Questions on 'anti-imperialism'

[Devrim]

This came up on another thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72038&st=50#) but remained unanswered. I would like to see how anti-imperialists would answer it:


Originally posted by Devrim
whatever happens, the PKK have my support
For us they are anti-working class gangsters, but then again so are the Maoists.

The term 'whatever happens...' is one that you should be careful of though. What happens if Turkey gets deeper into conflict with the US over this issue. What happens if Turkey finds itself dragged into a war with America. I accept that this scenario is highly unlikely, but it is, not altogether impossible. The most popular Turkish cinema film ever is about Turkey confronting the US in Northern Iraq. Last year there was a series of best-selling novels fantasising about against war against America. So the conflict hots up, and Turkey ends up fighting the US in Northern Iraq. In that case the PKK would be fighting on the US's side (and after reading some of the sycophantic stuff about America that the PKK has put out recently I wouldn't be surprised).

Where would your 'whatever happens...' leave you then, supporting the allies of the Amerikkka?[/b][/quote]

So, let's take the scenario a bit further, would you also end up backing the Turkish state against the Americans?

Would you suggest that your comrades in Turkey did the same?

What would you say to striking Telekom workers (it is a vital strtegic industry in a war)?

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

I can't wait how the "anti imperialists" would react after their working class brothers get blown up as colateral damage by the "anti imperialist third world army" after storming into america.

Those damn white settlers.

[Wanted Man]

I dunno Devrim, what would you do if the striking workers suddenly all sided with the fascists? Would you march with the fascists or would you let the police/army blow up your working class brothers?

Thing is, Henry shouldn't have said "whatever happens", because now we have this thread to think of fantasy scenarios to justify imperialism.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Van [email protected] 05, 2007 08:37 pm
I dunno Devrim, what would you do if the striking workers suddenly all sided with the fascists? Would you march with the fascists or would you let the police/army blow up your working class brothers?

Thing is, Henry shouldn't have said "whatever happens", because now we have this thread to think of fantasy scenarios to justify imperialism.
I think you don't understand his position.

Its not a question of who the "workers choose" its a question of a communist position. Nationalism is fundamentally anti-working class and that is why a lot of the "national liberation" movements were more about blowing up whiteys than blowing up the bourgeosie.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Van [email protected] 05, 2007 08:37 pm
I dunno Devrim, what would you do if the striking workers suddenly all sided with the fascists? Would you march with the fascists or would you let the police/army blow up your working class brothers?

Thing is, Henry shouldn't have said "whatever happens", because now we have this thread to think of fantasy scenarios to justify imperialism.
Well actually there are times when workers have struck for very right wing demands, the UWC, and the Powell docker's strike would be just two examples.

But that is not the point here. The scenario that I outlined above is plausible if not likely.

The question is, for those supporting the PKK at the moment, what would they do if the crisis deepened, and Turkey got dragged into a conflict against the US?

Would the PKK suddenly go from being 'good' nationalists to being bad 'nationalists'?

Would the left start to back the Turkish state in the name of anti-imperialism? I don't mention this as a hypothetical scenario, as some so-called socialist organisations in Turkey already have, and in my opinion there could be more to follow.

Devrim

[ComradeR]

Anti-imperialism means nothing if you end up simply backing a different imperialist power. Also the PKK they like several groups before only claimed to be communist to gain the support of the USSR, once that support disappeared with the collapse of the USSR they abandoned any claim to Marxism.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:19 am
Anti-imperialism means nothing if you end up simply backing a different imperialist power.
I think that this is central to my point. In today's world, there is a tendency for national liberation movements to become little more than tools of rival powers. The history of the Kurdish nationalist parties particularly is sad testimony to this.

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:45 pm
So, let's take the scenario a bit further, would you also end up backing the Turkish state against the Americans?

Would you suggest that your comrades in Turkey did the same?

What would you say to striking Telekom workers (it is a vital strtegic industry in a war)?

Devrim
I don't think general rules are very useful. We need to understand the situation, and what does it entail.

The Turkish State may be playing the "oppressed country" card now, but it isn't very convincing (to those of us who aren't Turkish and/or are not living within the ongoing mass hysteria, at least). The Americans are "oppressing" Turkey by not allowing them to invade Iraqi Kurdistan?

On the other hand, there is no Kurdish State at this moment.

Revolution is the destruction of a State - and I don't see how the Kurdish masses will uprise against a non-existent State, unless we are talking about the Iraqi (or Turkish) State.

