I'm sure that is was listed as June in the SWP paper. In any case, Chris Harman's speech on the 60's looks pretty interesting....and it would be the one I'd most like to hear if I was going.

[TC]

which events are people going to? I can go on saterday and sunday i have stuff to do on monday though...

[Vanguard1917]

I'm going to try to make it tomorrow to John Rees's discussion of his new book 'Imperialism and Resistance' in Logan Hall. Does anyone know the price of a single-day pass?

[Janus]

Is it really a good idea to tell beforehand where you're going to be? It just seems kinda iffy to me.

So, this is basically a seminar and discussion for Marxists?

[Vanguard1917]

It's a conference organised by the Socialist Workers Party.

[Vanguard1917]

So i did end up going to Marxism 2006 on Saturday. It was a jolly event as usual... good to catch up with all my SWPer friends. I went to two meetings: John Rees's discussion of his new book (Imperialism and Resistance, which i've started reading) and Tariq Ali's talk on 'is empire is invincible?' (his conclusion was 'yes and no' - with a greater emphasis on the 'yes' side).

I also got into a heated argument with a comrade at a SWP stall about whether it is OK for a 'revolutionary party' to dumb various socialist principles in order to make alliances with 'Muslim community leaders' and whether the masses can really take seriously a leader who appears on 'reality TV' dressed in a leotard (http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/mike_jericho/GGleo.jpg). He assured me that these are mere quibbles and that Respect is the first step in the formation of a new mass working class party. (He spoke with a Scottish-ish accent (i'm not good with accents, it could have been northern English)...was it you, YKTMX? :))

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Respect is the first step in the formation of a new mass working class party.

i hoped you slapped him silly for lying

[Faceless]

lol, I'm back from Marxism. The SWP doesnt take a marxist approach to terrorism. Apparently we give unconditional support to any group fighting imperialist occupation, regardless of class composition. Not marxism. I could spend days criticising the approach of the SWP to any number of individual issues but on the event itself, was it not somewhat shorter than usual? All of the events were WAY too short, couldn't actually begin a discussion nor really get into any of the topics. Some of the topics were to me a little random. For instance there was a topic "bolsheviks and religion" under the subtitle of "islam and the left", why islam though? Why not hindu's and the left or christians and the left? Then there was a discussion on islamic culture, nothing on hindu, buddhist, etc. Very strange if this is not opportunism.

hehe, I decided to wear a kilt on some days :P

[TC]

lol, I'm back from Marxism. The SWP doesnt take a marxist approach to terrorism. Apparently we give unconditional support to any group fighting imperialist occupation, regardless of class composition.

I thought it was very good actually.

One thing that actually bugged me about that Marxism and Terrorism meeting's speeker was that he objected to islamic 'terrorism' on the grounds that its not an effective way to produce social change...but he completely misunderstood the fact that, islamic 'terrorism' overseas in the west, unlike anarchist domestic terrorism, is not intended to create social change, rather its intended to change specific state policies...it doesn't start revolutions but its not meant to start revolutions its meant to eliminate specific foriegn policies...such as the Madrid bombings which directly resulted in the Spanish withdrawl from Iraq.


Oh and Faceless, were you the guy who talked about the IRA after the main speaker?

[Faceless]

yes, that was me

[Entrails Konfetti]

Wow SWP sounds like an awful party.

Might make well organized events, but prayer rooms? Supporting terrorism from any side no matter how much this side hates them too?

Ridiculous.

You can say I'm all full of Yanqui propiganda all you like but I don't support any terrorist actions, and when the Viet Cong blew up GI bars that wasn't terrorism because it targeted the invaders. They understood that you can't alienate the populace which your trying to liberate but targeting civilians.

There certainly are sides to the conflict in Iraq, I choose the workers, I support them in resisting religious fundementalist rule, and Imperialist dominance.

Don't the Swipers wonder why they aren't getting support? They're choosing a policy which alienates the populace.

[The Feral Underclass]

The SWP has changed dramatically since I was a member. Once Cliff died and Rees took the reigns the SWP has become even more irrelevant than before and decidedly less radical.

Although, having said that, I have fond memories of Marxism and very much enjoy going, when I have the time.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 03:18 PM
instance there was a topic "bolsheviks and religion" under the subtitle of "islam and the left", why islam though? Why not hindu's and the left or christians and the left? Then there was a discussion on islamic culture, nothing on hindu, buddhist, etc. Very strange if this is not opportunism.


One of my biggest critiques of the SWP(IS where I live) apon leaving, was the way political positions were almost always clouded with some form of oportunism or another.

We were very critical of the US bombing of Yugoslavia, but very silent about abuses in Kosovo, this was an example of an attempt to recruit non aligned serbian leftists.

The current, support the islamic fundies, especially in Britan, seems to me an attempt to recruit radical muslims.

There is a good pamphelet in more depth about this, Ill look for it out in the deep reaches of the internet.

I always found marxism, in canada anyway, weird in the way that all the trot sects would come out and make their statements durring meetings.

Also found it fucked up that you had to pay extra if you wanted to be part of the voting
(in addition to regular dues, which I am a big supporter of).

[Andy Bowden]

We were very critical of the US bombing of Yugoslavia, but very silent about abuses in Kosovo, this was an example of an attempt to recruit non aligned serbian leftists.

Is it true that the ISO in the US was expelled from the IST for being pro-KLA?

Reading the ISO site it doesn't seem to be radically different from the SWP worldwide - support for Al Sadr etc.

That said I think the ISO are favourable to the Green Party in the US - thats a possible reason for their expulsion.

[afrikaNOW]

Do you feel the revolution is any nearer after attending the conference!?

[YKTMX]

Just back.

It was a really excellent event, the best and biggest Marxism for years. Loads of students (1700), loads of Islamic people, loads of international comrades, tonnes of exiciting meetings.

Only downpoints would be the sects (Wankers' Hammer, the Weekly Wanker, the Alliance for Wankers Liberty et al.) and the price of a pint in London pubs (3 fucking quid).

Got myself a few new t-shirts, including a fucking beastly Spanish civil war one, which I'll try and post a picture of, and a Rosa Luxemburg poster.

Best meetings were Callinicos on theories of imperialism, Rees of Imperialism and Resistance, Ken Loach on the "cinema of resistance", plus a few others.

Inspiring.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 11 2006, 05:18 PM

We were very critical of the US bombing of Yugoslavia, but very silent about abuses in Kosovo, this was an example of an attempt to recruit non aligned serbian leftists.

Is it true that the ISO in the US was expelled from the IST for being pro-KLA?

Reading the ISO site it doesn't seem to be radically different from the SWP worldwide - support for Al Sadr etc.

That said I think the ISO are favourable to the Green Party in the US - thats a possible reason for their expulsion.
I'm not sure, but weren't they kicked out for their fawning over Stalinism in Cuba?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 03:57 PM
Just back.

It was a really excellent event, the best and biggest Marxism for years. Loads of students (1700), loads of Islamic people, loads of international comrades, tonnes of exiciting meetings.

Only downpoints would be the sects (Wankers' Hammer, the Weekly Wanker, the Alliance for Wankers Liberty et al.) and the price of a pint in London pubs (3 fucking quid).

Got myself a few new t-shirts, including a fucking beastly Spanish civil war one, which I'll try and post a picture of, and a Rosa Luxemburg poster.

Best meetings were Callinicos on theories of imperialism, Rees of Imperialism and Resistance, Ken Loach on the "cinema of resistance", plus a few others.

Inspiring.
I'm jealous :(

[Vanguard1917]

TragicClown:

it doesn't start revolutions but its not meant to start revolutions its meant to eliminate specific foriegn policies...such as the Madrid bombings which directly resulted in the Spanish withdrawl from Iraq.

Isn't this a bit problematic though? The attacks were intended to create widespread fear by killing and injuring as many civilians as possible. This contrasts sharply with the actions of the so-called 'terrorist' organisations of the past.

The Irish republican movement, for example. The aim of the republicans was not to create fear among the British population. In fact, the republicans understood the need to win support within Britain. So, they did not target civilians, they did not attack without warning, and they certainly didn't target working class people. This wasn't due to some moral superiority; it was because the Irish republican movement was part of a wider movement for social change, including movements of solidarity in Britain and abroad, against imperialism.

In contrast, today's 'Islamic terrorists' do not attempt to win support. Actually, by pursuing a nihilistic strategy of targeting the civilian population, they are effectively and actively going out of their way to discourage any kind of political support from the populace.

The people of Spain elected an anti-war party out of fear - not out of any solidarity with the Iraqi people, and certainly not out of any support or sympathy for the terrorist bombers. It was due to a Western fear of terrorism. In fact, this Western fear of terrorism is the dominant sentiment in the current 'anti-war movement'. This is the sentiment which drove millions of people on to the streets of Western cities in 'opposition' to the war. But a movement that is based on fear can never be a progressive movement, precisely because it is not a movement of solidarity but a movement of self-centered apathy (e.g. 'Not In My Name' - the key slogan of the anti-war protests in Britain).

I give no support to nihilistic attacks - whether they are by Western muslims (which is what most of these attacters seem to be - also often from middle class backgrounds) pissed off with life in the West or by disburbed Columbine High School kids pissed off with... pretty much the same thing.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
In contrast, today's 'Islamic terrorists' do not attempt to win support. Actually, by pursuing a nihilistic strategy of targeting the civilian population, they are effectively and actively going out of their way to discourage any kind of political support from the populace.

Agreed.

This is something that frankly puzzles me - the goal of these attacks in 'western' countries is to get these countries out of the 'middle east' - but the nature of the actions, mass-attacks on civilians, results in fear, but also anger.

