Anti-imperialism [Archive]

Davie zepeda

3rd August 2008, 04:33

Winter

3rd August 2008, 04:35

Chapter 24

3rd August 2008, 04:57

Yes, we should support any country's battle for freedom because it is progressive. If we trully want Socialism to come about, this cannot occur so long as that particular nation is being colonized by a first world invader sucking up the resources and using cheap labor.

So in order to defeat imperialist interest in a region of turmoil such as Afghanistan or Iraq, we as leftists must support the opposing combatants driving them and their interests out of their country, no matter how reactionary these groups are? You mention that we should support any country's battle for freedom because it is progressive. But what if it is completely the opposite? What if the Taliban regained its rule over thew majority of the Afghan territory through the support of leftists? Would there be freedom and progress taking place in the streets of Kabul, or women suppressed by the all-male ruling powers being stoned in the streets for committing adultery or simply for walking in public without a male relative?
Certainly it would be the latter and anyone who doesn't think so is naïve for thinking otherwise, foolishly proclaiming these people as "freedom fighters". Is the struggle between the U.S. and groups such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda not a power struggle? Imperial domination needs to be stopped, but what happens when these groups come to power? Will there be a following revolutionary leftist movement that seizes power and brings these people to justice?

LiberaCHE

3rd August 2008, 05:21

"I might point out here that colonialism or imperialism, as the slave system of the West is called, is not something that is just confined to England or France or the United States. The interests in this country are in cahoots with the interests in France and the interests in Britain. It's one huge complex or combine, and it creates what's known not as the American power structure or the French power structure, but an international power structure. This international power structure is used to suppress the masses of dark-skinned people all over the world and exploit them of their natural resources."

~ Malcolm X

Winter

3rd August 2008, 05:38

So in order to defeat imperialist interest in a region of turmoil such as Afghanistan or Iraq, we as leftists must support the opposing combatants driving them and their interests out of their country, no matter how reactionary these groups are?

Yes.

You mention that we should support any country's battle for freedom because it is progressive. But what if it is completely the opposite? What if the Taliban regained its rule over thew majority of the Afghan territory through the support of leftists?

Then an internal struggle would be neccesarry. An internal struggle would far more likely occur with the absense of imperialists. So when all is said and done, it will turn out to be progressive.

Would there be freedom and progress taking place in the streets of Kabul, or women suppressed by the all-male ruling powers being stoned in the streets for committing adultery or simply for walking in public without a male relative?

The people know what they want, and if it isn't this, armed struggle would occur.

Certainly it would be the latter and anyone who doesn't think so is naïve for thinking otherwise, foolishly proclaiming these people as "freedom fighters". Is the struggle between the U.S. and groups such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda not a power struggle?

Yes it is. The difference is that one is foreign and one domestic.

Imperial domination needs to be stopped, but what happens when these groups come to power? Will there be a following revolutionary leftist movement that seizes power and brings these people to justice?

It's far more likely to happen without the presence of foreign invaders.

"'Lifting a rock only to drop it on one's own feet' is a Chinese folk saying to describe the behavior of certain fools. The reactionaries in all countries are fools of this kind. In the final analysis, their persecution of the revolutionary people only serves to accelerate the people's revolutions on a broader and more intense scale. Did not the persecution of the revolutionary people by the tsar of Russia and by Chiang Kai-shek perform this function in the great Russian and Chinese revolutions?" - Mao Tse-tung

People are going to die no matter what path is taken. Certain actions lead to liberation quicker.

LiberaCHE

3rd August 2008, 05:43

"Ever since monopoly capital took over the world, it has kept the greater part of humanity in poverty, dividing all the profits among the group of the most powerful countries. The standard of living in those countries is based on the extreme poverty of our countries. To raise the living standards of the underdeveloped nations, therefore, we must fight against imperialism. And each time a country is torn away from the imperialist tree, it is not only a partial battle won against the main enemy but it also contributes to the real weakening of that enemy, and is one more step toward the final victory."

~ Che Guevara

Led Zeppelin

3rd August 2008, 05:45

LiberaCHE

3rd August 2008, 05:46

"We must bear in mind that imperialism is a world system, the last stage of capitalism — and it must be defeated in a world confrontation. The strategic end of this struggle should be the destruction of imperialism. Our share, the responsibility of the exploited and underdeveloped of the world is to eliminate the foundations of imperialism: our oppressed nations, from where they extract capitals, raw materials, technicians and cheap labor, and to which they export new capitals — instruments of domination — arms and all kinds of articles; thus submerging us in an absolute dependence."