But there is a State in Turkey, and a relatively solid one. Breaking it down from below, through a mass insurrection, would quite probably be a good thing from the perspective of the international proletariat.

And if there is a shortcut, today, to a revolution in Turkey, to the destruction of the Turkish State, it is Turkey going to war against the Kurds and receiving the beating they deserve. This could put the Turkish masses in direct opposition to the Turkish State. It is in that sence - and in no other sence - that we should "support" the PKK against Turkey. It doesn't mean supporting the PKK's ideology or practices. It doesn't mean idealising the PKK as freedom fighters or liberators or revolutionary socialists or whatever. It means opposing the existence of the Turkish State, and actively helping its destruction from inside.

Evidently, to the comrades in Iraqi Kurdistan, things are quite different, for the PKK and other Kurdish gangs are their direct oppressors. But for those in Turkey, the position is obvious: revolutionary defeatism (which again is not to be confused with idealising the PKK). For those outside both Turkey and Kurdistan, the position is to support the destruction of the most powerful of the States involved. Which is, I hope it is obvious, Turkey.

Now if it comes to a hypothetical all-out war between Turkey and the United States. First, I don't believe that. The Turkish bourgeoisie may have its dreams of independent power, but they also have the common sence to understand that those dreams will not be fulfilled by militarily facing the world's superpower. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that the Turkish bourgeoisie makes a gigantic blunder, or that the logic of events overtake them, and they go to war against the United States. What should the position of revolutionaries in Turkey be? To side with the nationalists, or to denounce them as the cause of the major disaster that is to engage into an unwinable war? To reinforce the Turkish State, in order to best defend against American aggression, or to topple that same State, which would in fact be a hindering to the anti-imperialist struggle?

And what should be the position of revolutionaries in the United States be? To support the aggression against the Turkish State? To do like part of the British left during the Malvinas war, denouncing the Turkish State as dictatorial or imperialist? Or to do like the other part of the British left, verbally supporting the Argentinians and their "right" to Malvinas, hoping that the Argentinian dictatorship toppled the British State for them, instead of actively confronting the British war effort?

Finally, what should the position of revolutionaries in other countries, such as Brazil, France, or Vietnam, be?

I think it is not that difficult to answer. Which revolution would be more helpful to the international proletarian revolution: a revolution in Turkey or a revolution in the United States? Which of them would break the globalised economy? Which country would be more able to stand against an international coalition of counterrevolution, Turkey or the United States, in case of a successful, but isolated, uprising?

If we just think, we can reach some sensible solutions for those problems, can't we?

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+November 06, 2007 10:45 am--> (Luís Henrique @ November 06, 2007 10:45 am) The Turkish State may be playing the "oppressed country" card now, but it isn't very convincing (to those of us who aren't Turkish and/or are not living within the ongoing mass hysteria, at least). The Americans are "oppressing" Turkey by not allowing them to invade Iraqi Kurdistan?

[/b]
'Those of us who are Turkish and/or are living within the ongoing mass hysteria' is precisely who this ideological campaign is aimed at, and, unfortunately Luís, it is very successful. It doesn't really matter how much it convinces the world. Most of the world knows there was an Armenian genocide, but the Turkish state can still rally workers around the flag on the issue.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique+--> (Luís Henrique)And if there is a shortcut, today, to a revolution in Turkey, to the destruction of the Turkish State, it is Turkey going to war against the Kurds and receiving the beating they deserve.[/b]

I think we should look at the military situation seriously. The Turkish army will not receive 'the beating they deserve'. There are about 3,000 PKK militants in the Kandil mountains. There are about 100,000 Turkish troops massed on the border. We can guess who has the better equipment.

A 'victory' for the PKK would not be to defeat the Turkish army, but to drag them in to a long campaign that would cause casualties.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
It is in that sence - and in no other sence - that we should "support" the PKK against Turkey. It doesn't mean supporting the PKK's ideology or practices. It doesn't mean idealising the PKK as freedom fighters or liberators or revolutionary socialists or whatever. It means opposing the existence of the Turkish State, and actively helping its destruction from inside.

Evidently, to the comrades in Iraqi Kurdistan, things are quite different, for the PKK and other Kurdish gangs are their direct oppressors.

It is in this sense that we see while you are groping towards internationalist politics, you still remain stuck within the mindset of Trotskyism. You recognise that neither side is progressive, but you still call for "support" of the PKK.

Let us ask a few questions;

What should the position of those living under the 'PKK and other Kurdish gangs' in Iraq be?