'Western' governments then use this anger, not only to target and demonise muslims in 'western' countries (as a beat-up for national 'values', anti-immigration, and nationalism in general), to further chip away at civil liberties and to justify invading and occupying countries in the 'middle east'.

This recent phase of terrorism has actually lead to more western involvement in the 'middle east' than before, and in a much more direct away - WAR WAR WAR, and now occuaption that has been dragging on for years already. It's lead to more military bases in the region, more US control and influence - isn't this precisely the opposite to what 'al-qaeda' et al want?

[YKTMX]

'Western' governments then use this anger, not only to target and demonise muslims in 'western' countries (as a beat-up for national 'values', anti-immigration, and nationalism in general), to further chip away at civil liberties and to justify invading and occupying countries in the 'middle east'.


A rather dunderheaded view of imperialism.

The imperialist states backed Israel, overthrew Mossadegh and Nasser, supported the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia, armed the Taliban, backed and armed Saddam Hussein and propped up dictators long before "terrorism" entered the scene and became an "excuse".


It's lead to more military bases in the region, more US control and influence - isn't this precisely the opposite to what 'al-qaeda' et al want?

It's also led to more resistance and anti-imperialism than ever before, certainly about the normal Arab people.

Let's be clear: terrorism is a response to imperialism, not the cause of it.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)A rather dunderheaded view of imperialism.[/b]

Thanks, but it's not my 'view of imperialism'.


Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)The imperialist states backed Israel, overthrew Mossadegh and Nasser, supported the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia, armed the Taliban, backed and armed Saddam Hussein and propped up dictators long before "terrorism" entered the scene and became an "excuse".[/b]

I agree.


[email protected]
It's also led to more resistance and anti-imperialism than ever before, certainly about the normal Arab people.

Yes, but after the coalition troops leave, US political influence will remain, as probably will some military bases and the imperialists 'investments' - these are not things that are wanted.


YKTMX
Let's be clear: terrorism is a response to imperialism, not the cause of it.

I'm not suggesting otherwise, merely that this recent phase of terrorism has not been effective at removing imperialists from the 'middle east' - rather it's brought more and allowed them to dig-in, whilst simultaneously making support for their 'anti-imperialism' hard to drum up in 'western' countries (unlike for the vietnam war for example) because of their attacks on 'western' civilains.

[Andy Bowden]

I'm not sure, but weren't they kicked out for their fawning over Stalinism in Cuba?

I don't think so - they seem to have the same analysis of Cuba as the IS tendency does.

http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-1/408/...Socialist.shtml (http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-1/408/408_07_IsCubaSocialist.shtml)

[Faceless]

It's also led to more resistance and anti-imperialism than ever before, certainly about the normal Arab people.

Let's be clear: terrorism is a response to imperialism, not the cause of it.

Indeed, we can accept that without then drawing the SWP conclusion that we must "unconditionally support" any such organisation. No doubt there are working class elements however, we must be wholly critical of the direction of the leadership of such terrorist organisations, and must not water-down our understanding that only resistance carried out with the goal of socialist transformation is capable of truly ending imperialist domination. Any attempt led by bourgeois and petty bourgeois will lead to a total betrayal of the resistance to Imperialism and finally the leading members of such a resistance participating in the puppet regime or its likely failure. The SWP has a fear of coming across as patronising or some how doesnt want to recognise the correctness of the marxist view out of fear of coming across in a way which says, "your form of resistance is wrong and we are right". We have to make clear the distinction between the leadership of resistance and the body of that resistance. As for Ireland,


The Irish republican movement, for example. The aim of the republicans was not to create fear among the British population. In fact, the republicans understood the need to win support within Britain. So, they did not target civilians, they did not attack without warning, and they certainly didn't target working class people. This wasn't due to some moral superiority; it was because the Irish republican movement was part of a wider movement for social change, including movements of solidarity in Britain and abroad, against imperialism.

I do not think you can talk of the whole Irish Repiblican movement as if it is totally homogeneous. There were many very clear-headed republicans and the cause of Irish Republicanism has many great heroes but take the Birmingham Pub bombings. Whether or not military people frequented these pubs the fact is that many working class civilians would have frequented these pubs.

As the great socialist republican James Connolly said


"We believe in constitutional action in normal times; we believe in revolutionary action in exceptional times. These are exceptional times."

The P-IRA considered terrorist methods as the main means of their resistance, they sought no links with the labour movement. There is plenty of Marxist literature on the reasons why terrorism as a general method is not the method of the working class. That is not to say that I think the republicanism of the IRA was of the working class. The SWP took the same position of "unconditional support" for the P-IRA that it takes for the resistance in Iraq etc. when a clear marxist analysis would have lead us to understand that national liberation in the era of imperialism is impossible without taking a socialist perspective and considering as an aspect of the liberation of the working class and without considering the liberation of the working class to be an aspect of fight for national liberation, two totally insperable things.

Now however the leadership P-IRA has signed the good friday agreement, is in the process of totally disarming and is finally going into Stormont to govern over the very people it said it was leading the fight for the liberation of!! What possible position can the SWP take now I wonder? Can it "unconditionally support" the disarming of the republicans and their participation in the right-wing governance of Northern Ireland? Many good republicans who had previously supported the IRA will now be disillusioned with the final, yet inevitable, result of this process taking place in the IRA. If the SWP had taken a marxist position on the Irish Republican movement from the start they would not be in such a pickle now. Certainly those who wish to continue the fight for liberation will not look to a tendency who in the past was happy to cheer lead the very organisations which betrayed them.

And the most horrible fiction of the SWP is that it hides this all behind the cloak of the "United Front", that most holy of Marxist principles. The united front involves marching seperately and striking united. I'm not aware that the SWP even has any influence within the Irish Republican movement but if its banner is "unconditional support for the IRA" one wonders how you can reconcile this with the idea of marching seperately with your own set of ideas. The act of striking as one force with anyone who will oppose say Imperialism does not mean "unconditional support" for such a force.

Cuba and the horribly concoted theory of state capitalism is a whole other story. When we see Cuba today, which has resisted the attacks of US Imperialism for so long, a certain amount of credit is due to the efforts of Castro the individual in these circumstances. Cuba is on a knife-edge these days, to instigate a "political revolution" is meaningless today, although it may have had somewhat more meaning when the USSR was still a strong and secure force. If under some circumstances there were signs of unrest in Cuba we would be able to read the response of the imperialists as if from script, "bring in the 'peac-keeping' troops and the Miami mafia". This is not to suggest that Cuba is a socialist paradise, just that Cuba exists in peculiar circumstances.

As for the SWP article:


Castro adopted the USSR’s model for state-run industry and social services. The new system was called "socialist," but bore all the markings of capitalism--with a small minority at the top (in this case, state officials) making all the real decisions.

Some blokes at the top operating some top-down authority could just as easily describe slave society or feudalism. If these are "all the markings of capitalism" then the task of marxists gets a whole lot simpler since the history of civilisation becomes the history of capitalism! These these societies have no anarchy of production, have a central, rational plan and the bureaucrats did not stand in the same relation to the means of production as capitalists. This may seem a mere technicality since they got fatter salaries and nepotism was rife. However, the means of production did not pass to a family member when a bureaucrat died, there was no competition between bureaucrats and as such no anarchy of production. This was not a capitalist society for all these reasons and more and it is wrong to simplify it as such. Of course a correct analysis reveals that the bureaucrats will tend to attempt to reinstall capitalism. There is no doubt that Castro's Cuba benefits Cubans to a much greater degree than Batista's Cuba and that the Miami mafia will do as the Russian mafia given the chance.

[YKTMX]

Indeed, we can accept that without then drawing the SWP conclusion that we must "unconditionally support" any such organisation.

It's slightly difficult to respond, since I don't know what we're really talking about. We don't "unconditionally support" terrorist groups, in fact, we don't support them at all. We "unconditionally, but not uncritically" support national liberation movements, which is a different thing.


The SWP has a fear of coming across as patronising or some how doesnt want to recognise the correctness of the marxist view out of fear of coming across in a way which says, "your form of resistance is wrong and we are right".

It's nothing to do with being "patronizing", it's to do with solidarity with the oppressed, no matter what political forms that resistance takes. Of course we would prefer that the resistance, in Iraq, Palestine or anywhere, was all secular, nationalist and leftist - but it isn't, and that's a reality on the ground we have to deal with.

"Socialists", like our comrades in the Communist League, who want to abandon the Iraqis and the Palestinians to imperialism because they are Muslim are worthless traitors.


These these societies have no anarchy of production, have a central, rational plan and the bureaucrats did not stand in the same relation to the means of production as capitalists.

They certainly have a "central plan", I doubt whether it's "rational".

As to the Cuban bureaucracy: They have a direct say in the production in factories and workplaces, a position from which they derive priveliges. My question would be this: if the Cuba isn't "socialist", but it isn't state capitalist, where does the surplus value expropriated from the Cuban working class go exactly?



There is no doubt that Castro's Cuba benefits Cubans to a much greater degree than Batista's Cuba

So? What sort of criteria is that to judge it upon. The question is not whether it's "better" or not (it is), but is it as good as it could be. The answer would be no.

[More Fire for the People]

"Socialists", like our comrades in the Communist League, who want to abandon the Iraqis and the Palestinians to imperialism because they are Muslim are worthless traitors.
Wow. That is a fucking dumb statement. I believe the CL's position is that secular, democratic, and leftists anti-imperialists movements should receive greater support than indigenous tyrants.

