Campaign to raise money for Bolivian Marxists in order to fight fascism

[OI OI OI]

In light of the recent events in Bolivia (http://www.marxist.com/bolivia-pando-state-of-emergency.htm) , the Bolvian Marxists have an urgent financial appeal .

There is a need for money for arming the working class and peasantry against the fascist gangs, money for the transmission of revolutionary ideas to the widest layers of the proletariat and peasantry and for the effective defence of the working class against the landlords and imperialists.

You can donate here (http://www.marxist.com/donation-for-bolivia-2008.htm) .


Even 5$ will make a big difference in Bolivia.

Please help , we don't need another Pinochet government in Latin America!

[Winter]

This kind of thing scares me. Anybody living in the U.S. knows exactly what I mean. This could be considered funding terrorism and land me in Gitmo without a trial for decades. Otherwise, it is a good cause and if it weren't for the super paranoid bourgeois government looking over my shoulder I would.

[OI OI OI]

I understand your considerations but I don't think they can accuse you for that.

Terrorists are mostly the Muslims in the Middle East for the Americans.

I don't know man but I know many American and Canadian Marxists who have donated in many appeals (some years ago and more recently) and they are still free.

I am sure that there will be no problems for those who donate to the Bolivian Marxists.

[Devrim]

This looks to me like a fund raising campaign for the IMT in Bolivia.

Why on Earth do you expect people from other tendencies to donate money to your organisation? Our tendency for example, although we don't have a section in Bolivia (our only Latin American sections are Mexico, Venezuela, and Brazil), we do have groups there that we are close to and work together with. If I wanted to give money to people there I would give it to them.

I am sure the same goes for other tendencies. I would expect anarchists to give money to Bolivian anarchists etc.

On a different level, I wouldn't give any money to such a bourgeois social-democratic tendency anyway.


This kind of thing scares me. Anybody living in the U.S. knows exactly what I mean. This could be considered funding terrorism and land me in Gitmo without a trial for decades. Otherwise, it is a good cause and if it weren't for the super paranoid bourgeois government looking over my shoulder I would.

Well that sort of sums up the big bad Maoists position, support people in the third world as long as you don't have to dig into your pockets. It is a bit pathetic really.

Devrim

[OI OI OI]

This looks to me like a fund raising campaign for the IMT in Bolivia.

Why on Earth do you expect people from other tendencies to donate money to your organisation? Our tendency for example, although we don't have a section in Bolivia (our only Latin American sections are Mexico, Venezuela, and Brazil), we do have groups there that we are close to and work together with. If I wanted to give money to people there I would give it to them.

I am sure the same goes for other tendencies. I would expect anarchists to give money to Bolivian anarchists etc.

On a different level, I wouldn't give any money to such a bourgeois social-democratic tendency anyway.

It is not a funding of the IMT necessarily but of the many anti-fascist groups organized by Bolivian Marxists and fight in the streets every day.

I don't get that idiotic counter-productive post and its purpose.

Most people seem to want to help the Bolivian proletariat but they are not affiliated with any group or have no group in Bolivia.

And in my post I suggest they fund the Bolivian Marxists that have organized anti-fascist groups and urgently need money to buy supplies etc.

It does not matter that it was Marxists that set them up. What matters is that they fight against the oligarchy and fascism.

But you seem to prefer fascism than giving a couple of bucks to Leninists who fight in the streets and sactifice their lives against fascism.

Also I have not seen an appeal by any other group if there was one I would be glad to help them.


Now go back to your closet and your non-existent group and stop making counter-productive idiotic posts in times ofcrisis, death, blood and destruction.,

[Devrim]

Well, yes. It is a collection for the IMT section, which supports a government that sent in police to kill two striking miners last month.

I am sure that people can make up their own minds.

Devrim

[OI OI OI]

Well, yes. It is a collection for the IMT section, which supports a government that sent in police to kill two striking miners last month.Well no it is for groups like those and the organizations set-up by Marxists in order to fight the oligarchy. Stop saying lies and stupidities .

You only expose how dumb sectarians like yourself are. Stop fucking trolling.



Santa Cruz Departmental Workers Union
Association of Neighbourhood Juntas of the city of Santa Cruz.
Associations of Small Traders of the City of Santa Cruz Market.
Associations of Small Traders of the Ramada Market, City of Santa Cruz.
Associations of Small Traders of the Mutualista Market, City of Santa Cruz.
Associations of Small Traders of the Plan 3000 Market, City of Santa Cruz Market.
Organisation Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz.
Organisation Andrés Ibáñez (the Egalitarians).
Organisation Cañoto.
Peoples’ Civic Committee of the Department of Santa Cruz
Organisation Ignacio Warnes.
Organisation Avanzada Che Guevara.
Organisation Antonio José de Sucre
Peoples’ Youth Union of the Department of Santa Cruz
Social University Movement of the U.A.G.R.M.
Social Workers of the Department of Santa Cruz.

[Devrim]

Is this to collect money for the IMT?
If not what other groups is it supporting?
Does the IMT support the Morales government?
Did this same government's police kill two striking miners recently?


Stop saying lies and stupidities .

Where are the lies?

Can you answer no to those questions?

Devrim

[Winter]

Well that sort of sums up the big bad Maoists position, support people in the third world as long as you don't have to dig into your pockets. It is a bit pathetic really.

This is exactly what I needed to start my day off with. An opportunistic idealist who hates everybody that doesn't agree with him throwing personal attacks at me.

This is exactly why I said you were one of the most sectarian around here, Devrim. This is not friendly critiquing, this is just being an asshole. What have you to gain?

[OI OI OI]

Is this to collect money for the IMT?

It is to collect money for the Marxists who fight against fascism and the organizations they have set up which are not a section of the IMT and not all members are Marxists.


If not what other groups is it supporting?
Grassroots groups set up by the population and unions . I gave a list in my other post.



Does the IMT support the Morales government?

No . It supports the progressive steps and nationalizations and the help to the indigenous population while it condemns their indecisive steps against the oligarchy among many criticisms.


Did this same government's police kill two striking miners recently?


I am not sure but even if it is true it does not change anything .

You cannot build socialism in a bourgeois political system and we all know it and this is part if the criticism we make to Morales.

The police are a part of the fifth column inside MAS and the Bolivian government.


Now stop trolling please and stop saying blatant lies .

II won't bother with any other posts you ll make as I answered to your questions .

Now let any genuine revolutionaries here help the Bolivian proletariat in times of crisis .

But don't worry your posts did their job .

They took away the much needed 10-15$ that someone would donate to fight fascism.

Good job sectarian dumbass.

[Devrim]

II won't bother with any other posts you ll make as I answered to your questions .

Fine you don't have to. I just want people to be clear that what this is is a campaign to collect money for the IMT, which in our opinion is a bourgeois group.

To give a few examples of this groups sort of behaviour when I worked in England this group's predecessor, the Militant Tendency, supported the Falklands war, issued 30,000 redundancy notices to workers (they were running a part of the state at the time), and threatened to grass up demonstrators to the police. This is the type of socialists they are.


No . It supports the progressive steps and nationalizations and the help to the indigenous population while it condemns their indecisive steps against the oligarchy among many criticisms.

Do these 'progressive steps include the privatisation of the pensions scheme, and raising the retirement age from 60 to 65. In reality the IMT supports anti-working class governments in many countries, including Chavez in Venezuela, another government that has shoot down striking workers.


They took away the much needed 10-15$ that someone would donate to fight fascism.

There is no chance of fascism in Bolivia. If it took away 10-15$ that would have gone to supporting anti-worker governments I can't say I am sorry.


This is exactly what I needed to start my day off with. An opportunistic idealist who hates everybody that doesn't agree with him throwing personal attacks at me.