Maybe more pertinent, what position should those living in the Kurdish regions of Turkey have where both sides are effectively their 'own' side?


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
But for those in Turkey, the position is obvious: revolutionary defeatism (which again is not to be confused with idealising the PKK).

I think that our position is quite clear from the translation of some of our leaflets, and articles from our press that have appeared here. In fact on the demonstration in Ankara we were the only political group even raising the question about Turkish imperialism. Most of the left continued to shout 'America out of the Middle East' without even mentioning Turkey.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
Now if it comes to a hypothetical all-out war between Turkey and the United States. First, I don't believe that.

Neither do I. What I said about it was:


Originally posted by Devrim
I accept that this scenario is highly unlikely, but it is, not altogether impossible.


Luís [email protected]
The Turkish bourgeoisie may have its dreams of independent power, but they also have the common sence to understand that those dreams will not be fulfilled by militarily facing the world's superpower. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that the Turkish bourgeoisie makes a gigantic blunder, or that the logic of events overtake them, and they go to war against the United States.

These sort of things can happen. Look at Saadam.

From this point, Luís you stopped answering the questions, and started answering with your own:


Luís Henrique
But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that the Turkish bourgeoisie makes a gigantic blunder, or that the logic of events overtake them, and they go to war against the United States. What should the position of revolutionaries in Turkey be? To side with the nationalists, or to denounce them as the cause of the major disaster that is to engage into an unwinable war? To reinforce the Turkish State, in order to best defend against American aggression, or to topple that same State, which would in fact be a hindering to the anti-imperialist struggle?

And what should be the position of revolutionaries in the United States be? To support the aggression against the Turkish State? To do like part of the British left during the Malvinas war, denouncing the Turkish State as dictatorial or imperialist? Or to do like the other part of the British left, verbally supporting the Argentinians and their "right" to Malvinas, hoping that the Argentinian dictatorship toppled the British State for them, instead of actively confronting the British war effort?

Finally, what should the position of revolutionaries in other countries, such as Brazil, France, or Vietnam, be?

I think it is not that difficult to answer. Which revolution would be more helpful to the international proletarian revolution: a revolution in Turkey or a revolution in the United States? Which of them would break the globalised economy? Which country would be more able to stand against an international coalition of counterrevolution, Turkey or the United States, in case of a successful, but isolated, uprising?

If we just think, we can reach some sensible solutions for those problems, can't we?

We have our answers to these questions. I would like to hear yours.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Speaking as a "Leninist" here (and neither a Trotskyist or Stalinist), I know the left-communist position on "anti-imperialism."

Leo, here's one for you, too:

Here's the problem that I see: "anti-imperialism" as a position becomes fully bankrupt only when complete decadence has seeped into the capitalist system. By that time, of course, the dynamics of Lenin's original theory of imperialism (not the overly colonialist material published just months later) will have been superseded by the dynamics of decadence, which still borrows significant elements of the former dynamics.

WWI for me (and you guys have convinced me of this) signalled the beginning of the decadence, but where I disagree with you is the extent of that decadence. Correct me if my readings of the ICC are a little bit short on memory (having read the appropriate material months ago), but it says the equivalent of "WWI ushered in the full decadence of capitalism."

Anti-imperialism has been very progressive in ending colonial rule, for example. On the other hand, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and thus subsequently the collapse of the Western "ultra-imperialist" hegemony after Kautsky's idea finally had its day in the sun, proved to be additional historical points for the decadence.

I myself don't know the ins-and-outs of the details that well, but this would explain why I support the so-called "class enemy" (Leo's words) Hugo Chavez as an anti-imperialist (his blatant reformism being a different issue altogether), even though I know that his vision of Latin American unity under "Bolivarian" ideology would usher in imperialist dynamics of a "Gran Colombia" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Colombia) kind. On the other hand, this would explain why I don't support the terrorist SOBs comprising "Al-Qaeda Inc." (the "franchisor" in Afghanistan and Pakistan and its "franchisees," like the one in Iraq).

[Devrim]

It seems to be coming out that PEJAK is directly cooperating with the US now.