Are you sure you're not a Stalinist? Because that's whose position you would have supported c. 1920s-1930s. It's obvious that you would rather support the Kuimontang than lift a finger to help the CCP; using your principles of course.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 13 2006, 11:15 PM

"Socialists", like our comrades in the Communist League, who want to abandon the Iraqis and the Palestinians to imperialism because they are Muslim are worthless traitors.
Wow. That is a fucking dumb statement. I believe the CL's position is that secular, democratic, and leftists anti-imperialists movements should receive greater support than indigenous tyrants.
That's odd. You call my statement dumb, yet you're rather vague about what the position of the CL is.

This is Miles' quote on support for the Iraqi resistance:


What we are talking about here is whether communists give these organizations political support, which you do and I do not.

The reason? Because they're all reactionary fascists, apparently. The proof? Well, ummm, the organizations all have "Muslim names"? Need I say more?

As I said to him, ultra-lefists are welcome to their insipid day dreams about Iraq. I support the Iraqi resistance unconditionally and wholly in their efforts. Quite frankly, trade unionism is a non-issue.

As to your "point" about Stalinism, I don't get it. Please elaborate.

[More Fire for the People]

As to your "point" about Stalinism, I don't get it. Please elaborate.
During the Chinese Civil War, The Stalinists opposed leftist-revolutionary activity in China in order to maintain an anti-imperialist struggle in all of China. The result: fascistic terrorism against the left and the working people.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 14 2006, 12:22 AM

As to your "point" about Stalinism, I don't get it. Please elaborate.
During the Chinese Civil War, The Stalinists opposed leftist-revolutionary activity in China in order to maintain an anti-imperialist struggle in all of China. The result: fascistic terrorism against the left and the working people.
What is the equivalent of the CCP in modern Iraq?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Jul 13 2006, 07:10 PM--> (YKTMX @ Jul 13 2006, 07:10 PM)
Hopscotch [email protected] 14 2006, 12:22 AM

As to your "point" about Stalinism, I don't get it. Please elaborate.
During the Chinese Civil War, The Stalinists opposed leftist-revolutionary activity in China in order to maintain an anti-imperialist struggle in all of China. The result: fascistic terrorism against the left and the working people.
What is the equivalent of the CCP in modern Iraq? [/b]
The Iraq Freedom Congress (http://www.ifcongress.com/) and Workers-Communist Party of Iraq.

[Janus]

"Socialists", like our comrades in the Communist League, who want to abandon the Iraqis and the Palestinians to imperialism because they are Muslim are worthless traitors.
YKTMX, where are these unfounded accusations coming from? The CL does not support the fundamentalists but other groups of the Iraqi resistance movement.


Because they're all reactionary fascists, apparently.
No, not all of them just mainly the fundies.

You should at least do some more research before making these wild accusations. For instance, if you go to the website, you can see that the CL supports the Iraqi Freedom Congress and several worker centered groups in Iraq.


During the Chinese Civil War, The Stalinists opposed leftist-revolutionary activity in China in order to maintain an anti-imperialist struggle in all of China.
You're going to have to be more specific concerning when this occured, the civil war lasted over 20 years.

[YKTMX]

Janus, I offered the quote from Miles. I debated Miles in that thread on the subject of the resistance. He made it quite clear he doesn't support all Iraqi resistance - just some of it. That is, because some of the Iraqi poor frame their resistance to imperialism in terms of religion, we should be "neutral" in that battle. The reason? As you've pointed out, apparently they're "fundamentalist", yet he, nor you I would suspect, have any evidence for this.

In any case, any good Marxist should be able to look beyond the immediate rhetoric of a situation and get to the real social forces that lie behind it.

Do you?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+Jul 14 2006, 01:21 AM--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ Jul 14 2006, 01:21 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:10 PM

Hopscotch [email protected] 14 2006, 12:22 AM

As to your "point" about Stalinism, I don't get it. Please elaborate.
During the Chinese Civil War, The Stalinists opposed leftist-revolutionary activity in China in order to maintain an anti-imperialist struggle in all of China. The result: fascistic terrorism against the left and the working people.
What is the equivalent of the CCP in modern Iraq?
The Iraq Freedom Congress (http://www.ifcongress.com/) and Workers-Communist Party of Iraq. [/b]
The Worker-Communists in both Iraq and Iran are ridiculous, ultra-left sects with absolutely no roots in either working classes. The fact that you compare them to the CCP betrays a complete ignorance of the situation.

In any case, I'm not "against" trade union activity and socialist politics in Iraq because I support the resistance - indeed, I see the two as very closely linked.

Let's be clear: unless you get the US out, the prospects of an independent Iraq where the Iraqi working class can exert real influence are remote. Furthermore, sectarian violence will continue as long as the occupation continues. A free Iraq will be a nationally secure Iraq.

And I don't care, really, "which" Iraqis kick the imperialists out. I don't think "some" Iraqis have a right, and indeed a duty, to resist occupation, all do. And I support them in that, absolutely and unconditionally.

Or you could say you're neutral and mastorbate about "worker-communists" (incidentally, these parties contain neither workers nor communists, which is interesting).

[Faceless]

It's slightly difficult to respond, since I don't know what we're really talking about. We don't "unconditionally support" terrorist groups, in fact, we don't support them at all. We "unconditionally, but not uncritically" support national liberation movements, which is a different thing.

See, there is so much which is vague about that statement. What is the "movement"? I set out from the point of view of the Irish Republican movement as a concrete example. I am largely finishing the discussion which the "Marxism and Terrorism" lecture began, albeit with myself. A national liberation movement consists of all the leaders, all the classes, all the collections of ideas within that movement. From a trotskyist theory of permanent revolution we both recognise that the bourgeoisie is incabale in the era of imperialism of carrying forth these previously bourgeois revolutions of national liberation.

In the example of Ireland I quoted we could not simply give unconditional support to the IRA, something the SWP happily did. We have to fight for an movement lead from the front by the working class and not be subsumed within cross-class alliances lead by bourgeois nationalist Irish Republicans or middle class Islamic clerics.

I am not aiming my attacks at you in particular, however the speaker gave me the impression that the SWP takes the stance that "we can not approach national liberation struggles as if we have all the answers". We approach them from the perspective that we share the same goals with those fighting the struggle for liberation however this our Marxist analysis and the struggle can not be continued to victory without pursuing a socialist liberation also. It's hard to relate to you exactly what the speaker said. Does the SWP put all of the recordings on the internet or do I have to order a tape?


Let's be clear: unless you get the US out, the prospects of an independent Iraq where the Iraqi working class can exert real influence are remote. Furthermore, sectarian violence will continue as long as the occupation continues. A free Iraq will be a nationally secure Iraq.

However, a liberation which is not lead from the front by the working class will lead to betrayal of the workers also, with the prospect of an independent Iraq no doubt being fudged in the process. Is the prospect of an independent Iraq on the model of an independent bourgeois western state realistic?

[More Fire for the People]

Let's be clear: unless you get the US out, the prospects of an independent Iraq where the Iraqi working class can exert real influence are remote. Furthermore, sectarian violence will continue as long as the occupation continues. A free Iraq will be a nationally secure Iraq.

Are you batshit insane? Of course getting the US out of Iraq will create an independent Iraq but that doesn't offer any hope for the working class and the end of sectarian violence. First of all, a good majority of these Islamic nationalists are anti-women, anti-worker, and pro-feudalism. Depending upon who gets power — Sunnis or Shi'ites — there will a purge of the opposing group. Probably violence against the Kurds for collaboration with the imperialists.

Look at it like this, the Iranian Revolution. It was 27 years ago and was an amazing anti-colonial revolution but it led to feudalism, theocracy, and the worst kinds of repression.

If there is no specific support for the communist and progressive movements in Iraq then all of our support for anti-imperialism will be unfortunately for theocratic feudalism.

[Janus]

He made it quite clear he doesn't support all Iraqi resistance - just some of it.
Yeah.

That is, because some of the Iraqi poor frame their resistance to imperialism in terms of religion, we should be "neutral" in that battle. The reason? As you've pointed out, apparently they're "fundamentalist", yet he, nor you I would suspect, have any evidence for this.
Some of them are like the late Al-Zarqawi's group and some are not. The point is that we don't support every movement just because it opposes the US.


In any case, any good Marxist should be able to look beyond the immediate rhetoric of a situation and get to the real social forces that lie behind it.
I agree.

I still don't see why you're complaining about the CL not supporting the entire Iraqi resistance when groups such as the Anarchist Federation don't support national liberation struggles at all.

[Conghaileach]

I read an article recently in International Socialism (sort of the theoretical journal of the SWP) on 'Marxism and terrorism' and the author states on Ireland:

The International Socialists (forerunners of the SWP) recognised that there were elements of a civil war in the North of Ireland, but concluded that the limitations of Republicanism required socialists to raise criticism within the context of overall support for the national struggle. Socialist Worker argued in an editorial on 12 February 1972:

Unconditional but critical support for all those, including both IRAs, fighting imperialism. By unconditional we mean support regardless of our criticism of the leadership and tactics. By critical we mean opposing the sowing of illusions that the struggle can finally be won except by the victory of the working class fighting on a programme of social as well as national liberation.
The entire article can be found here (http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=182&issue=110).

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:04 PM
"Socialists", like our comrades in the Communist League, who want to abandon the Iraqis and the Palestinians to imperialism because they are Muslim are worthless traitors.
That's a dirty little slur. But it comes as no surprise from a scab like you. You still cannot understand that all you're doing is taking sides in a dispute between an employer and their disgruntled ex-managers. It is you who have chosen the position of abandoning the people of Iraq (and Palestine, and Iran, and...) to imperialism and its compradors.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 03:05 AM

"Socialists", like our comrades in the Communist League, who want to abandon the Iraqis and the Palestinians to imperialism because they are Muslim are worthless traitors.
YKTMX, where are these unfounded accusations coming from? The CL does not support the fundamentalists but other groups of the Iraqi resistance movement.