~ Che Guevara

Winter

3rd August 2008, 05:47

LiberaCHE

3rd August 2008, 05:49

BTW comrade, are you at somekind of website that spouts out revolutionary quotes or something? I'm noticing all your posts within the past half hour have been nothing but quotes. :thumbup1:

Nah, I'm just feeling "quotable" ... I get that way sometimes.

Led Zeppelin

3rd August 2008, 05:52

By the way I changed the title of the thread, because "Lenin - Che" has nothing to do with the subject.

Mala Tha Testa

3rd August 2008, 05:54

BTW comrade, are you at somekind of website that spouts out revolutionary quotes or something? I'm noticing all your posts within the past half hour have been nothing but quotes. :thumbup1:

Same, at least you're not posting, "someone said this that one time" or something of the sort
:thumbup:

NiccolÃ² Rossi

3rd August 2008, 07:49

Should we in fact support any struggle against any imperialism

No. A fight against capitalism is necessarily a fight against imperialism, however, a fight against imperialism is not necessarily a fight against capitalism. The communist has no interests but the interests of the working class. To support the "right" to "self-determination" of nations and other such struggles against imperialism, is to support the interests of the national bourgeoisie over the working class.

or should we be a bunch of picky girls.

Was this sexist comment merely a slip of the tongue? I hope so...

Winter

3rd August 2008, 08:34

No. A fight against capitalism is necessarily a fight against imperialism, however, a fight against imperialism is not necessarily a fight against capitalism. The communist has no interests but the interests of the working class.

Look around and notice who the imperialists are. In this day and age they are almost universally first world, capitalist countries looking for more resources and cheap labor to reap. The only equals that may be invading others these days are scattered indiginous tribes, and I wouldn't consider that to be imperialism seeing that tribes are not nations. Imperialism only jeopardizes chances for a workers revolution by making things worse than they already were. Just because the result may not lead to a workers state right away does not mean it will not down the road.

To support the "right" to "self-determination" of nations and other such struggles against imperialism, is to support the interests of the national bourgeoisie over the working class.

The national bourgeois love doing business with the imperialists! As long as they live comfortably and not like the average workers, they are fine. They have no concern about the well-being of their people, only themselves. The super rich of that country may not be as rich anymore, but they are a million times better off than the average worker. It is always the working class that suffers from imperialism.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

3rd August 2008, 09:16

Imperialism only jeopardizes chances for a workers revolution by making things worse than they already were.

I honestly laughed at reading this. Above you claimed that we should support reactionary anti-imperialist movements including those of militant Islamists. Certainly such groups present a greater threat to the workers movement than imperialist domination?

The national bourgeois love doing business with the imperialists! As long as they live comfortably and not like the average workers, they are fine. They have no concern about the well-being of their people, only themselves. The super rich of that country may not be as rich anymore, but they are a million times better off than the average worker. It is always the working class that suffers from imperialism.

How exactly does this counter my point?

Leo

3rd August 2008, 10:23

Look around and notice who the imperialists are. In this day and age they are almost universally first world, capitalist countries looking for more resources and cheap labor to reap.

No not at all. All countries, including the third world countries, do pursue their own imperialist interests, although necessarily on a tinier scale but more importantly are part of world imperialism. No bourgeois faction is capable of opposing imperialism. As Rosa Luxemburg says in the Junius Pamphlet: "The small nations, the ruling classes of which are the accomplices of their partners in the big states, constitute only the pawns on the imperialist chessboard of the great powers, and are used by them, just like their own working masses, in wartime, as instruments, to be sacrificed to capitalist interests after the war... Imperialism is not the creation of any one or of any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognizable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will." All "anti-imperialist" movements have been pawns of this or that greater imperialist power while opposing a certain greater imperialist force.