Are the leftists going to support one wing of the PKK, and oppose the other?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:22 am
I myself don't know the ins-and-outs of the details that well, but this would explain why I support the so-called "class enemy" (Leo's words) Hugo Chavez as an anti-imperialist (his blatant reformism being a different issue altogether), even though I know that his vision of Latin American unity under "Bolivarian" ideology would usher in imperialist dynamics of a ]"Gran Colombia" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Colombia) kind. On the other hand, this would explain why I don't support the terrorist SOBs comprising "Al-Qaeda Inc." (the "franchisor" in Afghanistan and Pakistan and its "franchisees," like the one in Iraq).
Hammer, I think that we should take this up else where. It is a bit off topic. Either start a new thread about it, or I will get Leo to write to you personally.
Regards,
Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Oh, crap. :(

Speaking of the PKK, does it really matter? I mean yeah, elements of the PKK are in cahoots with the "Big Imperialist" US, but then again, who sent Lenin on his train to Russia?

Keep in mind also that the Kurds also have quite a bit of territory in western Iran, and you know the business with Iran and its "criminal" socialists. I can foresee a rather reasonable outcome to the chagrin of US imperialism and the Big-Guy nationalism of Turkey (and, to a lesser extent, Iran):

1) An integral Cyprus (due to EU pressure) and Kurdistan (which would mean a significantly diminished Iraq);
2) A southern Iraq (what will be left of a diminished country artificially created because of WWI) that is more closely tied to Iran than ever, or perhaps even becoming directly a part of Iran itself, as a result of the emergence of an integral Kurdistan (as compensation for the loss of western parts of its territory); and
3) Kurdistan snubbing the US and having the EU, Russia, and Iran compete for "best relations."

[Xiao Banfa]

I would oppose a US-Turkey war from both sides, even though that is bloody unlikely.

Turkey has been a long term US ally, formerly against the soviet bloc and now against islamic fundamentalism.

Another thing; the PKK is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the US, why would they (the americans) want to protect it?

[BobKKKindle$]

When Britain declared war on Argentina as a result of the Falklands dispute, the SWP did not support either side because the party did not view the war as a conflict between an imperialist state and a vulnerable nation subject to the exploitation of the capitalist bloc – rather, it was viewed as an inter-imperial conflict. The same would be true of a war between Turkey and the US, as, on a regional level, Turkey is an imperial power, like Israel, and is thus not deserving of our support.

Socialists should support the PKK, as the Kurdish people have the right to an independent state and this organization also shares many of our principles with regard to economic relationships which would influence the power structures in a hypothetical Kurdistan. Although there exist causes for concern, for example with regard to the PKK's attacks on innocent civilians situated inside Turkey, these should not prevent us from supporting a legitimate political struggle.

Members that are trying to portray the PKK's struggle as synonymous with American interestes are delusional. The destruction of the PKK would serve American interests, as the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq is currently being promoted as a case study of successful transition to self-governance in contrast with the chaos that exists elsewhere, and the region also contains a large proportion of Iraq's oil reserves.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 07, 2007 08:08 am--> (devrimankara @ November 07, 2007 08:08 am) Let us ask a few questions;

What should the position of those living under the 'PKK and other Kurdish gangs' in Iraq be? [/b]
Honestly, I don't know.


Maybe more pertinent, what position should those living in the Kurdish regions of Turkey have where both sides are effectively their 'own' side?

I think all revolutionaries within the borders of the Turkish State should fight against the Turkish war effort; that's the internationalist position.

In a situation in which the Turkish State is trying to drag the populace into an all out war against the Kurds, trying to "oppose both" sides can hardly be anything else than helping the State in finding excuses to its actions.

Or, to quote myself,


Originally posted by Luís [email protected]
But for those in Turkey, the position is obvious: revolutionary defeatism (which again is not to be confused with idealising the PKK).


I think that our position is quite clear from the translation of some of our leaflets, and articles from our press that have appeared here. In fact on the demonstration in Ankara we were the only political group even raising the question about Turkish imperialism. Most of the left continued to shout 'America out of the Middle East' without even mentioning Turkey.

Yes, this is the correct position, even if I disagree, in a theoretical level, that there is something as a "Turkish imperialism". Revolutionaries in Turkey must oppose the Turkish war effort.


From this point, Luís you stopped answering the questions, and started answering with your own:


Luís Henrique
But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that the Turkish bourgeoisie makes a gigantic blunder, or that the logic of events overtake them, and they go to war against the United States. What should the position of revolutionaries in Turkey be? To side with the nationalists, or to denounce them as the cause of the major disaster that is to engage into an unwinable war? To reinforce the Turkish State, in order to best defend against American aggression, or to topple that same State, which would in fact be a hindering to the anti-imperialist struggle?