To be clear on the League's position, we politically oppose the leaders of the so-called "resistance", both the nationalist and fundamentalist wings. They are little more than dispossessed and disgruntled ex-employees of imperialism, and have taken up arms because they were replaced by more loyal subjects.

We unconditionally support the right of the people of Iraq to arm themselves and fight the occupation and its puppet regime of al-Maliki. At the same time, we believe that those brothers and sisters deserve better than the aforementioned nationalists and fundamentalists.

We support the Aman ("Safety") Forces, the armed wing of the Iraq Freedom Congress, and encourage all those in Iraq who want an end to the occupation to join its ranks and fight for an independent, democratic, secular and non-ethnically divided Iraq.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 08:16 AM
Or you could say you're neutral and mastorbate about "worker-communists" (incidentally, these parties contain neither workers nor communists, which is interesting).
So says the white kid in the Scottish highlands.

For the record, in the coming period you may begin to hear of a strike by oil workers in southern Iraq against the imposition of draconian labor laws by the puppet regime in Baghdad. "Comrades" like YKISOW (You Know I Scab On Workers) should just stick your fingers in your ears and hum to yourself when you hear these reports. That way, you can continue to talk about how the worker-communists have no working-class members, have no support in the working class, etc. After all, the oil workers' union in Iraq is on the Central Council of the Iraq Freedom Congress.

Miles

[bolshevik butcher]

Yet again Miles presents a common sense analysis on the Iraqi resistance. Of course some elements are not por working class, and of course socialists should support the withdrawl of the Imperialist forces. However this does not mean that we should support reactionary forces. Popular frontism in the face of impierialism failed the working class in indonesia and in numerous other struggles.

[Martin Blank]

I prefer to think that YKISOW and his "comrades" are following a political method that can only be called the modern day "socialism of fools".

Miles

[YKTMX]

So says the white kid in the Scottish highlands.

Actually, fuckhead, I live in a tower block in the poorest area in Western Europe, the North of Glasgow, which is nowhere near the "Highlands".

My thoughts are relfections from a worker who thinks. Yours are the absurd blatherings of a Yanqui wet liberal.


For the record, in the coming period you may begin to hear of a strike by oil workers in southern Iraq against the imposition of draconian labor laws by the puppet regime in Baghdad.

Great, I support it. What's your point?


After all, the oil workers' union in Iraq is on the Central Council of the Iraq Freedom Congress.

That's spiffing marvellous...and?

[YKTMX]

Some of them are like the late Al-Zarqawi's group and some are not. The point is that we don't support every movement just because it opposes the US.

Then you're not anti-imperialists. You are neutral in the conflict, therefore, according to Paulo Friere, you support the imperialists. Makes sense to me.


I still don't see why you're complaining about the CL not supporting the entire Iraqi resistance when groups such as the Anarchist Federation don't support national liberation struggles at all.

Because your grouplet has pretensions towards Marxism, does it not?

I'm suspicious of Marxists who are "apathetic" towards the forces of imperialism.

[YKTMX]

If there is no specific support for the communist and progressive movements in Iraq then all of our support for anti-imperialism will be unfortunately for theocratic feudalism.

And support for the NLF would definetly have lead to a Stalinist terror state...tell me, what did where you on in the Vietnam war?

[More Fire for the People]

I'm suspicious of Marxists who are "apathetic" towards the forces of imperialism.
Your point? No one here is apathetic towards the Iraqi anti-imperialist struggle. In my opinion, imperialist occupation is not an option but indigenous tyranny is not much more preferable. I'm sure that if the sole option were an option between imperialist-occupied Iraq and Islamic-nationalists Iraq the CL would support the latter — but the choices aren't that simple. I guess you've given upon workerism.


And support for the NLF would definetly have lead to a Stalinist terror state...tell me, what did where you on in the Vietnam war?
I do not believe Vietnam would [or did] become a 'Stalinist terror state'. The only thing I opposed about the NLF was its execution of Trotskyists. I would criticize the NLF for such a position if the moment was appropriate.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 14 2006, 10:57 PM


And support for the NLF would definetly have lead to a Stalinist terror state...tell me, what did where you on in the Vietnam war?
I do not believe Vietnam would [or did] become a 'Stalinist terror state'. The only thing I opposed about the NLF was its execution of Trotskyists. I would criticize the NLF for such a position if the moment was appropriate.
So?

What you "believe" is independent of the historical fact that Vietnam did become exactly that.

Let's use another example: the Algerian resistance to the French contained many Islamists. Would you have been "neutral" in that conflict also?

[More Fire for the People]

What you "believe" is independent of the historical fact that Vietnam did become exactly that.
I see no evidence for Vietnam being a 'Stalinist terror state'.


Let's use another example: the Algerian resistance to the French contained many Islamists. Would you have been "neutral" in that conflict also?
I never said I was neutral. I always support anti-imperialist causes. I also support the most progressive members of these struggles first and foremost.

[YKTMX]

Stalinism and terror are synomyns - Stalinism is terror and terror is Stalinism. It's impossible to conceive of a Stalinist state, or a dictatorship of any kind, where there is not a terrorized population.


I always support anti-imperialist causes.

So you support the resistance then?

If you do, then I don't see what we're arguing about.

[More Fire for the People]

Stalinism and terror are synomyns - Stalinism is terror and terror is Stalinism. It's impossible to conceive of a Stalinist state, or a dictatorship of any kind, where there is not a terrorized population.
I thought we were speaking of Stalinism in the abstract — socialism in one country, dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, antagonism under socialism, etc. Besides Stalinism has only ever existed in the specific conditions of the Soviet Union. Other 'Stalinist' states were merely Stalin-inspired. I would actually define Vietnam as a deformed workers' state prior to its restoration of capitalism.


So you support the resistance then? If you do, then I don't see what we're arguing about.
Yes. I support the resistance but I support the Iraqi working people more than the Islamic nationalists.

[YKTMX]

I thought we were speaking of Stalinism in the abstract — socialism in one country, dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, antagonism under socialism, etc. Besides Stalinism has only ever existed in the specific conditions of the Soviet Union. Other 'Stalinist' states were merely Stalin-inspired. I would actually define Vietnam as a deformed workers' state prior to its restoration of capitalism.

Whatever. I don't want to get into that.


I support the resistance

Good. Discussion over.

[Janus]

Then you're not anti-imperialists. You are neutral in the conflict, therefore, according to Paulo Friere, you support the imperialists. Makes sense to me.
How does that make us neutral and where have we stated that we support the imperialists? It's not such a black and white issue.

There's a difference between supporting a group against imperialism and supporting their policies. When you state that you support a group, then you are implying that you support their policies and ideology as well.

In that case, do you support the fundamentalist groups' ideologies just because they are opposed to imperialism?


Because your grouplet has pretensions towards Marxism, does it not?

I'm suspicious of Marxists who are "apathetic" towards the forces of imperialism.
Pretensions? Where do you keep coming up with those stuff?

You should be suspicious of those who do not support anti-imperialism but the CL does as we have been trying to tell you all along.


I see no evidence for Vietnam being a 'Stalinist terror state'.
Not anymore, they have gone the same direction as the PRC.

[Hit The North]

There's a difference between supporting a group against imperialism and supporting their policies. When you state that you support a group, then you are implying that you support their policies and ideology as well.


The SWP's stance is usually one of unconditional but critical support. In other words, they don't impose conditions for their support, respecting the autonomy of those in struggle; but they reserve the right to critically assess the policies employed in that struggle.

It would seem to be a policy you agree with.

[Janus]

It would seem to be a policy you agree with.
Not really. The CL doesn't support certain Iraqi resistance groups period particularly the nationalistic or fundamentalist ones.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Jul 14 2006, 05:47 PM--> (YKTMX @ Jul 14 2006, 05:47 PM)Actually, fuckhead, I live in a tower block in the poorest area in Western Europe, the North of Glasgow, which is nowhere near the "Highlands".[/b]

Ooh! "Fuckhead!" That's an oldie but a goodie. You kiss your mother good night with that mouth?


Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 05:47 PM
My thoughts are relfections from a worker who thinks. Yours are the absurd blatherings of a Yanqui wet liberal.

Give me a fucking break, will ya? Your thoughts come every week in a bundle that your SW Platform branch gets. Time and again, in this discussion and others, you have shown your inability to think beyond the columns of that week's Socialist Worker. For all your pretensions, you're little more than a parrot -- and a rather lousy one at that. Your time would be better spent pining for the fjords.


Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 05:47 PM
Great, I support it. What's your point?

The point is that you shouldn't support it. After all, your "brain" in London sees the oil workers as "pro-imperialists" because they don't approve of the mullahs and colonels demanding their jobs back.


[email protected] 14 2006, 05:47 PM
That's spiffing marvellous...and?

And ... that fact blows your entire theory about the Iraqi working class, the IFC and the worker-communists all to hell. You have to continue to ignore such facts in order to maintain your infantile tailism of the fundamentalists and phony nationalists.

Look, it's obvious that you are on the other side of the class line on this issue. In a shooting situation, I and other members of the League would be standing with the working class and its armed forces, the Aman Forces, while you would be standing with the mullahs and colonels in the so-called "resistance" -- that is, unless they are able to complete their negotiations and make peace with imperialism first (then you'll be standing with al-Maliki, Bush and Blair).

We know which side we're on. Can you really say the same?