Neither is imperialism about "looking for more resources and cheap labor". We are not living in the 18th century anymore. Imperialism is not colonialism. It is not about "exploiting the resources of the third world": third world countries are already a part of world imperialism like the first world countries, and their resources are already in use in the mode of production, just like the way the resources of the stronger imperialist countries are in use. The issue is one of the competition between imperialist blocks, and rather than being about who exploits the products, it is one of who controls the products. In Iraq, for example, almost all of the oil is in the hands of the Iraqi bourgeoisie, and it is them who exploit the oil workers and make profit from the sales etc. The influence American imperialism has in Iraq is a massive political one: i.e. they reserve the influence to control who gets the oil, they have a "trump card" to use when necessary against their rivals.

Hiero

3rd August 2008, 10:48

No not at all. All countries, including the third world countries, do pursue their own imperialist interests, although necessarily on a tinier scale but more importantly are part of world imperialism. No bourgeois faction is capable of opposing imperialism. As Rosa Luxemburg says in the Junius Pamphlet: "The small nations, the ruling classes of which are the accomplices of their partners in the big states, constitute only the pawns on the imperialist chessboard of the great powers, and are used by them, just like their own working masses, in wartime, as instruments, to be sacrificed to capitalist interests after the war... Imperialism is not the creation of any one or of any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognizable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will." All "anti-imperialist" movements have been pawns of this or that greater imperialist power while opposing a certain greater imperialist force.

Neither is imperialism about "looking for more resources and cheap labor". We are not living in the 18th century anymore. Imperialism is not colonialism. It is not about "exploiting the resources of the third world": third world countries are already a part of world imperialism like the first world countries, and their resources are already in use in the mode of production, just like the way the resources of the stronger imperialist countries are in use. The issue is one of the competition between imperialist blocks, and rather than being about who exploits the products, it is one of who controls the products. In Iraq, for example, almost all of the oil is in the hands of the Iraqi bourgeoisie, and it is them who exploit the oil workers and make profit from the sales etc. The influence American imperialism has in Iraq is a massive political one: i.e. they reserve the influence to control who gets the oil, they have a "trump card" to use when necessary against their rivals.
That is the most ridicilous statement i have ever heard about international politics.

A reading of Imperialism Highest Stage of Capitalism by Lenin, by the simplest Marxist dispels your theory.

Imagine if the USA and other imperialist pulled their investments and trade deals with China. What would China do? They couldn't go on manufacturing products and refining raw materials. They wouldn't have the market to sell the crap they produce, secondly they wouldn't have the capital from investments to go on, it would cause a major crisis. Meanwhile if the USA still has markets to expliot, the would still manage to go on explioting labour without facing a major crisis.

Third world nations are not just first world nations that are underdeveloped. Third nations are different, the national bourgeoisie need to have thoose links with the first world bourgeoisie, and this link is specific and not based on mutal goals. The influence of the first world bourgeoisie is not just political, it is capital. Any reading such as Lenin's or a more modern book on political-economy shows this relationship of imperialism.

I would like to see your evidence to support such a crazy view. I see that your view is limited by Rosa Luxemburg. Without proper reference to your quote, i have to assume since she is from Europe and the early 20th centaury, by smaller states she means the physically small states who weren't major colonial powers at the time. That quote has no real reference for today's world, unless used in the European context when say talking about England and Sweden for instance. And I think that is your huge mistake, you keep puting things out of context. We aren't in the same context of WW1 so thoose theories, which are correct when we are talking about two imperialist nations for that time like Germany and England, in todays world we can't apply them to relationship of US and Iraq.

Leo

3rd August 2008, 12:26

A reading of Imperialism Highest Stage of Capitalism by Lenin, by the simplest Marxist dispels your theory.I read it and disagree with it as well.

Here's a summary of the criticism of Lenin's analysis of imperialism:
LENIN'S CONCEPTION OF IMPERIALISM

For Lenin, the characteristic features of imperialism were:

"1) The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital and the creation, on the basis of this ‘finance capital', of a financial oligarchy;
3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share the world among themselves;
5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed."