This is exactly why I said you were one of the most sectarian around here, Devrim. This is not friendly critiquing, this is just being an asshole. What have you to gain?

It is just to point out the quality of Maoists on these boards. They support so-called 'people's war' in the 'third world', but are personally too afraid to even donate money to people.

Personally, I belong to a non-legal political organisation in a country where the state regulary tourtures and kills political militants, but hey that's what 'opportunistic idealists' do.

By the way, I don't hate you personally, or anyone else on these boards. I was just commenting on the state of the Maoists in the US.

Devrim

[Saorsa]

issued 30,000 redundancy notices to workers (they were running a part of the state at the time), and threatened to grass up demonstrators to the police.

Link? I know that the Falkwand War part is true.

[Devrim]

Easy to find on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency#Issues_ninety-day_.27redundancy.27_notices


In September 1985, rather than face immediate confrontation with the law, the Labour group on the council decided on the 'tactic' of issuing ninety-day notices to the 30,000 strong workforce to gain leeway to "campaign more vigorously than ever before".[105] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency#cite_note-104) In his autobiography, Deputy Council leader Derek Hatton acknowledges that taking this advice was an enormous mistake, from which the council never recovered.[106] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency#cite_note-105) Although technically not redundancy notices, and not technically necessarily leading to redundancy, as indeed they did not, this was a minor detail to the majority of council staff, who felt the future of their jobs at the council were no longer guaranteed, and it was not understood by the media.[107] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency#cite_note-106)[108] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency#cite_note-107) The 90-day notices were seen as three months notice of redundancy in all but name and treated as such by the media. It was, the Militant's general secretary wrote, "a major tactical error." [109] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency#cite_note-108)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Britain_Anti-Poll_Tax_Federation


The first demonstrations organised by the Fed were the 200,000 strong demonstration in London, parts of which turned into the Poll Tax Riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots), and a simultaneous 50,000 strong demonstration in Glasgow on 31 March 1990.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Britain_Anti-Poll_Tax_Federation#cite_note-8). Federation leaders Tommy Sheridan and Steve Nally criticised the participants of the poll tax riot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_riot), and were said to promise to "name names"[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Britain_Anti-Poll_Tax_Federation#cite_note-9) however, Militant claimed that this was "Totally false" and criticised those such as Roy Hattersley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Hattersley) had called for punishment of those involved.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Britain_Anti-Poll_Tax_Federation#cite_note-10)Of course, the militant always claim that these sort of things are "totally false". The fact remains though that Steve Nally threatened to name names on national TV.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

I second Devrim here. There is no way I'm giving money to the IMT so it could keep spreading propaganda for the populist Latin American regimes.

By the way, to deny that the money goes solely to the IMT section, OIOIOI utilizes an old IMT trick - he says the money goes to 'Marxists,' but IMTers only recognise themselves as Marxists - therefore confirming the charge made by Devrim.

If anyone wants to waste their money on a group which will never go a single step further ahead than Morales, that will like him, assist in the coming to power of the right-wing - fascist or not - in Bolivia, you are welcome to contribute to this 'campaign.' Don't expect the IMT to return the favor at any point in the future.

[OI OI OI]

I second Devrim here. There is no way I'm giving money to the IMT so it could keep spreading propaganda for the populist Latin American regimes.

lie


By the way, to deny that the money goes solely to the IMT section, OIOIOI utilizes an old IMT trick - he says the money goes to 'Marxists,' but IMTers only recognise themselves as Marxists - therefore confirming the charge made by Devrim.

lie again

Mister Yehuda here does not know this:

For the first time, encouraged by the very good results in the recall referendum, the MAS rank and file and masses of supporters actively defied the violence of the right wing. In Santa Cruz, around 300 members of the UJC, armed with sticks, knives and handguns, and driving vehicles from the Prefect's office, arrived at the entrance of Plan 3000, a massive working class neighbourhood which is a stronghold of support for the MAS. They were confronted by thousands of residents, who chased them away and guaranteed the security of street vendors and local shops.

Later in the day, a massive cabildo abierto (open assembly) in Plan 3000 declared their autonomy from the Santa Cruz council and established the "Andres Ibañez egalitarian council", a territory "free from fascism, racism, discrimination and the oligarchy".


Agitating for all this was work from the IMT marxists but these organizations are not the IMT but popular anti-fascist organizations. So by donating people will help those people defend.



If anyone wants to waste their money on a group which will never go a single step further ahead than Morales, that will like him, assist in the coming to power of the right-wing - fascist or not - in Bolivia, you are welcome to contribute to this 'campaign.' Don't expect the IMT to return the favor at any point in the future.

If anyone wants to listen to that CLOWN Yehuda please do so.

But if anyone wants to actualy help the people of Bolivia then donate even 5$ will make a difference.




I am not surprised that the sectarians are so low as to prefer to attack the IMT and encourage people not to help out and in that way favouring the fascists.

They are fucking ridiculus.

[Plagueround]

I'm interested in donating to this cause. Anyone have any links of organizations participating other than IMT?

[OI OI OI]

I'm interested in donating to this cause. Anyone have any links of organizations participating other than IMT?

Well the local anti-fascist organizations don't have websites because they were hastily prepaired for this cause and are grassroots organizations of the workers and peasants.

On one occassion armed with rocks and sticks they managed to get rid of 300 armed thugs that were attacking a poor neighborhood in the separatist capital.

I think that organization is called the egalitarians ...

You can go on www.marxist.com to get informed about the struggle in Bolivia in general and see some announcements made by the groups fighting fascism.

[Charles Xavier]

I agree fuck the IMT they are anti-Morales. They are only sending money to trotskyite groups they support.

[Devrim]

Why has this been split? Is it then the IMT can collect money for itself without criticism.

Everybody who is actually familiar with this group, and its history knows about their fundamentally dishonest practices of collecting money for themselves.

I can remembered them in the miners' strike with their collections tin labelled 'Militant Supports the Miners'. Putting money into them though didn't support the miners. It supported the militant.


lie...lie again

I particularly like the inventive way of refuting people's statements. Just call them lies, present no evidence to the fact, and hope that people believe you.

Devrim

[OI OI OI]

I particularly like the inventive way of refuting people's statements. Just call them lies, present no evidence to the fact, and hope that people believe you.


The first one is a lie and I have refuted Yehudas criticisms on many occassions.

The secondone I explained how it was a lie.

Stop pissing me off with your dishonesty and distorting what I write.



Why has this been split? Is it then the IMT can collect money for itself without criticism.

Everybody who is actually familiar with this group, and its history knows about their fundamentally dishonest practices of collecting money for themselves.

I can remembered them in the miners' strike with their collections tin labelled 'Militant Supports the Miners'. Putting money into them though didn't support the miners. It supported the militant.

Stop trolling and writting stupid propaganda other Trotksyist groups pass around because they cannot compete with the IMT on any level and they prefer to slander the IMT.

I can't argue with you any more .

You don't have any arguments and you bring back proven lies from 30 years ago.


I wont bother anymore.

[OI OI OI]

I agree fuck the IMT they are anti-Morales. They are only sending money to trotskyite groups they support.

Are you dumb?

why do you assert stupidities?

In contrast to the ultra sectarian ultra left left-communists which never went anywhere with their useless tactics and they will never do anything concrete , we critically support Morales.

On the other hand in contast to the reformist idiots who fully support Morales we criticize him and his government and we expose their weaknesses and mistakes to the proletariat.

Thats our attitude to Morales.

And have proved above that the money goes to various groups that struggle every day against fascism while you are sitting on your couch watching Family Guy.

And instead of donating 5$ you prefer to keep it so you can buy a pack of smokes or wherever you re gonna spend it on.