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 05:50 PM
You are neutral in the conflict, therefore, according to Paulo Friere, you support the imperialists. Makes sense to me.
Again, we are not neutral in the conflict. We have a side: the working class (i.e., the exploited and oppressed). You have a side, too: the disgruntled ex-employees of imperialism (the ex-exploiters and ex-oppressors) who want their jobs back.

And Paulo Friere be damned. He's as dead as his petty-bourgeois doctrine, and rightly so.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 14 2006, 05:57 PM
Your point? No one here is apathetic towards the Iraqi anti-imperialist struggle. In my opinion, imperialist occupation is not an option but indigenous tyranny is not much more preferable. I'm sure that if the sole option were an option between imperialist-occupied Iraq and Islamic-nationalists Iraq the CL would support the latter — but the choices aren't that simple. I guess you've given upon workerism.

Nah, he's just given up on the working class -- just like his organization, the Student Worshipers Party.

Miles

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 15 2006, 02:26 AM
The SWP's stance is usually one of unconditional but critical support. In other words, they don't impose conditions for their support, respecting the autonomy of those in struggle; but they reserve the right to critically assess the policies employed in that struggle.

I think that's a fair position to take. Afterall, I believe there is a fundamental question running through debates of this kind, and that is what right do we have to tell the Iraqi people who they should or should not support.

More Iraqis are giving their support to those who would be called 'reactionary nationalists', or even 'Islamofascists' in some cases, instead of a revolutionary socialist organisation. So those living in comfort away from the conflict who call for support for the revolutionary party of the correct Marxian tendency may as well just be pissing against the wind. They may sleep better at night knowing that they have the most truly socialist position, and hold the moral high ground that no other sect may take, but in reality it's not going to make an iota of difference to the Iraqis currently fighting against imperialism in their homeland.

This debate sort of reminds me of what Lenin said about Ireland:

So one army lines up in one place and says, “We are for socialism”, and another, somewhere else and says, “We are for imperialism”, and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view could vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a “putsch”.

Whoever expects a “pure” social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is.(Source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jul/x01.htm))

There are some awkward questions that we as socialists must come to terms with. The forces of socialism in Iraq are not strong or organised enough to make a real impact on the political situation there any time in the near future. So to those who support the occupation because a Islamist dictatorship is a much worse a vista of what may happen there, are you not giving de facto recognition of the racism behind the "white man's burden" theory, that 'those natives' are not civilised enough to rule themselves properly and thus need to be civilised by the forces of advanced, industrialised western imperialism?

[YKTMX]

Your thoughts come every week in a bundle that your SW Platform branch gets. Time and again, in this discussion and others, you have shown your inability to think beyond the columns of that week's Socialist Worker.

The fact that I happen to "agree" with the party line doesn't come into does it? Unless I take a pro-imperialist line, like your group has, I'm just a "drone", is that it? Fine, if "free thinking" leads up that path, I'm happy to be a parrot.


After all, your "brain" in London sees the oil workers as "pro-imperialists" because they don't approve of the mullahs and colonels demanding their jobs back.

What jobs?


In a shooting situation, I and other members of the League would be standing with the working class and its armed forces, the Aman Forces, while you would be standing with the mullahs and colonels in the so-called "resistance" -- that is, unless they are able to complete their negotiations and make peace with imperialism first (then you'll be standing with al-Maliki, Bush and Blair).

I think you beat me to it.

In any case, I doubt either of us will be "serving" in the Iraqi struggle any time soon. You line up with the torturers and the marauding forces of Capital if you wish, that's your prerogative. I'll defend the right of the Iraqi people to defend themselves until my dying day.


We know which side we're on. Can you really say the same?

The side of History. You're in the dustbin with the capitalists, the Quislings and the prison guards at Abu-Gharaib. Hope it's not too crowded.

[YKTMX]

So those living in comfort away from the conflict who call for support for the revolutionary party of the correct Marxian tendency may as well just be pissing against the wind. They may sleep better at night knowing that they have the most truly socialist position, and hold the moral high ground that no other sect may take, but in reality it's not going to make an iota of difference to the Iraqis currently fighting against imperialism in their homeland.

Well, quite.

But you see, for the liberals, the point is not about dealing a blow to imperialism, it's about dealing a "nice" blow to imperialism. It's about morality, and clean hands and "indepedent" politics. They're ambivalent about the actions of their own ruling class.

[YKTMX]

We have a side: the working class (i.e., the exploited and oppressed). You have a side, too: the disgruntled ex-employees of imperialism (the ex-exploiters and ex-oppressors) who want their jobs back.

The masses of the megaslums of Iraq are not "ex-oppressors". They opposed Saddam, and now they oppose people like you, the people trying to subjucate them again. I stand with that, proudly and without any qualms.

[Faceless]

As to the Cuban bureaucracy: They have a direct say in the production in factories and workplaces, a position from which they derive priveliges. My question would be this: if the Cuba isn't "socialist", but it isn't state capitalist, where does the surplus value expropriated from the Cuban working class go exactly?

Of course a surplus to the extent of an amount above the necessary to survive is created in nearly all societies. That does not make it simply capitalist if the surplus is appropriated by a non-productive element in society and socialist otherwise. In a feudal society much of the surplus was taken as a rent, not through the method of commodity exchange. In capitalist society a worker gives his labour power in exchange for his wage. In the deformed workers state the bureacracy develops as a purely parasitic growth with no progressive historical role, which does not stand in relation to the means of production as the owner but merely as a parasite who forms part of the state's apparatus in planning the economy. This means that these societies do not follow the laws of capitalism as layed down by marx. The parasitic bureaucracy tends to grow and its interest will tend to push it towards capitalist restoration however in the mean time the bureacracy tends to grow over time whereas capital gets more concentrate, the economy is not subject to cyclical booms and busts and there is a plan whereas capitalists can not dictate an overall plan of development. Also the soviet union's method of domination did not involve exporting capital and as such it was not Imperialist in the leninist sense of the word.

This was a totally different mode of production to capitalism with its own laws.

Conghaileach, the SWP position on Ireland was a totally despicable one, they supported the British troops being moved into ireland in 1969 and merely cheer leaded the IRA

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:44 PM
Conghaileach, the SWP position on Ireland was a totally despicable one, they supported the British troops being moved into ireland in 1969 and merely cheer leaded the IRA
Now that's a little different from what Citizen Zero suggested above. Obviously we always need to be critical, but I still believe that liberation struggles - whether they be fought in Ireland or Palestine or Venezuela or wherever - should be supported to the hilt.

[YKTMX]

In capitalist society a worker gives his labour power in exchange for his wage.

And this is the case in Cuba. The Cuban working class, because it is deprived of collective ownership and control over the means of subsistence, is forced to sell its collective labour power to the de facto owners of Capital - the State and its bureaucracy. The Cuban working class is then involved, collectively, in a process of production over which they have no control. The Cuban ruling class maintains its priveliged position by means of repression and a dominant ideology which expresses its interests - or "Cuban socialism", as they call it (it's called "socialism with Chinese characteristics" by the Chinese ruling class).


In the deformed workers state

A workers' state, deformed or otherwise, cannot be created any social force other than the working class. To imply so is a repudiation of the fundamentals of Marxism. Cuba is a Capitalist state.


the economy is not subject to cyclical booms and busts and there is a plan whereas capitalists can not dictate an overall plan of development.

A rather bizarre assertion in the context of recent Cuban economic history. The Cuban people have suffered a dramatic collapse in their living standards since the early 90's, from which they're only now recovering. The idea that the state capitalist economies are "immune" to economic stagnation and recession is a totally discredited one.


Also the soviet union's method of domination did not involve exporting capital and as such it was not Imperialist in the leninist sense of the word.

On the contrary, the Soviet Union fits Lenin's "model" perfectly. They exported their surplus capital, mainly complex manufactured goods (which were of poor quality) to the subordinate economies in the East, at inflated market prices. These economies, in return, exported cheap raw materials to the Soviet Union, and were kept politically, economically and militarily subordinate to the Soviet ruling class. Which is the reason the Cuban economy was so "unbalanced" after their masters "changed their minds" about "socialist internationalism" after the Soviet collapse.



Conghaileach, the SWP position on Ireland was a totally despicable one, they supported the British troops being moved into ireland in 1969

Any poor soul familiar with the canon of far-left British sectarianism will no doubt be familiar with this slur.

Be assured, it's a lie - a big, stupid lie.

[Faceless]

A rather bizarre assertion in the context of recent Cuban economic history. The Cuban people have suffered a dramatic collapse in their living standards since the early 90's, from which they're only now recovering. The idea that the state capitalist economies are "immune" to economic stagnation and recession is a totally discredited one.

The recent economic history of Cuba is one of survival inspite of the terrible odds. However, that this is the consequence of external pressures is self-evident, the economic consequences of the embargo and the pressures caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union. To suggest that it is a coincidence that the Soviet Union fell in the early 90's and that Cuba is entering a bust is absurd. However, capitalism's boom-bust cycles are entirely internal manifestations of the crisis of overproduction. The laws which govern this economic down turn are entirely removed from capitalist down turns. Indeed, all societies I imagine are capable of down turns, this does not imply capitalist relations just as the existence of surplus value does not imply capitalist relations.


The Cuban working class, because it is deprived of collective ownership and control over the means of subsistence, is forced to sell its collective labour power to the de facto owners of Capital - the State and its bureaucracy.

By capital I will assume you mean the means of production as capital. These are different things. Capital is as Marx put it. Money is exchanged for commodities is exchanged for money. This is the exchange M-C-M which allows capitalists to extract surplus labour from the worker since part of the capital consists of the wages and labour power of the worker (being in first money then commodity form). In capitalist society the possessor of labour power does not "collectively exchange" but exchanges on the basis of an individual contract, even with the most centralised, concentrated corporations (which presumably most resemble this "state capitalists"). Nor can we conceive of the activity of the worker in these "state capitalist" societies as a consciouss exchange, they are unorganised and must respond to the dictats of the state.