(Imperialism, chap 7, p.106)

Although Lenin's definition of imperialism contains a number of important indicators, its main weakness is that it is more a description of some of imperialism's outward effects, than an analysis of the roots of imperialism in the accumulation process. The organic or intensive development of capital into more and more concentrated units, and the geographic or extensive development of capital's field of activity (the search for colonies, territorial division of the globe) are fundamentally expressions of the inner processes of accumulation. It is the growing organic composition of capital, with the corresponding fall in the rate of profit and shrinking of the domestic market, which compelled capital to seek new profitable outlets for capital investment and to extend continuously the market for its commodities. But while the underlying dynamic of imperialism does not change, the outward manifestations of this dynamic are subject to modification, so that many aspects of Lenin's definition of imperialism are inadequate today, and were even at the time he was elaborating it. Thus the period in which capital could be seen to be dominated by an oligarchy of "finance capital" and by "international monopolist combines" was already giving way to a new phase during World War 1 - the period of state capitalism, of the permanent war economy. In the epoch of chronic inter-imperialist rivalries on the world market, the entire national capital tends to be concentrated around the state apparatus, which subordinates and disciplines all particular factions of capital to the needs of military/economic survival. The recognition that capitalism had entered an epoch of violent struggles between national "state capitalist trusts" was much clearer to Bukharin than Lenin (see Imperialism and World Economy), though Bukharin was still constrained by the equation of imperialism with finance capital, so that his "state capitalist trust" is, to a large extent, presented as a ‘tool' of the financial oligarchy, whereas the state is actually the supreme directing organ of capital in this epoch. Furthermore, as Bilan pointed out,

"To define imperialism as a ‘product' of finance capital, as Bukharin has done, is to establish a false connection and above all is to lose sight of the common origin of these two aspects of the capitalist process: the production of surplus value." (Mitchell, ‘Crisis and Cycles in the Economy of Capitalism in Agony' Bilan no. 11, 1934)

Lenin's failure to understand the significance of state capitalism was to have grave political consequences in a number of areas: illusions in the progressive nature of certain aspects of state capitalism, applied with disastrous consequences by the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution; the inability to see the integration of the old worker's organisations into the state, and the evasive theory of the Labour Aristocracy and of ‘bourgeois workers parties' and ‘reactionary unions' which are somehow distinct from the state machine (the problem with these organisations wasn't simply that a large number had been bribed by ‘imperialist super profits', as Lenin argued, but that the entire apparatus had been incorporated into the colossus of the imperialist state). The tactical conclusions which were drawn from these erroneous theories are well known: the united front, trade union work, etc... Similarly Lenin's emphasis on colonial possessions as a distinguishing and even indispensable feature of imperialism has not stood the test of time. Despite his expectation that the loss of the colonies, precipitated by national revolts in these regions, would shake the imperialist system to its foundations, imperialism has adapted quite easily to ‘decolonisation'. Decolonisation simply expressed the decline of the older imperialist powers, and the triumph of imperialist giants who were not burdened with many colonies in the period around World War 1. Thus the USA and Russia were able to develop a cynical ‘anti-colonial' line to further their own imperialist ends, to batten onto national movements in the colonies and transform them immediately into inter-imperialist proxy-wars.

Lenin's theory of imperialism became the official position of the Bolsheviks and the Communist International, particularly in relation to the national and colonial question, and it is here that the defects of the theory were to have their most serious ramifications. When imperialism is characterised by essentially super-structural features, it becomes easy to divide the world into imperialist, oppressing nations and oppressed, non-imperialist nations, and even for certain imperialist powers to abruptly ‘cease' being imperialist when they shed one or more of these defining characteristics. Along with this went a tendency to obscure class differences in the ‘oppressed nations' and to argue that the proletariat - as the national champion of all the oppressed - had to rally these oppressed nations to its revolutionary banner. This position was applied mainly to the colonies, but in his critique of The Junius Pamphlet, Lenin argued that even developed capitalist countries in modern Europe could, under certain circumstances fight a legitimate war for national independence. During the First World War this ambiguous idea was inoperative because of Lenin's correct evaluation that the overall imperialist context of the war made it impossible for the proletariat to support a policy of national defence in any of the belligerents. But the weakness of the theory were starkly demonstrated after the war, above all with the decline of the revolutionary wave and the isolation of the Soviet State. The idea of the anti-imperialist, character of the ‘oppressed nations' was refuted by the events in Finland, Eastern Europe, Persia, Turkey and China, where the attempt to carry out the policies of ‘national self-determination' and the anti-imperialist united front' was powerless to prevent the bourgeoisies of these countries from allying themselves with the imperialist powers and crushing any initiative towards the communist revolution[1].