You people disgust me.

[Devrim]

I can't argue with you any more .

You said that before:


II won't bother with any other posts you ll make as I answered to your questions .


You don't have any arguments and you bring back proven lies from 30 years ago.

Saying that things are proven lies is not much more of a sophisticated refutation than just calling them lies.

Devrim

[Devrim]

It is funny how these people can accuse anyone of lying:



Does the IMT support the Morales government? No . It supports the progressive steps and nationalizations and the help to the indigenous population while it condemns their indecisive steps against the oligarchy among many criticisms.


In contrast to the ultra sectarian ultra left left-communists which never went anywhere with their useless tactics and they will never do anything concrete , we critically support Morales.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

Are you dumb?

why do you assert stupidities?

In contrast to the ultra sectarian ultra left left-communists which never went anywhere with their useless tactics and they will never do anything concrete , we critically support Morales.


I always find it silly when first world trotskyists or maoists criticize left communists for doing "anything". OIOI I am sure critically supporting Morales from your computer in Montreal is going to change the course of proletarian revolution. :rolleyes:

[Devrim]

Thread that was split from here on the nature of this money raising campaign:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/criticisms-imt-campaign-t89842/index.html?goto=newpost

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have tackled the overarching issue of left sectarianism in my posts and "formal" work thus far, but I don't know what to make of the "right" sectarianism of groups such as the entryism-obsessed IMT, which are just like "social-democratic" splitters from bigger, more left-leaning parties (such as the short-lived Social-Democratic Party in the UK and now the Social-Democratic Party of America). :confused:

[sixdollarchampagne]

If you look on marxist.com, the Grantist website, at the appeal for funds http://www.marxist.com/donation-for-bolivia-2008.htm for anyone with eyes to see, it clearly says, "Make a donation to the Bolivian Marxists!" in other words, send money to Alan Woods' dozen or fewer supporters in Bolivia.

But then the plot thickens: you can send your shekels through paypal, which will send them to: "Make a donation to the International Marxist Tendency" that is, the group headquartered in London. Not Bolivia

Or you can send the money through the wellred website, in which case it becomes "Donations for Marxist.com," that is, the money goes to their website. Not Bolivia

Or, you can send it by mail, to

Socialist Appeal,
PO Box 50525,
London, E14 6WG that is, Not Bolivia

or to

Wellred
PO Box 4244
St. Paul, MN 55104 US, that is, Not Bolivia

It would appear that you can send your money to a bunch of places within planet Ted Grant, but Not Bolivia.

I hasten to add that there is nothing wrong with any tendency raising funds for its work. But, obviously, if the money is f'or Bolivia, the donor should be able to send it *to Bolivia."

When I donated a modest amount of money to a Bolivian group a few years ago, I sent it via Western Union to an individual *in Bolivia*. I don't see why the Grantists cannot do the same thing, give the name of an actual Bolivian, *in Bolivia* who is receive the moolah. It would be more straightforward.

Just a friendly suggestion.
.

[Bilan]

Sorry, I forgot to link it. Thanks for that devrim.

[OI OI OI]

It is funny how these people can accuse anyone of lying:

How did I lie??
We dont support Morales....
We critically support him.
you make no sense .


I always find it silly when first world trotskyists or maoists criticize left communists for doing "anything". OIOI I am sure critically supporting Morales from your computer in Montreal is going to change the course of proletarian revolution. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Well our groups in Venezuela and Bolivia are playing a protagonistic role in the unraveling of events in their respective countries thanks to their correct tactics and aproach,
It is not a matter of me sitting in Montreal.
From Montreal I do what I kind to support them but unlike other sects we are not mere spectators but protagonists in the events.



I have tackled the overarching issue of left sectarianism in my posts and "formal" work thus far, but I don't know what to make of the "right" sectarianism of groups such as the entryism-obsessed IMT, which are just like "social-democratic" splitters from bigger, more left-leaning parties (such as the short-lived Social-Democratic Party in the UK and now the Social-Democratic Party of America). http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gif

I am sorry Jacob but you don't know shit about activism and the IMT.
Please stop posting non-sense .

[OI OI OI]

Oh ya, all that money goes to Bolivia through our headquarters in London.

It is more effective logistically due to all that money going here and there between the sections.

Also by helping "Bolivian Marxists" it is implied that you help the anti fascist groups they organized in their respective cities.




Edited out flames - SACT.

[black magick hustla]

Well our groups in Venezuela and Bolivia are playing a protagonistic role in the unraveling of events in their respective countries thanks to their correct tactics and aproach,
lol. i am sure the half a dozen of imters in bolivians are leading protagonists:lol:

[OI OI OI]

lol. i am sure the half a dozen of imters in bolivians are leading protagonistshttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Exactly !
They are exactly half a dozen all knowing Marmot!

[Devrim]

How did I lie??
We dont support Morales....
We critically support him.

So critical support isn't a type of support then? The reality is that the IMT supports a bourgeois government that has recently shoot down striking workers.

Devrim

[OI OI OI]

The reality is that you don;t know what the hell you are talking about.

Critical support does not mean support.

Now whats the point of arguing with you when you don't understand basic terminology and come up with the same slanders and distortions?

EDIT: there is no point of arguing with lef-communists.

Seriously you guys are bankrupt politically and organizationally with absolutely no influence.

Just like you think that we are anti-working class , I think that you are ultra-left clowns .

[Devrim]

The reality is that you don;t know what the hell you are talking about.

Critical support does not mean support.

Now whats the point of arguing with you when you don't understand basic terminology and come up with the same slanders and distortions?


Superb, I suppose that next you will be telling us that strawberry cheesecake isn't cheesecake.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

Seriously you guys are bankrupt politically and organizationally with absolutely no influence.

i dont think an imter should qualify groups by influence:lol:

[Bilan]

Oi Oi Oi, stop flaming.

[Yehuda Stern]

OIOIOI, you haven't refuted me once about anything, and you certainly haven't refuted either me or Devrim now. I don't care about persuading you, though, and I doubt Devrim does either - I just want to warn any poor saps who might be fooled by you into giving money to your pack of scammers.

And I too would like to know why this has been split from the original thread, seeing as it is a legitimate criticism of the IMT's lying campaign.

[Bilan]

I split it.It was split on request from oi oi oi. Although I don't care for his position on it, and think he is being schooled, and responding with pointless attacks on people, I think this belongs here.

[Devrim]

I disagree with your decision, SACT. I think OI requested a split then he could separate the thread from people's legitimate criticisms.

To summarize this thread it has been suggested that the IMT's method of fund raising is dishonest, and that it has been so for at least twenty odd years, from collecting money for 'Militant supports the mine workers' to this collection today. I have no objection to people collecting money for their groups. I just think that they should be honest about what they are collecting for.

It has also been put forward that the IMT is a bourgoies organisation, three peices of evidence to back this up were put forward. The Militant tendency supported the British imperialists war in the falklands, the MT ran a part of the bourgoies state (Liverpool council) and acted against the interests of the working class, and the MT threatened demonstrators with grassing them up to the police.

It has also been stated that the IMT supports a bourgoies government, which is attacking working class living standards, and whose police have recently murdered two striking workers.

The response to this from the IMT member on this thread has been to swear at people, insult them, and accuse them of lying.

However, there has been no attempt to dispute any of the facts.

Devrim

[Bilan]

The decision was not one I really support, it was just per request.

I'll move it back.

Apologies everyone.

Moved.

[Louis Pio]

If anyone wants to waste their money on a group which will never go a single step further ahead than Morales,

Well Yehuda one just needs to visit marxist.com to know how stupid your claim is.