I have already stated examples where the laws governing these societies differs, it is up to you to explain these apparently new laws.


A workers' state, deformed or otherwise, cannot be created any social force other than the working class. To imply so is a repudiation of the fundamentals of Marxism. Cuba is a Capitalist state.

Don't get me wrong, these states are bonapartist insofar as the worker does not hold political power, that goes without saying, however, to appeal to the fact that the term "deformed workers state" contains the word worker to mean that Cuba is capitalist is silly. The term deformed workers state allows us merely to label this entirely new phenomenon of proletarian bonapartism. To trotsky it truly was a deformed workers state since this evolved from the reasonably healthy workers state of the early soviet union. However, in the experiences of China and Cuba we must expand our definition.


On the contrary, the Soviet Union fits Lenin's "model" perfectly. They exported their surplus capital, mainly complex manufactured goods (which were of poor quality) to the subordinate economies in the East, at inflated market prices. These economies, in return, exported cheap raw materials to the Soviet Union, and were kept politically, economically and militarily subordinate to the Soviet ruling class. Which is the reason the Cuban economy was so "unbalanced" after their masters "changed their minds" about "socialist internationalism" after the Soviet collapse.

This was not capital. As I explained, capital is the exchange of money for commodities then for money which allows capital to be extracted. Capital is a social phenomenon, just as Marx said that a spinning jenny is not capital except in specific social relations, so the complex manufactured goods were not capital but were merely the material which might become capital to the capitalist. These were deployed by the bureaucrats of Eastern Europe/ Cuba independently and did not represent encroaching Soviet capital. I do not doubt that some forms of economic and political dependence existed, however this was not capitalist imperialism. And for instance, why did these "capitalists" fail (until recently in China for instance where real capitalism is now restored) to export their capital into the any of the recognised capitalist world?

One example, during the 5 year plans the Soviet Union was developing by bounds, industrialising on an unheard of scale. How was this possible when the other capitalist countries were experiencing a mutual and terrible depression? And how, if the Soviet Union was capitalistic, did they maintain a near total employment rate.

The fact is that the "laws of capitalism" did not govern the soviet economy.


Obviously we always need to be critical, but I still believe that liberation struggles - whether they be fought in Ireland or Palestine or Venezuela or wherever - should be supported to the hilt.

Anyone can cloak themselves in liberation rhetoric, but when an organisation becomes dominated by elements which would soon betray that movement we must not support such elements, even if the organisation has many good fighters within it. An appeal needs to be made to the fighters that such techniques as terrorism do not work, that we share the same goal but that we need a clear class position and we need to mercilessly attack the vacillating petty bourgeois elements in the leadership. I believe that a clear principled position that does not give support to cross class alliances will be vindicated by the course of a struggle, in its defeats, and will allow marxists to build upon the credibility earned and finally allow them to intervene positively in movements on the grounds of such an earned respect from the most lucid and principled fighters for national liberation.

As for the british troops fiasco, the SWP give the term "revisionist" its true meaning and give the term sectarianism the meaning of any sect smaller than their own.

[Marion]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jul 15 2006, 02:26 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Jul 15 2006, 02:26 AM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 05:50 PM
You are neutral in the conflict, therefore, according to Paulo Friere, you support the imperialists. Makes sense to me.
Again, we are not neutral in the conflict. We have a side: the working class (i.e., the exploited and oppressed). You have a side, too: the disgruntled ex-employees of imperialism (the ex-exploiters and ex-oppressors) who want their jobs back.

And Paulo Friere be damned. He's as dead as his petty-bourgeois doctrine, and rightly so.

Miles[/b]
Hmm, don't really want to get involved in the huge big love-in that this debate is turning into so, out of interest:

Why is Freire petty bourgeiose? Is it his politics, his educational theory (although the two are obviously linked), or the alleged view that if you're neutral in something like the Iraq war you support the oppressors. If its the latter then some quotes would be helpful...

[YKTMX]

However, that this is the consequence of external pressures is self-evident,

The same could be said for many capitalist economic crises. Couldn't the German ruling class in 1929 have said the exact same thing?

The German economy was doing better than ever in the middle of the 20's. The economic crisis was only really caused by the depression in the US, which caused a flight of US capital from Europe, sending the European economies down the toilet rather sharpish. That is, because the German state was so closely linked with one "part" of the world market, it suffered when the major state in this market's economy collapsed. Perhaps Fascism was their "special period"?


The laws which govern this economic down turn are entirely removed from capitalist down turns.

Not all the "laws". In fact, the primary motivating factor in capitalist economies is firmly intact - the law of competition. The Soviet Union and its satellites (inc. Cuba) did not have competition "internally", but they did compete on a massive scale in geopolitical and military terms. Did the Soviets "build up" because Stalin "felt like it", or because the Soviet working class desired it? No, they built up because they were in life or death competition with other industrial states. Stalin squeezed more and more out of the Soviet working class and peasantry not because he was, neccessarily, a "bad man", but because he knew that he would have to compete with Nazi Germany and later the Americans. To suggest, as you have done, that economic activity in the state capitalist economies existed in some kind of "bubble" without either external pressures or internal contradictions is naive in the extreme. These socities were not "innoculated" from the pressures of the world market. If the Americans spent more on their military, so must the Soviets; if the Americans spent more on industrial production, so must the Soviets.


However, in the experiences of China and Cuba we must expand our definition.

Or abandon it perhaps? As I've said, the idea that peasant armies or guerilla groups, totally and consciously distinct from the organised working class, can create "workers' states", deformed, degenerated or otherwise, is a repudiation of Marxism. So is, in fact, the idea that Red Army tanks can march in and "make a revolution". Revolution is the conscious act of the masses of people - not the semi-planned outcome of the foreign policy considerations of an imperialist superpower.


These were deployed by the bureaucrats of Eastern Europe/ Cuba independently and did not represent encroaching Soviet capital.

No, because you're making the mistake of assuming that the "trade" takes place in a "neutral" power relationship. Cuba purposefully focused on the production of Sugar not for the benefit of the Cuban people but because it "suited" the Soviet Union. Why would the satellite states accept sub-standard Soviet manufactured goods at inflated market prices? It's totally bizarre. Unless they knew, as they did, that their existence, that the independent class interests of their rulers, depended on Soviet military and economic machine. Indeed, wasn't the main tankie defence after the invasion of Hungary that the "Soviets were invited in". Well of course they were! Because the Hungarian ruling class had called in a few favours. The working class was challenging the class rule of the bureaucrats and we need the "degenerated workers' state" to defend their interests.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 03:40 AM

Obviously we always need to be critical, but I still believe that liberation struggles - whether they be fought in Ireland or Palestine or Venezuela or wherever - should be supported to the hilt.

Anyone can cloak themselves in liberation rhetoric, but when an organisation becomes dominated by elements which would soon betray that movement we must not support such elements, even if the organisation has many good fighters within it. An appeal needs to be made to the fighters that such techniques as terrorism do not work, that we share the same goal but that we need a clear class position and we need to mercilessly attack the vacillating petty bourgeois elements in the leadership.
Wouldn't this fall under the position of critical support, wherein the cause/struggle itself is recognised as just but criticisms can and will be made of the forces involved in said struggle.




I believe that a clear principled position that does not give support to cross class alliances will be vindicated by the course of a struggle, in its defeats, and will allow marxists to build upon the credibility earned and finally allow them to intervene positively in movements on the grounds of such an earned respect from the most lucid and principled fighters for national liberation.
Are you speaking here about Marxists on the outside of a particular struggle, say British socialists in relation to Ireland, or other socialists in relation to Cuba? Within a particular country, the Marxists should be (and have been, in various times and places) at the head of such liberation struggles.

In terms of cross-class alliances, I think that the important question here is whether or not the national (petit-)bourgeoisie still have a progressive role to play. In most developed western countries, the answer to that question would be no. And even if they did, it would always be of paramount importance that the communist and working class always maintain control of these movements.



As for the british troops fiasco, the SWP give the term "revisionist" its true meaning and give the term sectarianism the meaning of any sect smaller than their own.
I remember hearing some of the arguments around this issue, but it was quite a while ago.

[Faceless]

The same could be said for many capitalist economic crises. Couldn't the German ruling class in 1929 have said the exact same thing?

The German economy was doing better than ever in the middle of the 20's. The economic crisis was only really caused by the depression in the US, which caused a flight of US capital from Europe, sending the European economies down the toilet rather sharpish. That is, because the German state was so closely linked with one "part" of the world market, it suffered when the major state in this market's economy collapsed. Perhaps Fascism was their "special period"?

I did not deny that in some capitalist crises the immediate form could seem to be some external political crisis or some external economic crisis however capitalism is the victim of repeated crises of overpoduction. Of course the depression in America was caused by capitalism's internal contradictions, and the german economy was tied by a thousand threads to the american as both the consumer of its goods and producer of german consumer goods. All I was pointing out is that the current condition of Cuba is not an example of internal capitalistic contradictions. Infact stunningly the Soviet Union proved immune to this general crisis of capitalism.



The Soviet Union and its satellites (inc. Cuba) did not have competition "internally", but they did compete on a massive scale in geopolitical and military terms

So too I expect did feudal France and feudal england, as would ancient greece and rome at one point. To "compete" is not a mere aspect of capitalism; all interests which stand in contradiction must "compete" for supremacy, for domination.