Perhaps the most grotesque application of the ideas that Lenin had advanced in his On the Junius Pamphlet was in Germany during the ‘National Bolshevik' experiment in 1923: according to this debased concept, Germany suddenly ceased to be an imperialist power because it had been deprived of its colonies and was being plundered by the Entente. An anti-imperialist alliance with sections of the German bourgeoisie was therefore on the agenda. Of course, there is no straight line from Lenin's theoretical weaknesses to these outright betrayals; a whole process of degeneration lay between them. Nevertheless it is important for communists to demonstrate that it is precisely the errors of past revolutionaries that can be used by degenerating or counter-revolutionary parties to justify their treason. It is not accidental that the counter-revolution, in its Stalinist, Maoist or Trotskyist forms, makes abundant use of Lenin's theories of imperialism and national liberation to ‘prove' that Russia or China are not imperialist (see the typical leftist trick: ‘where are the monopolies and financial oligarchies in Russia?'); or, equally to ‘prove' that numerous bourgeois gangs in the underdeveloped countries must be supported in their ‘anti-imperialist' struggle. It's true that they distort and corrupt many aspects of Lenin's theory, but communists should not be afraid to admit that there are numerous elements in Lenin's conception which can be taken more or less ‘straight' by these bourgeois forces. It is precisely these elements which we must be able to criticize and go beyond.

(On Imperialism, International Review 19, 4th quarter 1979, http://en.internationalism.org/ir/019/on-imperialism)

Imagine if the USA and other imperialist pulled their investments and trade deals with China. What would China do? They couldn't go on manufacturing products and refining raw materials. They wouldn't have the market to sell the crap they produce, secondly they wouldn't have the capital from investments to go on, it would cause a major crisis.And it would simply cause a major crisis for the US as well. All those relations are mutual.

Meanwhile if the USA still has markets to expliot, the would still manage to go on explioting labour without facing a major crisis.So would Chinese capital in regards to exploiting the labor, and obviously despite an end to economical agreements with the US would create a big economical crisis for both sides, they both would nevertheless will be able to find different trading partners afterwards.

Meanwhile if the USA still has markets to expliotThe US doesn't really exploit the markets at all: it is a state, it is not a firm. Different firms, and not just American or European firms but firms from other parts of the world as well, including the third world, participate in different markets in different countries. The basic international economic activity of capitalist corporations does not equal the activities of imperialist states, this is simply a ridiculously schematic analysis.

Third world nations are not just first world nations that are underdeveloped. Third nations are different, the national bourgeoisie need to have thoose links with the first world bourgeoisie, and this link is specific and not based on mutal goals.Again this is a very ignorant analysis, really proving that you know very little about the actions of the bourgeoisie in the third world.

All bourgeois factions need to have links with other bourgeois factions, whether they are in the first world or the third world has got nothing to do with this. Which bourgeois faction being aligned to which stronger bourgeois faction is determined exactly by the "harmony" of the local and global interests of both these powers. For example in Iraq, all bourgeois factions that did benefit from the American invasion are aligned with the American invasion to an extent, but for example the Islamic Dawa Party is loosely connected to the Sadrists and they both have links to the Iranian state, which pursues it's interests in Iraq through those organizations, and which itself has connections to Russia etc.

The influence of the first world bourgeoisie is not just political, it is capital.The influence in regards to capital is not at all limited to the first world bourgeoisie.

Quite frankly not being aware of this means that you know nothing about the third world at all.

This very incomplete list might give you a vague idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_by_country

I see that your view is limited by Rosa Luxemburg. Without proper reference to your quote, i have to assume since she is from Europe and the early 20th centaury, by smaller states she means the physically small states who weren't major colonial powers at the time.More like Poland, or other nations under Russian Empire including Asian ones etc. Luxemburg did completely oppose all national liberation movements and condemned supporting them.

BobKKKindle$

3rd August 2008, 12:30

Socialists base support for struggles against imperialism (even if the movements which lead such struggles do not agree with or strongly oppose socialist politics) on strategic considerations of class consciousness especially in states which exercise national oppression. Marx recognized that the British occupation of Ireland (the whole of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom during the 19th Century) was a major obstacle to the development of class consciousness amongst the English proletariat, because the national oppression exercised by the British state created ideological unity between the English proletariat and the English bourgeoisie (which maintained and benefited from the colonial exploitation of the Irish nation) and thereby obscured the underlying antagonisms which existed between the two classes, and thus Marx argued that socialists should declare support for the Irish independence struggle to break the regressive ideological links (links which existed solely to support the rule of the English bourgeoisie and provide no effective benefits to English proletarians) and so enable the English proletariat to identify the objective unity of interests between proletarians of all states.