Btw you shouldn't by any chance be the same yehuda stern that thinks one should ally with islamic fundamentalists? That would be a bit funny in regards to your position on latin america, a bit of textbook ultra left secterianism nonetheless

[Bilan]

He's a Trotskyist, not an ultra-leftist (whatever that is)

[Devrim]

He's a Trotskyist, not an ultra-leftist (whatever that is)
It is an insult used by people to criticise those with more left wing politics than their own. Obviously with the IMT this means it can be applied to many groups.

Devrim

[Louis Pio]

No ultra-leftism is a pretty normal word among communists since Lenin wrote his famous pamphlet. It's commonly used to describe a group or tendency that in eagerness or because or failed theory raises demands that at a certain point would mostly only lead the opposite of the idea behind it; socialist revolution. A good example would be the young cadres of the spartacus bund's call for armed insurection, wich at the point was immature. Mostly the failure will then lead to a flip flop in the total opposite direction, like for example the venezuelan maoists in Bandera Roja supporting the coup against Chavez, or those internationalist current or whatever they are called that supported the "venezuelan school student movement"

So you see, unlike Devrim's constant throwing "bourgious" around as a description of who's not agreeing with him I actually have an idea behind my use of the word.

[Devrim]

So you see, unlike Devrim's constant throwing "bourgious" around as a description of who's not agreeing with him I actually have an idea behind my use of the word.

I would say parties that support imperialist wars, like the Falklands War, as openly bourgeois, not just people I disagree with.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Well Yehuda one just needs to visit marxist.com to know how stupid your claim is.And which article would that be, Woodsling? The one asking Morales to go further in fighting the bourgeoisie and imperialism? Or maybe the one where you attacked Morales for ordering the murder of miners, and Chavez for firing a left-wing trade union leader from his post because he criticized his government? Oh wait, that last one doesn't exist.



Btw you shouldn't by any chance be the same yehuda stern that thinks one should ally with islamic fundamentalists?I can't be the "same Yehuda Stern" (there's this button with 'caps lock' on it that you can use to capitalise certain letters, like all the letters in BTW and names) because no Yehuda Stern ever suggested that Marxists should ally with Islamic fundamentalists. A certain Yehuda Stern, which I happen to be acquainted with, once wrote that Marxists in Gaza should fight alongside Hamas fighters against Fatah in order to ward off an offense by Israeli imperialism - the same position taken with regards to Hizb Allah not too long beforehand. The cowardly Grantites then expelled Stern and his comrade Yossi Schwartz without allowing them to defend their positions on the IMT's website, despite having given others to possibility to defend the leadership's position. In that the IMT has showen itself to be not just a pro-imperialist group, but also a highly undemocratic reformist cult.

Of course, unlike the IMT's positions on Latin America, the support that Stern was suggesting was military support while the IMT suggest bourgeois populist regimes political support. The difference between the two cannot enter the heads of particularly thick skulls, especially if owners of said skulls are too full of something - themselves, for example.

Great guy.

[Saorsa]

like for example the venezuelan maoists in Bandera Roja supporting the coup against Chavez,

Bandera Roja are Hoxhaites, not Maoists.

[Bilan]

No ultra-leftism is a pretty normal word among communists since Lenin wrote his famous pamphlet. It's commonly used to describe a group or tendency that in eagerness or because or failed theory raises demands that at a certain point would mostly only lead the
opposite of the idea behind it; socialist revolution.

It's amusing you have audacity to quote Lenin on this, when Leninism has led to exactly that. Is Leninism, by its own ironic critique, ultra-left, or just ultra-absurd?



A good example would be the young cadres of the spartacus bund's call for armed insurection, wich at the point was immature. Mostly the failure will then lead to a flip flop in the total opposite direction, like for example the venezuelan maoists in Bandera Roja supporting the coup against Chavez, or those internationalist current or whatever they are called that supported the "venezuelan school student movement"


Right...But none of those tendencies are of the same motive, except perhaps the over throwing of Chavez, which isn't "Ultra Leftist", really. I think thats bit silly, and a pointless, juvenile criticism.



So you see, unlike Devrim's constant throwing "bourgious" around as a description of who's not agreeing with him I actually have an idea behind my use of the word.

Devrim's post didn't throw around 'bourgeois' at all...Infact, he didn't even mention the word in his post. I think, for the most part, Devrim's criticisms of parties are infact correct.

[Louis Pio]

Yehuda you forget to mention both Yossis and Yehuda 2's idea that we should even call for military support for the taliban, I've read all their articles on the subject. Anyway considering both Yossi and Yehuda seems to have been hiding alot of their political ideas over the last couple of years im glad to be rid of them, just a shame I've even used time to defend them when people attacked their secterian attitude.

Now on to all the hue and cry of IMT hiding who the money should go to, it would have served some people on this board here to brush up on their reading skills as the following text appears when you press the add on www.marxist.com (http://www.marxist.com) :

In Defence of Marxism is following closely the dramatic unfolding of the events in Bolivia. We are providing our readers with frequently updated information on the situation in Bolivia, that can be found in the Bolivia section (http://www.marxist.com/bolivia.htm) of our website.
The reactionary oligarchy of Bolivia is back on the offensive. With the backing and support of the US embassy, it has unleashed its fascist gangs, occupying government buildings and terrorising the workers and peasants in the Eastern area of the country.
The Marxist Tendency in Bolivia is represented by the comrades of El Militante Bolivia (http://bolivia.elmilitante.org/) who had their founding assembly (http://www.marxist.com/asamblea-fundacional-corriente-marxista-internacional-el-militante-bolivia.htm) in April and have started the work of connecting with the most advanced layers of the Bolivian workers and youth.
In this moment, the Bolivian Marxists, with a presence in Potosí, Santa Cruz, Oruro and Cochabamba, need our help more than ever. Political ideas must be complemented with the necessary material resources to carry them into practice. The Marxist tendency does not have any rich backers, but on the contrary, relies on the support from thousands of activists around the world who donate their time, money and energy to the struggle for a socialist future.
We urge all our supporters and sympathisers to make a donation. Every donation we will receive for the duration of this campaign will be used to support our activity in Bolivia against imperialist manoeuvres and capitalist reaction, for the defence of the Socialist Revolution in Bolivia and on an international scale.

http://www.marxist.com/donation-for-bolivia-2008.htm
I don't know what it is you people find so hard to comprehend?? The text is pretty clear.

I think we pretty clear point out what actions should be taken in Bolivia, any honest person looking through our articles the following places can see that: http://www.marxist.com/bolivia.htm
http://bolivia.elmilitante.org/
Of course it seems some people think it's only enough if wrote an article a day calling for fight against Morales, which would not only be extremely stupid in regards to alienating oneselves from the mass of workers and peasants. Moreover anybody not located in an ivory tower would see quite clearly that the force that would fill the vacum at the present time would be that of the fascist gangs.

Sometime I wonder if any of you are ever able to put your abstract phrases and mouth diearrea into any form of action

[Devrim]

Now on to all the hue and cry of IMT hiding who the money should go to, it would have served some people on this board here to brush up on their reading skills as the following text appears when you press the add on www.marxist.com (http://www.marxist.com) :

http://www.marxist.com/donation-for-bolivia-2008.htm
I don't know what it is you people find so hard to comprehend?? The text is pretty clear.

My reading skills are fine, thanks. That is clear. This is not:


It is not a funding of the IMT necessarily but of the many anti-fascist groups organized by Bolivian Marxists and fight in the streets every day.

Or this:



Well, yes. It is a collection for the IMT section, which supports a government that sent in police to kill two striking miners last month. Well no it is for groups like those and the organizations set-up by Marxists in order to fight the oligarchy. Stop saying lies and stupidities .

Or even this:



Is this to collect money for the IMT? It is to collect money for the Marxists who fight against fascism and the organizations they have set up which are not a section of the IMT and not all members are Marxists.