Did the Soviets "build up" because Stalin "felt like it", or because the Soviet working class desired it? No, they built up because they were in life or death competition with other industrial states.
Firstly I would give a greater credit to the bureaucracy in general which has its own logic, although a definite plan in the nature of development can be seen running through the Five Year plans. One plan focused on collectivisation, another on industrial development. Capitalism's greatest theorists can only gawp at the fact that wealth doesn't trickle down, that the third world does not industrialise, that one section of the economy is failing, that crises continually permeate their economy. Capitalism grew up in total anarchy, the soviet union developed through a consciouss plan. Of course there were motor forces pushing them towards development, survival being primary. Since the dawn of man, it has been a law that the productive forces are always developed. Feudalism, Slavery, Barbarism, Capitalism, Socialism, men always tend to develop the productive forces. This law, it is true, is shared with capitalism, although the nature of that development obeys enirely independent laws.


To suggest, as you have done, that economic activity in the state capitalist economies existed in some kind of "bubble" without either external pressures or internal contradictions is naive in the extreme.

I did not say this, I said that internal contradictions are not the same as those dominating capitalist economies, and that the specific ecample you gave of Cuba was prompted by the most extreme extrenal pressure. The deformed worker's state has its own logic.


Or abandon it perhaps? As I've said, the idea that peasant armies or guerilla groups, totally and consciously distinct from the organised working class, can create "workers' states", deformed, degenerated or otherwise, is a repudiation of Marxism. So is, in fact, the idea that Red Army tanks can march in and "make a revolution". Revolution is the conscious act of the masses of people - not the semi-planned outcome of the foreign policy considerations of an imperialist superpower.
The chinese peasant army did something, I hope you don't deny that. What they did was to crush the old state and create a new one. However, was this consciously distinct from the working class, was Mao conscious of what he was doing? Of course the peasants do not have their own distinct class interest and Marx often asked if they even constitute a class. This was a bonapartist state from the start, neither controlled by the bourgeois nor the proletariat. However an analysis of Mao's "communism" reveals that he was not even in control of the situation. Mao began from the persepctive of two stage revolution of the Soviet Union bureaucrats. However, capital fled China after the revolution and the domestic capitalists, with hoardes of Chinese capital, fled to Taiwan. Mao was forced to expropriate more and more of the capital. Now we came to a position where the means of production was concentrated in the hands of the state, but the state, based upon the force of the peasant army, was not in the hands of the workers. The economic laws governing Chinese economy now was that of the deformed worker's state. Proletarian Bonapartism.

The question which is begged though is this: if you do not think that this is proletarian bonapartism, and you presumably are an ardent supporter of Lenin's ideas on imperialism that the bourgeoisie becomes incapable of playing a progressive role in the era of imperialism, and you therefore reject the Stalinist "two-stages" theory, what was this revolution? The chinese bourgeois did flee to Taiwan and were previously in alliance with the old semi-feudal kuomintang. The bourgeois were a pathetic bunch, who did not lead this revolution, so the question reversed: how can peasant armies or guerrilla groups, totally distinct from the bourgeoisie, create a bourgeois revolution?

Anyway, this question is irrelevent, it is by example that I intend to prove that these deformed workers states had their own laws distinct from capitalism...


No, because you're making the mistake of assuming that the "trade" takes place in a "neutral" power relationship. Cuba purposefully focused on the production of Sugar not for the benefit of the Cuban people but because it "suited" the Soviet Union.

I did not assume this. I know full well that Cuba depended upon the Soviet Union for oil and that the Soviet Union could exert a huge political pressure upon the island. This was a form of domination, I accept that, however it was not Imperialism in the sense that Lenin knew it, and these goods were not capital. Feudalism had its own methods of oppression, its own "imperialism" distinct from capitalist imperialism, the imperialism we recognise, which involved merely taxing the occupied lands. Imperialism in the leninist sense involves exporting capital, that real substance which remained the property of the capitalist and in the process of exchange continued to bring him profits. This is not the same as exporting goods by mere trade. Trade is as ancient as humanity, and I have no doubt that a relationship of dependency existed for Cuba with the USSR.

As for Hungary and the tanks, it proves a relationship of dependence, of the oppressive nature of the bureaucracy, however I am not denying this.


Wouldn't this fall under the position of critical support, wherein the cause/struggle itself is recognised as just but criticisms can and will be made of the forces involved in said struggle.
I don't think so. The struggle itself of national liberation should be supported, but it can't be seperated from social liberation. Bourgeois "revolutionaries" will always turn on and betray the revolution. I wouldnt say I criticise them, I withdraw my support from them and their "nationailsm" full stop. In palestine, Iraq, Ireland and everywhere where imperialists oppress a nationality only a workers movement can defeat the enemy and achieve national liberation.


Are you speaking here about Marxists on the outside of a particular struggle, say British socialists in relation to Ireland, or other socialists in relation to Cuba? Within a particular country, the Marxists should be (and have been, in various times and places) at the head of such liberation struggles.

In terms of cross-class alliances, I think that the important question here is whether or not the national (petit-)bourgeoisie still have a progressive role to play. In most developed western countries, the answer to that question would be no. And even if they did, it would always be of paramount importance that the communist and working class always maintain control of these movements.

Well in my mind at the time was the SWP's position on Ireland; to give unconditional support to the P-IRA but the same applies to the SWP's position on pretty much all national liberation struggles. So certainly the position of Marxists on the outside of individual struggles or even within those struggles, my point was that if you water down your rhetoric, give unconditional support even to those elements you know will betray the liberation movement, you have no credibility when the betrayal finally takes place and you will be made as redundant as the bourgeois nationalists you previously were cheer leader for, and do damage to the cause of putting Marxist ideas at the vanguard of that struggle.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Jul 15 2006, 09:42 AM--> (YKTMX @ Jul 15 2006, 09:42 AM)Unless I take a pro-imperialist line, like your group has, I'm just a "drone", is that it? Fine, if "free thinking" leads up that path, I'm happy to be a parrot.[/b]

But, YKISOW, you do take a pro-imperialist line! The forces you're backing in Iraq are now spending more time negotiating with imperialism than fighting them. And when they're not doing that, they're ethnically cleansing each other. In other words, when they're not negotiating for a piece of the pie, they're slaughtering civilians by the hundreds -- with a wink and a nod from the imperialist occupiers and their Quisling government. These are the people you are supporting in Iraq, whether you want to admit it to yourself or not.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 09:42 AM
What jobs?

For the Ba'athists and assorted nationalists, it's their old jobs back as the rulers of Iraq. For the fundamentalists, either it's their position as "unofficial" regional ruler under the patronage of the Ba'athists, or its their position as hired guns of the CIA, collecting a steady check and killing women, children and workers with impunity.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 09:42 AM
I'll defend the right of the Iraqi people to defend themselves until my dying day.

Apparently, your literacy skills are like your political skills. You must have missed where I stated very clearly that the people of Iraq have the unconditional right to take up arms against the occupation. But, hey, why let a little fact get in the way of your Big Lie, right?


[email protected] 15 2006, 09:42 AM
You're in the dustbin with the capitalists, the Quislings and the prison guards at Abu-Gharaib. Hope it's not too crowded.

You'll have to tell me, given that the colonels and the mullahs are spending a lot of time ingratiating themselves before the occupation. Also, let me know how your "comrades" do in their negotiations with imperialism.

Miles

[YKTMX]

The forces you're backing in Iraq are now spending more time negotiating with imperialism than fighting them.

This is a limp argument. I've said I support the resistance in so far as they oppose American imperialism. If they cease to do so and, as you've repeatedly suggested (once again, without evidence) capitulate, then obviously I will not support them. I will support any Iraqi who opposes American imperialism - regardless of their politics. I will criticise their politics if need be and argue for a democratic, national and secular solution, but I will never claim a moral equivalence between the resistance and the colonialists.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter. I'm done discussing this issue with you.


I did not deny that in some capitalist crises the immediate form could seem to be some external political crisis or some external economic crisis however capitalism is the victim of repeated crises of overpoduction.

Is it? Is that what really blights contemporary developed capitalist economies? I doubt it really. Is it the case that there's "too many" consumer durables and not enough consumers who are able to consume the goods? The problem for capitalists nowadays is not that they can't get their stuff sold, it's that even when they get all their stuff sold, it's still not enough. I mean, profits in the West as a whole have been shrinking for decades, but lack of demand, or a surplus supply certainly haven't been the problem. Which is why they're attacking the Welfare state and trade union rights, in order to "claw back" some of the deficit. The French or German ruling class could probably "do without" the strife of attacking workers' rights, but they simply don't have a choice anymore, and I doubt "overproduction" is the problem.


Infact stunningly the Soviet Union proved immune to this general crisis of capitalism.

There was nothing "stunning" about it. The Soviet Union at the time of the depression was not reliant on foreign capital because it was going through a period of primitive accumulation of capital of its own. The idea that the Stalinist economies supposed "immunity" from the general crisis of the depression somehow indicates an "advanced" social system is a totally bizarre one. The fact is that at the time of the depression, when people weere certainly suffering in the States and Europe, the Soviet people were also suffering! 20 million of them were "sacrificed" to the "rational" planned economy. The five year plans saw a massive collapse in living standards. Yeah, of course, fucking production of pig iron when up a million percent, but the notion that this was all some wonderous economic miracle is just a total fairytale. It's like fucking cotton farmer in Virginia in the 1700's proclaiming, "I just brought over all these niggers to work for free and now I'm raking it in, isn't that an economic miracle? And, by the way, the guy down the road actually PAYS for his labourers, and he's been forced to sell up, which just shows how smart I am. Long Live Slavery!".