Marx demanded the separation of Ireland from Britain “although after the separation there may come federation”, demanding it, not from the standpoint of the petty-bourgeois Utopia of a peaceful capitalism, or from considerations of “justice for Ireland”, but from the standpoint of the interests of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat of the oppressor, i.e., British, nation against capitalism. The freedom of that nation has been cramped and mutilated by the fact that it has oppressed another nation. The British proletariat’s internationalism would remain a hypocritical phrase if they did not demand the separation of Ireland

The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, Lenin (1915)

Lenin later extended this basic principle and recognized that it could also apply to other struggles against imperialism. Lenin also recognized that the formal declaration of independence would not allow for full liberation from the pressures of imperialism, because imperialism can also operate by indirect means of control (espionage to overthrow governments which pose a threat to the interests of capital) and by subordinating nations to the dynamics of the world economy:

For the question of the political self-determination of nations and their independence as states in bourgeois society, Rosa Luxemburg has substituted the question of their economic independence. This is just as intelligent as if someone, in discussing the programmatic demand for the supremacy of parliament, the assembly of people’s representatives, in a bourgeois state, were to expound the perfectly correct conviction that big capital dominates in a bourgeois country, whatever the regime in it.

The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, What is Meant by Self-Determination? Lenin (May 1914)

However, because support for anti-imperialism is a position based on strategic considerations (not abstract ideas such as the existence of a "right" to self-determination or the "morality" of imperialism) this should not serve as a justification for abandoning a position of support.

Devrim

3rd August 2008, 12:42

Both Marx and Lenin thought that support for national liberation struggles was not a principle but something that was only applicable to certain struggles.

Devrim

Holden Caulfield

3rd August 2008, 13:26

Both Marx and Lenin thought that support for national liberation struggles was not a principle but something that was only applicable to certain struggles.

i was just going to say the same thing, a while ago didnt a comrade mention that Engels said the French fight against North African pirates was progressive as the pirates were opressive and slave merchants?

Davie zepeda

3rd August 2008, 15:32

understandings these fact's can help us in the future .So we should be careful he we choose to support in any confrontation . Hmmm you said the theory of international imperialism is flawed in most cases we should think and support are own insurgents
Instead of supporting far right elements .

Winter

3rd August 2008, 18:15

This whole conversation has been said and done many times before, and to keep arguing my position would be to repeat myself. This thread does my side of the debate justice: http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-we-support-t77533/index.html

LiberaCHE

3rd August 2008, 23:30

Mdxym9VAIhI

Winter

4th August 2008, 01:41

"Stalin's work is important for all peoples engaged in the revolutionary struggle for freedom from the barbaric domination of imperialism.

Stalin represents, just like Lenin, steadfastness in the fiercest and most merciless of class struggles. Stalin showed that, in the most difficult situations, only a firm and inflexible attitude towards the enemy can resolve the fundamental problems of the working masses. Conciliatory, opportunistic and capitulationist attitudes will inevitably lead to catastrophe and to bloody revenge by the reactionary forces.

Today, the working masses of the Third World find themselves in a very difficult situation, with no hope in sight, resembling conditions in the Soviet Union in 1920--1933. In Mozambique, the most reactionary forces in the country were used by the CIA and the South African BOSS to massacre 900,000 Mozambicans. The Hindu fundamentalists, long protected by the Congress Party and upheld by the Indian bourgeoisie, are leading India into bloody terror. In Colombia, the collusion between the reactionary army and police, the CIA and the drug traffickers is provoking a bloodbath among the masses. In Iraq, where criminal aggression killed more than 200,000, the embargo imposed by our great defenders of human rights continues to slowly kill tens of thousands of children.

In each of these extreme situations, Stalin's example shows us how to mobilize the masses for a relentless and victorious struggle against enemies ready to use any means.