Interestingly enough, this person who made all these points has been accusing others of dishonesty.

Devrim

[Louis Pio]

Then oi oi oi should have read the text through, however you can't really go on crying about "the dishonest IMT" over what someone not even a member does. Unless your just on to stirring up some petty squabbles once again, the text is pretty clear so the few people falling over themselves in joy of taking a pick could have at least bothred their lazy hands to click over to the website and read for themselves.

You could have spared yourselve the long discussion with oi oi oi and saved yourself from making stupid assersitions about supposed support for the falklands war, just with one single click devrim

Btw in regards to the falklands war (or malvinas war if you play the semantic card) everyone can read for themselveshttp://www.marxist.com/britain-falklands-crisis020402-10.htm by Ted Grant in 1982
or what Alan Woods wrote about when same accusations were thrown around again a few years back
http://www.marxist.com/luis-oviedo-malvinas-war170204-7.htm
It's funny how you and Louis Oviedo, though disagreeing politically, are at least united in secterian dishonesty

[Devrim]

On support for the Falklands War, I think the Militant were pretty clear at the time whatever they may have said later:


The labour movement should be mobilised to force a general election to open the way for the return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad. Victory of a socialist government in Britain would immediately transform the situation in relation to the Falklands. The junta would no longer be able to claim to be fighting British imperialism ... A Labour government could not just abandon the Falklanders and let Galtieri get on with it. But it would continue the war on socialist lines.

It is not clear what the most ridiculous thing here is, thinking the war could be continued on socialist lines, or thinking that a Labour government would have anything to do with socialism. Both are absurd. I think it is clear though that Militant supported the continuation of the war.

As a bit of an aside Militant members at the time in England in my experience were much less sophisticated than this even. What I heard them coming out with was straight forward support our boys chauvinism. However as this is just anecdotal, I will leave the direct quote from the MT above to speak for itself.


You could have spared yourselve the long discussion with oi oi oi ...just with one single click devrimI looked at it. I was just pointing it out on the thread at which point I was insulted and called a liar. Personally, I think I deserve an apology, not that I expect to get one.

Devrim

[Devrim]

A Labour government could not just abandon the Falklanders and let Galtieri get on with it. But it would continue the war on socialist lines.

Would you suggest that the war in Iraq is being conducted 'on socialist lines' by the party the IMT in the UK is a part of.

Devrim

[Louis Pio]

Devrim I posted Ted Grant's article from 1982, read it. I think it put's the case very clear instead of us disecting a few lines on a linguistic basis as you are so fond of. So it's not really a case of "what they said later".

[Devrim]

Yes in the article from 1982 he comes out with exactly the same approach as in the piece I quoted from MIR albeit with a little more subtlety. Let's look at a section of Grant's article:


We must demand a general election now, as a way of bringing down the Tories and returning the Labour Party to power with a socialist programme. The capitalist government has landed us in a mess at home and abroad. This involves advancing our general programme: for the nationalisation of the 200 monopolies with compensation on the basis of proven need; for workers' control and management of industry, and for a socialist plan of production. If necessary, British workers and the Marxists will be willing to wage a war against the Argentine Junta, to help the Argentine workers to take power into their own hands. But only a democratic socialist Britain would have clean hands. A Labour government committed to socialist policies would probably not need to wage war, but could issue a socialist appeal to the Argentine workers to overthrow the monstrous Junta, take power, and then organise a socialist federation of Britain and the Argentine, in conjunction with the Falkland Islands. The fears of the Falkland Islanders could be laid to rest by a socialist Argentine, which would give them full autonomy with democratic control in the hands of the Falkland workers themselves.

Basically, the Militant position was call for an election, elect a Labour government, and continue the war (if necessary). As I said earlier, this does not reflect the extent of the chauvinism that was widespread in the militant on the ground, but even the stated position speaks for itself.

Without wanting to seem to be mocking the Militant, it is amazing that an organisation that (quite rightly in my opinion) suggests that a general strike wasn't going to happen:


In order to get the fleet withdrawn a general strike would be required, and not only a general strike, but also an insurrection. There would be no other means of attaining it. But such demands could get no echo from the mass of workers, or from any section of the labour movement. It would be ludicrous to put forward such demands.

Can a few paragraphs later be coming out with things like this:


An overthrow of the Junta by the workers and the establishment of a socialist Argentina would be the most powerful weapon against all imperialism, especially British and American. The Argentine working class could then appeal to the labour movement and the workers and soldiers of Britain. The workers of Argentina would then suggest a socialist federation of Argentina, the Falklands, and of a socialist Britain.


A Labour government committed to socialist policies would probably not need to wage war, but could issue a socialist appeal to the Argentine workers to overthrow the monstrous Junta, take power, and then organise a socialist federation of Britain and the Argentine, in conjunction with the Falkland Islands.

A general strike was an impossibility, but the setting up of a 'socialist federation of Britain and the Argentine, in conjunction with the Falkland Islands', was something that they were seriously discussing, and this to be done by the Labour Party of all people.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Yossi and Stern never said one should support the Taliban. We did say one should give military support to the Taliban against the American invasion, just like we did in many other cases in other countries. What exactly did you think you were 'exposing' here, pray tell? Only your cowardly attitude.

[Bilan]

Yossi and Stern never said one should support the Taliban. We did say one should give military support to the Taliban against the American invasion, just like we did in many other cases in other countries. What exactly did you think you were 'exposing' here, pray tell? Only your cowardly attitude.

That is an unbelievably, stupid idea.
You give reactionary, religious fundamentalist weapons and support? Are you fucking thick?

[OI OI OI]

That is an unbelievably, stupid idea.
You give reactionary, religious fundamentalist weapons and support? Are you fucking thick?

And that is the reason he got expelled from the IMT .

Their ideas are dangerous for the leftists and the international.

Look what the fundamentalists do to the workers in Iran.
They have slaughtered them.

[Devrim]

Look what the fundamentalists do to the workers in Iran.
They have slaughtered them.

So are we to understand that it is a question of how many militant workers a regime kills it before (pseudo) Marxists oppose it?

As in, we oppose the Iranian regime because they murdered thousands of workers.

We support Morales because his police have only shot down a few strikers as yet.

Please don't come in with some comment about critical, or uncritical support, which only Trotskyists understand.

In addition, I think you owe me an apology for accusing me of lying when it was you who was wrong about the facts (as stated by an IMT member above). However, (as I also said earlier) I don't really expect one.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

You give reactionary, religious fundamentalist weapons and support? Are you fucking thick?

Do you think that throwing around insults really drives your point home? Or maybe it just shows the rest of posters how full of shit you are?


And that is the reason he got expelled from the IMT .

Their ideas are dangerous for the leftists and the international.

Yes, we were expelled from the IMT, even though we were promised that we would be allowed to present our position to other comrades. We were robbed of the opportunity and expelled by your cowardly, pro-imperialist leaders. They recognized that our ideas are dangerous to them - they chose instead to adopt the views of reformist Zionists like Dekel Avshalom, who is certainly no danger to anyone.

But, do answer this, if you can - why did this position become 'dangerous' only after being applied to Palestine, but was perfectly revolutionary when it was applied to Lebanon? Can you tell me?

[Yehuda Stern]

3 days have passed and no IMTer has yet bothered to explain why a position taken in Lebanon was revolutionary, but taken in Palestine it was counterrevolutionary. Am I to understand you admit that you have nothing to say? Or did Woods just forget to turn the key in your back that makes you spout out propaganda?

[Louis Pio]

Everybody had a chance to read the correspondance in question and after I did I could only think good riddance to a bunch of hysterical loons who seemed to have hidden their political views quite well. Military support to the taliban my ass, I think you should travel to afghanistan and put it into practice.