And what should be the position of revolutionaries in the United States be? To support the aggression against the Turkish State? To do like part of the British left during the Malvinas war, denouncing the Turkish State as dictatorial or imperialist? Or to do like the other part of the British left, verbally supporting the Argentinians and their "right" to Malvinas, hoping that the Argentinian dictatorship toppled the British State for them, instead of actively confronting the British war effort?

Finally, what should the position of revolutionaries in other countries, such as Brazil, France, or Vietnam, be?

I think it is not that difficult to answer. Which revolution would be more helpful to the international proletarian revolution: a revolution in Turkey or a revolution in the United States? Which of them would break the globalised economy? Which country would be more able to stand against an international coalition of counterrevolution, Turkey or the United States, in case of a successful, but isolated, uprising?

If we just think, we can reach some sensible solutions for those problems, can't we?

We have our answers to these questions. I would like to hear yours.


Fair.

To begin with, revolutionaries in Turkey should denounce the Turkish right for leading the country into a war against the United States, sow revolt against such stupidity, and try to topple them. Unhappily I don't think this would be an easy task, so I do think the American invasion would happen and succeed before the masses decided to get rid of the government.

Revolutionaries in the United States should oppose the American war effort. Again, "trying to 'oppose both' sides can hardly be anything else than helping the State in finding excuses to its actions." It must be, "stop the war on Turkey, now!", and not "stop the war on Turkey, if they stop their own bourgeois, imperialist war on Kurdistan". Opposing the American war effort is not the same as hoping that, against all odds, the Turkish Army will be able to repeal the American invasion, it is not the same as hoping that the Turkish bourgeoisie will defeat the American bourgeosie for the the American proletariat.

Finally, it is obvious that a revolution in the United States would make much more to advance the cause of international revolution than a revolution in Turkey. So the position of revolutionaries in neutral countries should be, of course, to oppose the American war effort first and foremost - mainly by opposing any moves by our respective States to support it.

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

Originally posted by bobkindles+November 11, 2007 11:03 am--> (bobkindles @ November 11, 2007 11:03 am) Members that are trying to portray the PKK's struggle as synonymous with American interestes are delusional. The destruction of the PKK would serve American interests, as the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq is currently being promoted as a case study of successful transition to self-governance in contrast with the chaos that exists elsewhere, and the region also contains a large proportion of Iraq's oil reserves. [/b]
Bob, nobody is trying to portray the PKK's struggle as synonymous with America interests. There are two different cases here, the first a hypothetical scenario where Turkey came into conflict with the US where the PKK would end up fighting on the side of the USA. As stated before this is hypothetical.
The second is the fact that PEJAK are being backed by the US. This is fact. Nobody is saying that their interests are synonymous, but that doesn't stop them cooperating.


bobkindles
Socialists should support the PKK, as the Kurdish people have the right to an independent state and this organization also shares many of our principles with regard to economic relationships which would influence the power structures in a hypothetical Kurdistan. Although there exist causes for concern, for example with regard to the PKK's attacks on innocent civilians situated inside Turkey, these should not prevent us from supporting a legitimate political struggle.

What is all this talk of people's rights coming from so-called socialists? Talking about the rights of the Kurdish people is nothing more than proclaiming the rights of the Kurdish bourgeoisie. There is no class analysis here at all. It is a call for workers to sacrifice themselves on behalf of national capital. If you think that the PKK shares many of your principles it only goes to show how far your so-called 'socialism' has gone from working class politics.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 11, 2007 01:13 pm
Revolutionaries in the United States should oppose the American war effort. Again, "trying to 'oppose both' sides can hardly be anything else than helping the State in finding excuses to its actions." It must be, "stop the war on Turkey, now!", and not "stop the war on Turkey, if they stop their own bourgeois, imperialist war on Kurdistan". Opposing the American war effort is not the same as hoping that, against all odds, the Turkish Army will be able to repeal the American invasion, it is not the same as hoping that the Turkish bourgeoisie will defeat the American bourgeosie for the the American proletariat.

I don't quite understand your position, and I am not sure if you understand ours either.

Let's try to relate it to the real situation today;

The first task of revolutionaries in Turkey at the moment is to try to oppose the mobilisation of the Turkish state for war. On that we are agreed. Our position is that both sides in the war are anti-working class. This is something that we stress in our press, and leaflets. It does not mean that we say 'stop the war if...'. We oppose the war effort.


In a situation in which the Turkish State is trying to drag the populace into an all out war against the Kurds, trying to "oppose both" sides can hardly be anything else than helping the State in finding excuses to its actions.

I don't really think that the state is going to be reading the publications of the communist left in order to find excuses for this war.

Devrim