But a great number of revolutionary parties of the Third World, engaged in merciless battles against barbaric imperialism, progressively deviated towards opportunism and capitulation, and this disintegration process almost always started with ideological attacks against Stalin. The evolution of parties such as the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) in El Salvador is a prime example.

From about 1985, a right-opportunist tendency developed within the Communist Party of the Philippines. It wanted to end the popular war and to start a process of `national reconciliation'. Following Gorbachev, the tendency virulently attacked Stalin. This same opportunism also had a `left' form. Wanting to come to power quickly, others proposed a militarist line and an urban political insurrection. In order to eliminate police infiltration, leaders of this tendency organized a purge within the Party in Mindanao: they executed several hundred persons, violating all of the Party's rules. But when the Central Committee decided to conduct an ideological and political rectification campaign, these opportunists all united against `the Stalinist purge'! Jose Maria wrote:

`(T)hose who oppose the rectification movement most bitterly are those who have been most responsible for the militarist viewpoint, the gross reduction of the mass base, witchhunts of monstrous proportions (violative of all sense of democracy and decency) and degeneration into gangsterism ....

`These renegades have in fact and in effect joined up with the intelligence and psywar agents of the U.S.--Ramos régime in an attempt to stop the CPP from strengthening itself ideologically, politically and organizationally.'

Jose Maria Sison, Statement of Denial and Condemnation. 8 December 1992.

The journal Democratic Palestine, of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), also opened up a debate on Stalin:

`Negative aspects of the Stalin era which have been highlighted include: forced collectivization; repression of free expression and democracy in the party and in the society; ultracentralization of decision-making in the party, the Soviet state and the international Communist movement.'

All these so-called `criticisms' of Stalin are nothing more than a verbatim rehash of old social-democratic anti-Communist criticisms. To choose this road and to follow it to its end means, ultimately, the end of the PFLP as a revolutionary organization. The experience of all those who have taken this road leaves no room for doubt.
The recent evolution of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) is instructive about this subject. In his interview of Fidél Castro, Thomas Borge vigorously attacked `Stalinism': it is under this camouflage that the FSLN transformed itself into a bourgeois social-democratic entity. "

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node6.html#SECTION00300300000000000000

BobKKKindle$

4th August 2008, 04:30

Stalin's work is important for all peoples engaged in the revolutionary struggle for freedom from the barbaric domination of imperialism.

This article provides no evidence to support the claim that Stalin provided support to, or inspired movements struggling against imperialism, and in many cases the Soviet Union had an important role in preserving imperialism and protecting the interests of the imperialist powers. The Soviet Union supported the creation of Israel, which signified a direct violation of the basic rights of the Palestinian people (who were given less than half of the total land area, although they comprised more than half of the population and owned almost all of the arable land prior to the creation of Israel) and indicates a lack of support for the principle of national independence. The Soviet Union later sponsored the entry of Israel into the General Assembly (the main discussion forum and platform of the United Nations) despite the further atrocities committed against the Palestinians during the Arab-Israeli War (1948) when Palestinians were driven from their homes with the threat of violence and forced to live in refugee camps in neighboring Arab states. Moreover, when the Hungarian working class attempted to overthrow the bureaucratic system of government which was imposed by the Soviet Union and develop an alternative form of socialism based on democratic participation and open discussion (a process which Trotskyists identified as a political revolution which, as distinct from social revolution, preserves existing property relations and does not attempt to restore capitalism or destroy the gains of the command economy) the Soviet Union responded with military violence and forced Hungary to conform to the strategic interests of the Soviet Union. This example further demonstrates the lack of respect for national independence exhibited by the Soviet Union.

LiberaCHE

4th August 2008, 05:55

When one talks about the Soviet Union ... remember Stalin died in 1953. So none of the Soviet Actions after that can be placed at the feet of Stalin's leadership.

Yes the Soviet Union became Imperialist --- AFTER Stalin.

Armand Iskra

31st March 2009, 00:32

From about 1985, a right-opportunist tendency developed within the Communist Party of the Philippines. It wanted to end the popular war and to start a process of `national reconciliation'. Following Gorbachev, the tendency virulently attacked Stalin. This same opportunism also had a `left' form. Wanting to come to power quickly, others proposed a militarist line and an urban political insurrection. In order to eliminate police infiltration, leaders of this tendency organized a purge within the Party in Mindanao: they executed several hundred persons, violating all of the Party's rules. But when the Central Committee decided to conduct an ideological and political rectification campaign, these opportunists all united against `the Stalinist purge'! Jose Maria wrote:

`(T)hose who oppose the rectification movement most bitterly are those who have been most responsible for the militarist viewpoint, the gross reduction of the mass base, witch hunts of monstrous proportions (violative of all sense of democracy and decency) and degeneration into gangsterism ....