[OI OI OI]

Military support to the taliban my ass, I think you should travel to afghanistan and put it into practice. __________________

Haha thats it.

[Pogue]

3 days have passed and no IMTer has yet bothered to explain why a position taken in Lebanon was revolutionary, but taken in Palestine it was counterrevolutionary. Am I to understand you admit that you have nothing to say? Or did Woods just forget to turn the key in your back that makes you spout out propaganda?

Sorry, let me get this right, are you angry and arguing from the perspective of being a member of a Trotskyist group, against another Trotskyist group who you don't like? Because thats something I've never heard before, and it seems quite interesting.

[Yehuda Stern]

Strange - your puppet masters certainly tried to hang on to us. Took them months to kick us out like the little cowards they are.

HLVS: I didn't really understand.

[Lenin's Law]

It is just to point out the quality of Maoists on these boards. They support so-called 'people's war' in the 'third world', but are personally too afraid to even donate money to people.

Personally, I belong to a non-legal political organisation in a country where the state regulary tourtures and kills political militants, but hey that's what 'opportunistic idealists' do.

By the way, I don't hate you personally, or anyone else on these boards. I was just commenting on the state of the Maoists in the US.

Devrim

I disagree with Devrim politically but I believe he has made a point here. Refusing to donate money to an organization or movement you agree with out of supposed 'fear' (what I would say is a generally unfounded fear) is a bit cowardly. Giving money is about as passive an action as you make, I mean, if you aren't willing to do out of fear of persecution what exactly are you willing to do? Whether it be joining a revolutionary group that may get you 'blacklisted', signing your name on something that might 'get you in trouble', marching in a protest that the FBI is taking pictures of...as revolutionary socialists we all take a certain amount of risk getting into this, obviously some more than others depending on the objective conditions. It's hard to imagine any action where it is 100% guaranteed there will be no negative results as a reaction to it.

Anyway, I'm here in the US and I've given some money to this cause so if I get taken to Guantanamo I'll let you know.

[Zurdito]

Getting back to Militant on the Malvinas: the full position was that a if Labour had been in power, they would have supproted the war, in order to liberate Argentina friom fascism, and implement a Socialist Federation of Argentina, Britain and the Falklands.

When I was first looking to join groups, I met a CWI member once (didn't bother with IMT due to the "entryism"), found this out, and quickly discounted that possibility.

Can anyone with intellectual integrity actually defend those ridiculous politics? it sounds more like something from a stand-up comedy show than something from the leninist tradition.

[Yehuda Stern]

Can anyone with intellectual integrity actually defend those ridiculous politics? it sounds more like something from a stand-up comedy show than something from the leninist tradition.

I read Marxist.com occassionaly when I'm having a bad day. I just laugh, and laugh...

[Louis Pio]

Always good to have something to laugh at when hanging out in the caves between Pakistan and Afghanistan fighting for revolution with Ossama and co.

[Zurdito]

Always good to have something to laugh at when hanging out in the caves between Pakistan and Afghanistan fighting for revolution with Ossama and co.

So no defence of the Militant Tendency position on the Malvinas war?

[Yehuda Stern]

Always good to have something to laugh at when hanging out in the caves between Pakistan and Afghanistan fighting for revolution with Ossama and co.

Yes, I'm such a dirty middle eastern reactionary. It's good that white workers have loyal people like you to defend them against people like me.

[Louis Pio]

So no defence of the Militant Tendency position on the Malvinas war?

Im really not going deep into a discussion taking place when I was 3 years.

Playing the racecard ehh Yehuda? Just when I thought you couldn't get anymore pathetic and loony you prove me wrong. I can see it's hard putting your views into action, it should be quite easy though I think, just buy an AK and travel to Afghanistan.

[Devrim]

Im really not going deep into a discussion taking place when I was 3 years.

I presume that we won't see you commenting on events such as the Russian revolution then.

Devrim

[Louis Pio]

Hehe well that would be the day, no however im not up for reading pile of sources on the falklands war, while I have read plenty on the other. Futhermore the russian revolution is quite a bigger event than the former. And generally demands for defending this or that is quite onesided since one doesn't get the others people's views, for example I don't think I have seen anyone defending support for Argentina in the same conflict though im sure some people would considering that the position was quite widespread among some group of the left from what I can gather.

Btw why call it Malvinas when writing english zurdito?

[Devrim]

I don't think I have seen anyone defending support for Argentina in the same conflict though im sure some people would considering that the position was quite widespread among some group of the left from what I can gather.

A good example at the time was the English RCP. There position was just as reactionary as the Militant's in that they were supporting a bourgeois state in a war. It didn't, however, reek of the social chauvinism that the militants did because on the ground they was much less subtlty (not that the position was very subtle to begin with) and they were 'backing our boys'.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Playing the racecard ehh Yehuda?

No, you played the race card actually:


Always good to have something to laugh at when hanging out in the caves between Pakistan and Afghanistan fighting for revolution with Ossama and co.

I just played the "you're a racist, which is consistent with your International's pro-imperialist and labor aristocratic positions" card.

[Zurdito]

Hehe well that would be the day, no however im not up for reading pile of sources on the falklands war, while I have read plenty on the other. Futhermore the russian revolution is quite a bigger event than the former. And generally demands for defending this or that is quite onesided since one doesn't get the others people's views, for example I don't think I have seen anyone defending support for Argentina in the same conflict though im sure some people would considering that the position was quite widespread among some group of the left from what I can gather.

you do not have to have read a pile of sources to realise how stupid it was to say that you would support Britain going to war over the Malvinas against Argentina under a Labour government in order to overthrow fascim in Argentina, and create a socialist federation between Britain; Argentina and the Malvinas. A group with a marxist analysis of the state, or a leninist analysis of imperialism, or a trotskyist analysis of fascism, qnd bourgeois democracy , would not hold that position. Your group wants to lead the working class on a global level, supposedly, and yet they hold positions like this, and their militants ridicule the idea of answering questions about the issue? this isn't serious politics, come on.


Btw why call it Malvinas when writing english zurdito

To show support for the struggle of the Argentinian working class against British imperialism.Which is not the same as saying "victory to Argentina" in the war, again this is the political education the IMT gives you, to constantly choose between bourgeois regi,es, and it is not trotskyism.

The war was convenient to both regimes and the Argentinian bourgeoisie was sacrificing its working class young conscripts to keep itself in power and legiti,ise its neoliberal programme. To say victory to Argentina, si,ply, woul have been sick, and to support the war of the Junta would have been sick. Hwever once Britain has sent troops into illegiti,ately occupied land int he South Atlantic, this is an act of aggrssion aginst the masses of that country, and the correct position was to call for a popular resistance to defeat theinvaders, a resistance which could never be successfully lead by a comprador bourgeosie. so the trotskyist position was to say, Argentine soldiers, shoot your generals, take over the army, enlist the support of the working class (which was already giving mass support to the bourgeois led war), and unite the popular forces in a popular war against British i,perialis, which as a basic measure expropriates all British capital in Argentina and fights to throw all imperialist presence out of the South Atlantic; witht he support of the working classes in all south a,erica who would benefit from such a move.

this is the trotskyist position, not the social chauvinist "anti-fascist" position. Militant was social chauvinist.

also this should give you a clue on the correct policy for afghanistan.

[Devrim]

To show support for the struggle of the Argentinian working class against British imperialism.Which is not the same as saying "victory to Argentina" in the war, again this is the political education the IMT gives you, to constantly choose between bourgeois regi,es, and it is not trotskyism.