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:59 PM
This is a limp argument. I've said I support the resistance in so far as they oppose American imperialism. If they cease to do so and, as you've repeatedly suggested (once again, without evidence) capitulate, then obviously I will not support them. I will support any Iraqi who opposes American imperialism - regardless of their politics. I will criticise their politics if need be and argue for a democratic, national and secular solution, but I will never claim a moral equivalence between the resistance and the colonialists.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter. I'm done discussing this issue with you.
Well, since you've decided to run from the debate, then I guess I get the last word on this issue.

First, the so-called "resistance" is not negotiating to "capitulate", but to get their jobs back. "Capitulation" implies they were genuinely opposed to imperialism in the first place, which they are not. They are only opposed to imperialism as long as they are not included at the table.

Second, you say you will "support any Iraqi who opposes American imperialism", but you have demonstrated time and again that this is a lie. You will only "support any Iraqi" who follows the mullahs and the colonels; you will not "support any Iraqi" who fights imperialism and the so-called "resistance" -- even if they don't include a "moral equivalency" clause in the contract.

Finally, I am not surprised you chose to run from this debate at this time. More and more, reports are coming out that confirm what I have been saying about the "resistance" -- their ethnic cleansing, their maneuvering with imperialism, their social backwardness, etc. In Britain, you find yourself more and more capitulating to the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, and this matches your tailism of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois reactionaries in other countries.

Of course, it's easy to take these positions from the comfortable confines of a Great Power country like Britain (or even the U.S.). The problem is that, in a certain respect, you are having to subject this to the test of history -- today, in Iraq. And we are seeing the concrete results.

I have to admit, though, that I appreciate the irony of it all. I mean, it was your organization that had to deal with all the accusations about being "pro-imperialist" because of your position on the ex-USSR. It was your organization that was accused of "moral equivalency" between Washington and Moscow. And it was your organization that was considered to be in the "dustbin of history". Now, you are fulfilling the role that the Spartacists, "official Communists" and others played in decades past. Is this a tacit acknowledgement they were right? Or, is this simply what opportunism looks like? History will judge.

Miles

[Faceless]

Is it? Is that what really blights contemporary developed capitalist economies? I doubt it really. Is it the case that there's "too many" consumer durables and not enough consumers who are able to consume the goods?

Im not merely talking about overproduction of consumer goods but of all commodities those producing means of production and those producing means of consumption. Marx illustrated how there is never equilibrium in the production of mean of production and of consumption. Crises are characteristic of this disequilibrium, I thought this was a corner stone of marxist economics. It is severely naive to believe that capitalist commodity exchange always finds precisely the right amount of articles of consumption to match the amount of consumers are willing to spend; likewise for the means of production.


There was nothing "stunning" about it. The Soviet Union at the time of the depression was not reliant on foreign capital because it was going through a period of primitive accumulation of capital of its own.
Hmm, interesting. However it is misguiding to liken it to the development of capitalist accumulation. Of course, for reasons already stated this was not capital. It was done under a plan, all your accusations of its criminal nature seem to want to appeal to my morality but I am a scientific socialist and as such the murder of X people and standards of living are irrelevant to a good scientific analysis I wonder why you appeal to this as none of it detracts from the fact that these plans, however horrific to the peasantry, however bureaucratic, however machiavellian the approach to the church, however plain murderous, happened under a plan.


The fact is that at the time of the depression, when people weere certainly suffering in the States and Europe, the Soviet people were also suffering! 20 million of them were "sacrificed" to the "rational" planned economy. The five year plans saw a massive collapse in living standards.
All irrelevant to a correct analysis of the state or the mode of production.

You failed to answer:

Of course the depression in America was caused by capitalism's internal contradictions
But simply tried to rephrase these internal contradictions in terms not of overproduction but of unions and not enough profit. This was a dodge as the contradictions remain.

You failed to answer:

The question which is begged though is this: if you do not think that this is proletarian bonapartism, and you presumably are an ardent supporter of Lenin's ideas on imperialism that the bourgeoisie becomes incapable of playing a progressive role in the era of imperialism, and you therefore reject the Stalinist "two-stages" theory, what was this revolution?
Silence, what was the chinese revolution?

I am appealing to the marxist in you YKTMX, I am trying to formulate a scientific understanding of the Soviet Union and China. Remember that over the internet you don't have to win an argument, but I expect your honesty in dealing with subjects scientifically and revising your opinions in the face of evidence.

[YKTMX]

I wonder why you appeal to this as none of it detracts from the fact that these plans, however horrific to the peasantry, however bureaucratic, however machiavellian the approach to the church, however plain murderous, happened under a plan.

So did the Holocaust.

Your obsession, a typical one amongst the orthos, with "plans" and the form of property is leading you nowhere.

For two reasons:

a) Capitalism can, and does, exist with massive state ownership and "interference".
b) In capitalism, it's not just anarchy, it's a contradiction. In macro terms, there is anarchy, but in micro terms - the day to day function of firms - there is a PLAN.

War time Britain saw massive intervention of the state, right down to rationing of basic consumer goods and the wholesale "planning" of the war economy - does this mean Britain passed into another historical epoch during the war? Of course not. For Marxists, the question is not just the political and organisational forms an ecomomy or state takes (planned versus market) but to what end an economy functions. In capitalism, to maximise profit and exploitation, they have the "market economy", and in the Soviet Union they didn't, this is true.

But were the goals of the Soviet ruling class qualitatively different? That is, were their goals something other than exploitation and "profit"? And that's why, for a Marxist, the question of living standards is absolutely crucial. What was the "plan" for? Is the "plan" designed to build socialism and improve the lives of the Soviet worker and poor peasant? How can a society be "post-capitalist" and progressive (better than capitalism) if the lives of its people actually quantitavely get worse, not better. What does it say about a society that while its people get poorer and poorer and work harder and harder, its ruling class engorge themselves on French wines in their Dachas outside Moscow? Does all that not even imply a form of class rule? How do the Soviet bureaucracy, despite their (formal) identical relationship to the means of production get their hands on this stuff? Why didn't the Russian workers rebel and reclaim "their" state property?

All this may seem like "moralism" to you, but it seems to me that we need to restate the reasons we're anti capitalists and socialists (opposition to war, exploitation, needless suffering; the belief in something profoundly better and emancipatory) The the question of what the "planned" economy was actually like is crucial for these reasons, because if it's just a "plan" we seek, and a planned economy can encompass slave labour, genocide and misery, then it's not really worth fighting for.

But we're not. We're fighting for a world in which the economy isn't just "state owned" and "planned", but where ordinary workers and consumers get to make crucial day-to-day decisions regarding the aspects of their lives that really matter. Where power won't be invested in the hands of capitalists or faceless bureaucrats.


Silence, what was the chinese revolution?

Deflected Permanent Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1963/xx/permrev.htm)

[chebol]

Oh dear,

Why does any debate with the IST degenerate into such bullshit? When do we get to the "plague on both your houses" position they advocated during Korea? Hmm?

A few pointers here.

Despite the ongoing suggestion to the contrary, the cuban revolution was made primarily by the masses of workers, organised in unions, in the 30,000 MR26J, in their sympathiser organisations, etc. Under the political leadership of Fidel, Hart, Guevara, Sanchez, Santamaria, Oltuski, and the rest, and using the 1300 or so guerillas (a number which included the Revolutionary Directorate's armed wing as well as the July 26) largely as propaganda until late 1958.

The Trotskyists in Vietnam. Well, what can I say, there are a number of Trotskyist organisations which, although I'd gladly work with them to whatever degree possible, would likely, in a revolutionary situation (and frequently do in non-revolutionary situations) take a ridiculous position that practically endangers the physical wellbeing of comrades, and people at large. My point? Look into WHY they killed the Trotskyists in Vietnam.

While I support the right of ANY oppressed to people to resist occupation by Imperialist forces, I shudder to think sometimes of the people I am lined up alongside. Not the Ba'a'ists or the Fundamentalists. No. The State Capitalists. People who do their darndest to misunderstand Marx in order to prove Cliff 'right'. In order to do this they twist the facts, and, in doing so, a considerable number of people don't accept our common arguments, and get a skewed understanding of marxism that turns them off the idea for years.

Of course, when facts contradict everyhting they argue and stand for - Venezuela for example - they begin by denouncing it; then critically supporting the general idea; and then, when the pressure of popular interest gets too much; grudging critical support.

Problem is, their schema doesn't allow for the organic development of revolutionary movements outside of the strictures of Uncle Tony.

All this is when they aren't creating schemas for Socialist/ Green/ Muslim mass parties or tailing-ending the Social-Democrats. The only IST comrades I have REAL respect for are those in Zimbabwe and New Zealand - and SOME of those in Scotland. But by the tone and quality of YKTMX's attempts at arguing Marxism, he's not among them.

Comrade - I agree; we should unconditionally support the Iraqi people's right to self-determination, but please don't TRY to back your argument up - your Cliffite arguments do us all more damage than good. And PLEASE - prove me wrong. There are worse versions of "marxism" out there, and we need to work together to win people a even a reasonably healthy version of it. For that, we need the forsight to eschew our shibboleths in the immediate term. Ok?

[Lenin's Law]

Before the Marxism 2006 report turned into this huge debate on supporting the resistance in Iraq, I was curious to see if anyone else went there and if so, how was it? Was it worth your time/money/effort? Would you recommend it to others?

I am from the US but I am seriously considering making a trip there perhaps next year when I saved up a little bit of money. I read the speakers and the topics on their website and I was intrigued and excited about a number of them. Tariq Ali in particular is a writer I have a great deal of respect for, and I'm sure the reports on the worker's movements in Venezuela, resistance in Palestine, etc were all also very worthwhile.