`These renegades have in fact and in effect joined up with the intelligence and psywar agents of the U.S.--Ramos régime in an attempt to stop the CPP from strengthening itself ideologically, politically and organizationally.'

Jose Maria Sison, Statement of Denial and Condemnation. 8 December 1992.

Most of the people who made this purge are the same people who condemn and blame Joma due to their actions, just because they are dissatisfied with his command and insist in replacing him. this marks the rise of the RA-RJ debate, the so-called "BIYAKAN", and "LIHIS" that tarnishes the reputation of the CPP.

Led Zeppelin

7th April 2009, 20:15

A question to all . Should we in fact support any struggle against any imperialism or should we be a bunch of picky girls.

Well, that depends, would you put Lenin in the "picky girls" category for saying something like:

With regard to the more backward states and nations, in which feudal or patriarchal and patriarchal-peasant relations predominate, it is particularly important to bear in mind:

first, that all Communist parties must assist the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement in these countries, and that the duty of rendering the most active assistance rests primarily with the workers of the country the backward nation is colonially or financially dependent on;

second, the need for a struggle against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward countries;

third, the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.;[In the proofs Lenin inserted a brace opposite points 2 and 3 and wrote “2 and 3 to be united”.—Editor.]

[...]

fifth, the need for a determined struggle against attempts to give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in the backward countries; the Communist International should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations. The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form;
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm)

If so, I wouldn't mind being included in that category along with him. He makes some pretty good arguments.

Decolonize The Left

8th April 2009, 00:14

Without getting into the Left Communist vs. Marxist-Leninist vs. whoever debate, I'll simply say this.

Revolutionary leftists support the working class.
If this means supporting resistance to imperialism, so be it.
If this means supporting working-class measures against reactionary government, so be it.
If these can be done simultaneously, great.
If not, then we must choose which position offers greater support to the working class.

Each case must be addressed within it's historical, socio-political, and cultural framework; there can be no all-encompassing answer to such a diverse question.

But always - solidarity with the working class.

- August

Pogue

8th April 2009, 00:29

1. Necro

2. Picky girls? :lol:

LOLseph Stalin

8th April 2009, 06:47

A question to all . Should we in fact support any struggle against any imperialism or should we be a bunch of picky girls.

Example's Iran,Zimbabwe,Palestine etc.

Do we or do we not support any struggle against imperialisms.

Explain And put other theory's out to support your view.

I can sometimes be a bit fussy on who to support on the issue of anti-Imperialism, especially in the middle east since many of the Anti-Imperialist groups there are also reactionary. Hamas is a good example. I don't like them for their politics and tactics, but I like the fact that they're fighting against Israeli Imperialism. The Jews were given certain land and they should be required to stay there rather than expanding into Palestinian territory. Another example I think is important which I see as an issue of imperialism is the American invasion of Iraq. Despite resistance from the UN they still went there regardless, using their WMD's excuse. They searched the country and couldn't even find any! This was obviously controversial in the US and brought Bush's popularity way down, but he did create suffering for an entire country afterall simply because he wanted oil and wealth. If he wanted oil he could have just as easily invaded Canada. Anyway, at least there was Iraqis resisting this American invasion which led to this whole controversial "war on terror" thing. This is a very controversial issue to me as everytime I get several questions coming to mind. Is it justified? Is the middle east really as big as a "threat" as the US says? Are they just there for oil and power? Keeping these questions in mind it's hard to have a definite stance on the actual "terrorist" thing although I do feel US troops should leave the country.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

8th April 2009, 08:05

Revolutionary leftists support the working class.
If this means supporting resistance to imperialism, so be it.

In what cases would you say that supporting the efforts of "anti-imperialists" co-incide with supporting the proletariat in the class struggle?

Is this still even a concrete posibility within framework of modern capitalism?

If this means supporting working-class measures against reactionary government, so be it.

I do not understand what you mean by this. Could you explain it?