I would say that this is exactly Trotskyism.


so the trotskyist position was to say, Argentine soldiers, shoot your generals, take over the army, enlist the support of the working class (which was already giving mass support to the bourgeois led war), and unite the popular forces in a popular war against British i,perialis,

Oh I get it. It is not an argument about principles. It is about which bourgeois side to support. For all the radical rhetoric this is a call for national defence.

The communist programme is different. To national defence, it opposes fraternisation, desertion, and strikes against the war.


this is the trotskyist position, not the social chauvinist "anti-fascist" position. Militant was social chauvinist.

Considering that this is coming from a member of an Argentinian Trotskyist organisation it is equally social chauvinist.

Devrim

[benhur]

Yes, I'm such a dirty middle eastern reactionary. It's good that white workers have loyal people like you to defend them against people like me.

Off topic, but I am curious about one thing. I assumed the Jews in Israel are of European origin, totally different from the Arabs? I mean, Arab leaders like Saddam or Ahmdjined look totally ME, whereas Israeli people/leaders are indistinguishable from Europeans.

[Coggeh]

Off topic, but I am curious about one thing. I assumed the Jews in Israel are of European origin, totally different from the Arabs? I mean, Arab leaders like Saddam or Ahmdjined look totally ME, whereas Israeli people/leaders are indistinguishable from Europeans.
Jews have a wide ranging ethnicity...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions

Anyway i love trot arguments (mainly because I'm the one starting them) anyway I cannot for the life of me follow whats going on above can anyone clarify ... what did the IMT do now ? :D lol ... joke...:mellow:

[Zurdito]

apologies for the delay, I just saw this.

and ****, I spent a long time writing a reply, which I lost.


I would say that this is exactly Trotskyism.



Oh I get it. It is not an argument about principles. It is about which bourgeois side to support. For all the radical rhetoric this is a call for national defence.

The communist programme is different. To national defence, it opposes fraternisation, desertion, and strikes against the war.



Considering that this is coming from a member of an Argentinian Trotskyist organisation it is equally social chauvinist.

Devrim


Just for clairty: it was the position of the Morenoite PST, which a year later became MAS, and whose two msot significant descendants are Fracction Trotskista (anti-morenoist, PTS in Argentina, LOR-CI in Bolivia, Ler-QI in Brazil etc.) and UIT-CI (Morenoite, Chirino's group in Venezuela, MST and IS in Argentina, etc.).

Firstly, on social chauvinist, I disagree, this would imply fighting to impose oppression on the British proletariat, this wasn't the case. Organising the Argentine working class to fight British imperialism in the South Atlantic, which in this case retained the form of classic colonialism, in no way implied attacking the British proletariat,r ather implied a struggle against a common enemy.

Secondly, it looks as if you are trying to characterise the "radical rhetoric" as empty, and a form of veiled support for the Junta. This is somehting Moreno would have been capable of, but it wasn't the case here. If we look at the objective reality of the time, the slogan was not abstract, but urgent.

British imperialism was on the attack in the South Atlantic, fighting to retain its colonial possessions.

Millions of Argentine workers were rallying in different ways (food drives, protests, manifestations against British capital in Argentina which ran up against the state's protection of these interests) against British imperialism, and crucially organising themselves to do. not out of support for the regime (though many were turning towards the regime in a contradictory, very conditional and highly unstable way at the time).

As I am sure you know only the day before the invasion was announced the Junta had faced it's largest protest, with hundreds of thousands of workers and human rights/political activists running up against heavy police repression which caused more than one death (I believe more than one, check if you like). A large part of this same vanguard sector then came out to show solidarity against Britain.

The situation can therefore be characterised as one where there was a huge political momentum taking place, which opened up the question, (in the middle of a regional economic crisis sparked by debt to the imperialist powers) of Argentina's semi-colony status and the national bourgeoisie's inability to provide basic democratic rights or political independence from colonialism, or to sufficiently develop its means of production to the level of those of a modern industrialised civilisation. To this the PST counterposed the working class' incentive and ability to carry out the struggle against British imperialism to the end.

The working class is hit hard by these issues, they are legitimate concerns, and only a working class movement can provide a solution. A working class vanguard which does not take leadership on these issues is not revolutionary.

Well I am sure you have read Trotsky but I gave you my interpretation anyway. This is a classic example of the incomplete tasks of a bourgeois revolution which the comprador borugeoisie cannot carry out, to the detriment of the masses.

[Asoka89]

Militant labor did a lot of good in the UK and the IMT has some very good analysis, though I'm not buying all of the "state capitalist" theories.

Their work in Latin America needs to be expanded, but at least they are getting in involved and actually making a difference, they are an action oriented group with decent theory and you dont normally see that.

Obviously left-commies arent going to support a Trot group, I can respect that, but as far as Trot groups go, i dont see how less active trotskyists can attack the IMT

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I think it has mainly to do with their fetish for entryism as a tactic (making it their prime strategy). In the US, they haven't bothered to "enter" the SPUSA, instead settling for voting Green or whatever in the vain hope some "labour party" will spontaneously emerge for them to enter.

[Devrim]

Firstly, on social chauvinist, I disagree, this would imply fighting to impose oppression on the British proletariat, this wasn't the case. Organising the Argentine working class to fight British imperialism in the South Atlantic, which in this case retained the form of classic colonialism, in no way implied attacking the British proletariat,r ather implied a struggle against a common enemy.

I don't think that social chauvinism implies imposing oppression on the British working class. Neither does this definition I just looked up on Wiki:


Social chauvinism can be described as aggressive or fanatical patriotism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism), particularly during time of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War), in support of one's own nation (e.g., government, culture, etc.) versus other nation(s), displayed by those who are socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialists) or social democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrats). During World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I), most left-of-centre political parties took a social-chauvinist stand, with few exceptions. Most Socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialists) gave up their anti-militarism and their belief in international unity among the working class in favour of "defense of the fatherland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland)", and turned to social-chauvinism, most notably the German Social Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPD) and the French Socialist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Socialist_Party).

Your talk of a common enemy to me typifies the approach. It says clearly that workers have an interest in siding with their own bourgeoisie against a foreign one. To me this is a definition of social chauvinism.


Secondly, it looks as if you are trying to characterise the "radical rhetoric" as empty, and a form of veiled support for the Junta. This is somehting Moreno would have been capable of, but it wasn't the case here. If we look at the objective reality of the time, the slogan was not abstract, but urgent.

Yes, I think that the radical rhetoric was completely empty and was supporting a line of national defence, the war, and ultimately the Junta.


British imperialism was on the attack in the South Atlantic, fighting to retain its colonial possessions.

Millions of Argentine workers were rallying in different ways (food drives, protests, manifestations against British capital in Argentina which ran up against the state's protection of these interests) against British imperialism, and crucially organising themselves to do. not out of support for the regime (though many were turning towards the regime in a contradictory, very conditional and highly unstable way at the time).

I would say they were organising themselves in the national interest, not in their own class interest.


As I am sure you know only the day before the invasion was announced the Junta had faced it's largest protest, with hundreds of thousands of workers and human rights/political activists running up against heavy police repression which caused more than one death (I believe more than one, check if you like). A large part of this same vanguard sector then came out to show solidarity against Britain.

A good example then of how war can be used to create national unity and dissipate class struggles, I was living in the UK at the time, I remember the gutter press attacking striking workers who were 'evil' enough to be striking at a time when 'everybody' was pulling together in the national interest.

Who was this 'vanguard element' showing solidarity with? In my opinion, the state.

In my opinion so-called socialists who support there own state during war are social chauvinists who have no place in any working class movement.

Devrim

[Asoka89]

^^^ I think it has mainly to do with their fetish for entryism as a tactic (making it their prime strategy). In the US, they haven't bothered to "enter" the SPUSA, instead settling for voting Green or whatever in the vain hope some "labour party" will spontaneously emerge for them to enter.


They shouldnt enter SPUSA, it barely exists, if they wanted to test entryism as a tactic they should enter the Democratic party and the mainstream unions.

[Zurdito]

I don't think that social chauvinism implies imposing oppression on the British working class. Neither does this definition I just looked up on Wiki:

Sadly that wiki article is rubbish doesn't talk about the origins of the phrase in relation to social democracy in the European imperial powers. The Bolsheviks who talked about social chauvinism did not extend it to oppressed nations fighting to liberate themselves.





Your talk of a common enemy to me typifies the approach. It says clearly that workers have an interest in siding with their own bourgeoisie against a foreign one. To me this is a definition of social chauvinism.

No, I haven't said this and neither did the PST. If you read Lenin on social chauvinism he is clear that social chauvinism implies unity with the bourgeoisie.

However the PST line attacked the class unity which was sweeping Argentina at the time, taking advantage of the space opened up by the mass pro-war movement to pose the question of the underdevelopment of the economy and the lack of basic liberal democratic rights for the nation as a whole.

The line was that the bourgeoisie was not capable of resolving these issues, and therefore for an open class war against them and against the leaders of the army by the soldiers, calling them to take the army from their own generals and calling on the mass pr-war movement to take control of the struggle against Britain for itself, taking it out of the hands of the bourgeoisie.

I am not clear on whether the PST line was clear on the issue that communists must call ont he working class vanguard to be the leader of this movement, and to reject populist talk of the "pueblo", instead calling on all sectors to come out in support of a specifically working class solution. I would need to read more on their line. However, to be correct, they would need to have stated this.

In any case, this is not an aexmaple of social chauvinism, as it implies class struggle at home and the breaking of the unity of the nation.

The phrase social chauvinism refers to countries which did not have comprador bourgeoisie and where this question of the inability of the current bourgeoisie to overcome semi-colny status was not posed.

So using that phrase in this context is meaningless.


Yes, I think that the radical rhetoric was completely empty and was supporting a line of national defence, the war, and ultimately the Junta.


This ignores the objective situation: the Junta could not meet the basic mass progressive demands implicated by a population demanding the completion of a bourgeois revolution.


I would say they were organising themselves in the national interest, not in their own class interest.

Yes, they were. This doesn't change the point that a democratic spase was opening up based on progressive, but not classist, demands, and that these demands could only be met by the working class.


A good example then of how war can be used to create national unity and dissipate class struggles,

yes, this was the Junta's intention. Obviously, the PST didn't call for the war originally, it was not calling for the war the day before it was announced. but once Britain was moving into the South Atlantic to defend its colonialist outpost, then the situation changed, and the working class and the masses were organising themselves in resistance. Therefore the situation changed, there was no point simply calling for time to reverse.


Who was this 'vanguard element' showing solidarity with? In my opinion, the state.

yes, they were. the point of the slogan is to change that.

[Devrim]

The phrase comprador bourgeoisie refers to countries which did not have comprador bourgeoisie and where this question of the inability of the current bourgeoisie to overcome semi-colny status was not posed.

So using that phrase in this context is meaningless.

I think actually that the phrase 'comprador bourgeoisie' was not used at the time that the phrase 'social chauvinism' was used to charecterise the European Social Democratic parties. I believe that the term 'comprador bourgeoisie' comes from the Chinese Party in the 30s.

Let's let Lenin speak on the issue:


Who says: “Socialism is opposed to violence against nations, therefore I defend myself when my country is invaded”, betrays socialism and internationalism, because such a man sees only his own “country”, he puts “his own” bourgeoisie above everything else and does not give a thought to the international connections which make the war an imperialist war and his bourgeoisie a link in the chain of imperialist plunder. The socialist, the revolutionary proletarian, the internalionalist, argues differently. He says: “The character of the war (whether it is reactionary or revolutionary) does not depend on who the attacker was, or in whose country the ’enemy’ is stationed; it depends on what class is waging the war, and on what politics this war is a continuation of. If the war is a reactionary, imperialist war, that is, if it is being waged by two world groups of the imperialist, rapacious, predatory, reactionary bourgeoisie, then every bourgeoisie (even of the smallest country) becomes a participant in the plunder, and my duty as a representative of the revolutionary proletariat is to prepare for the world proletarian revolution as the only escape from the horrors of a world slaughter. I must argue, not from the point of view of ’my’ country (for that is the argument of a wretched, stupid, petty—bourgeois nationalist who does not realise that he is only a plaything in the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie), but from the point of view of my share in th preparation, in the propaganda, and in the acceleration of the world proletarian revolution. That is what internationalism means, and that is the duty of the internationalist, the revolutionary worker, the genuine socialist.

Your line is directly opposed to this. It is a line of national defence. This is social chauvinism.

All of the 'radical' talk of workers control is no different from the Militants talk of workers control, except that you are talking about different sides.

It is a denial of internationalism, and an advocacy of class collaboration.

The idea of some 'Proletarian Military Policy' is a farce. It is a rejection of any concept of internationalism.

Devrim

[Zurdito]

Let's let Lenin speak on the issue:



Who says: “Socialism is opposed to violence against nations, therefore I defend myself when my country is invaded”, betrays socialism and internationalism, because such a man sees only his own “country”, he puts “his own” bourgeoisie above everything else and does not give a thought to the international connections which make the war an imperialist war and his bourgeoisie a link in the chain of imperialist plunder. The socialist, the revolutionary proletarian, the internalionalist, argues differently. He says: “The character of the war (whether it is reactionary or revolutionary) does not depend on who the attacker was, or in whose country the ’enemy’ is stationed; it depends on what class is waging the war, and on what politics this war is a continuation of. If the war is a reactionary, imperialist war, that is, if it is being waged by two world groups of the imperialist, rapacious, predatory, reactionary bourgeoisie, then every bourgeoisie (even of the smallest country) becomes a participant in the plunder, and my duty as a representative of the revolutionary proletariat is to prepare for the world proletarian revolution as the only escape from the horrors of a world slaughter. I must argue, not from the point of view of ’my’ country (for that is the argument of a wretched, stupid, petty—bourgeois nationalist who does not realise that he is only a plaything in the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie), but from the point of view of my share in th preparation, in the propaganda, and in the acceleration of the world proletarian revolution. That is what internationalism means, and that is the duty of the internationalist, the revolutionary worker, the genuine socialist.





Your line is directly opposed to this. It is a line of national defence. This is social chauvinism.


Lenin is talking about a war between imperialist blocs. Argentina at war with Britain was not fighting as part of a war between different imperialist blocs.


All of the 'radical' talk of workers control is no different from the Militants talk of workers control, except that you are talking about different sides.

You should be more carefulwith your language, "no different" is a very ultra left ay to express yourself considering that Militant said it would support the British state against Argentina if the Labour Party was in power, and it would call on the British stateto displace fascism and create a sociaist federation ofArgentina, the Malvinas and Britain - i.e.calling on Britain to replace Argentina's government, which is even more reactionary than what Margaret Thatcher's government did.

The PST on the other hand did not support the Argentina state, did not call on any bourgeois governmnent to carry out the war, and did not call on the argentinian bourgeoisie to intervene in Britain and impose a government on its population. The line was to voerthrow the Junta, for the rank and file soldiers to shoot their own generals and take over the army, and to extend the movement against all of british imperialism and the structurally dependent bourgeosie in Argentina.

And if differences of principle are not enough, then there is the fact that the Militant line was fantasy, while the PST line was a prospect you could agitate for. If that difference doesn't bother you then that is worrying, because it makes me think that either you cannot tell the difference between a serious group and a non-serious group, or that you are not using as your starting point the real situations in Britain or Argentina at the time.