On the national issue -- split from 'Admit Yehuda Stern?'

[Random Precision]

Yeah? So you would call for the military support of Georgia

I think if Russia were to invade Georgia, Georgian revolutionaries would be correct in fighting alongside the bourgeois state's forces against the Russian army. Just like I supported the Abkhazian and South Ossetian separatists against the Georgian state in the last conflict. It's very much the classical Leninist position.


and for revolutionaries to join the Iranian army in case of war?

I think they should fight alongside the Iranian army if the United States were to invade. Besides, you're taking what he said out of context...


We have only argued that if, say, Iran is attacked by imperialism, revolutionary proletarians should fight in the Iranian military, all the while propagandizing for a socialist revolution against the reign of the mullahs.


If so you're an idiot, sorry to say, but I'm not going to create a thread to get you kicked out of the CC, mostly because it's going to fail anyway.

Thanks, LZ. That's certainly sweet... or something.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think if Russia were to invade Georgia, Georgian revolutionaries would be correct in fighting alongside the bourgeois state's forces against the Russian army. Just like I supported the Abkhazian and South Ossetian separatists against the Georgian state in the last conflict. It's very much the classical Leninist position.

I don't really care that you personally believe that nonsense, but please don't call it a "classical Leninist position" when it obviously isn't.

Thanks.


I think they should fight alongside the Iranian army if the United States were to invade. Besides, you're taking what he said out of context...

Again, since I'm not a left-communist, I realize that there's a difference between "fighting alongside", "supporting in words" and "supporting militarily by joining the army", and that all of those depend on the circumstances that you are doing it in. However saying that revolutionaries should join the military in Iran in case of attack as a principle is reactionary, there's no doubt about that.

The whole position is a joke; join the army of the state that is killing you, fight and die for that state, and then run as fast as you can when the war is over because if you don't you're screwed.

And I didn't take it out of context, saying "I believe we should join the army and fight with them...but of course all the while we should argue against them!" is a moronic contradiction, that's why I left out the last "but" part.


Thanks, LZ. That's certainly sweet... or something.

I didn't mean to offend you by that, but I really don't like it when people try to play martyr on here. "If you're gonna do that to them you better do it to me too!", that's not an argument, it's just a way to intimidate people into supporting a certain position, and it doesn't work anyway.

[Random Precision]

I don't really care that you personally believe that nonsense, but please don't call it a "classical Leninist position" when it obviously isn't.

Thanks.

No, I'll continue to do so, because it's the position Lenin took:


In these [semi-colonial] countries the bourgeois-democratic movements have either hardly begun, or are far from having been completed. Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation without compensation... but must render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their rebellion—and if need be, their revolutionary war against the imperialist powers that oppress them.

And in what way would you say that it's "nonsense"? Because that would require fighting alongside the nasty reactionary Taliban and Hizbollah?


Again, since I'm not a left-communist, I realize that there's a difference between "fighting alongside", "supporting in words" and "supporting militarily by joining the army", and that all of those depend on the circumstances that you are doing it in. However saying that revolutionaries should join the military in Iran in case of attack as a principle is reactionary, there's no doubt about that.

He's arguing for it as a tactic, not a principle. I have problems with it personally, but it certainly would be one method of pursuing the principle of self-determination in this case (a principle you'll find that most Leninists believe in).


The whole position is a joke; join the army of the state that is killing you, fight and die for that state, and then run as fast as you can when the war is over because if you don't you're screwed.

And I didn't take it out of context, saying "I believe we should join the army and fight with them...but of course all the while we should argue against them!" is a moronic contradiction, that's why I left out the last "but" part.

His position is yes, join the army to fight against American imperialism, but always keep your eye on the end goal of a socialist overthrow of the mullahs, and consistently argue for that among the ranks. I see nothing reactionary at all about that.

Seriously LZ, I'm disappointed by your ultra-left stance on this issue. I believe you asked me once what the CWI's shit line on national liberation was... well, there you are putting it forth.


I didn't mean to offend you by that, but I really don't like it when people try to play martyr on here. "If you're gonna do that to them you better do it to me too!", that's not an argument, it's just a way to intimidate people into supporting a certain position, and it doesn't work anyway.

Well, I'm sorry if that's what you thought I was trying to do. I was just trying to point out that it would be ridiculous to reject Yehuda on the grounds of his Leninist stance on national liberation, since it's a position shared by most self-described Leninists, and thus seemingly it would be a mainstream position on the left in general.

[Led Zeppelin]

No, I'll continue to do so, because it's the position Lenin took:

Oh god, quoting snippets of Lenin out of historical context to prove a point, I see you are moving towards the Cliffite tendency. That's quite a shame.

Here's a good one for you:



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

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.;

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;

First of all, the Iranian regime isn't "bourgeois-democratic", so this doesn't even apply to Iran, but let's assume that it does; what don't you get about NOT MERGING with the "bourgeois-democratic movement", and also the capitalist state?

Sorry, the stuff you're defending is not "the classical Leninist position", it's the classical Cliffite position, and those aren't the same.


And in what way would you say that it's "nonsense"? Because that would require fighting alongside the nasty reactionary Taliban and Hizbollah?

Alongside?! You're talking about joining the army, not "fighting alongside while we should not merge with it and under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form."


He's arguing for it as a tactic, not a principle. I have problems with it personally, but it certainly would be one method of pursuing the principle of self-determination in this case (a principle you'll find that most Leninists believe in).

Find me more than 4 "Leninists" in the CC who agree that revolutionaries should join the Iranian army if the state is attacked.

Go on, if it's so common, it shouldn't be too hard given the amount of Leninists we have in here.


His position is yes, join the army to fight against American imperialism, but always keep your eye on the end goal of a socialist overthrow of the mullahs, and consistently argue for that among the ranks. I see nothing reactionary at all about that.

Of course you don't, because you have a Cliffite position on national-liberation as well.

However, any serious person knows that when you join an army, especially one as in Iran, there is no way in fucking hell that you can "agitate for social revolution against the Mullahs", that's just a pathetic slogan that he added to his reactionary stance to make it sound better.


Seriously LZ, I'm disappointed by your ultra-left stance on this issue. I believe you asked me once what the CWI's shit line on national liberation was... well, there you are putting it forth.

Oh ok, I didn't realize you were a Cliffite, I thought you actually had something constructive to say on the matter.

Sorry.


Well, I'm sorry if that's what you thought I was trying to do. I was just trying to point out that it would be ridiculous to reject Yehuda on the grounds of his Leninist stance on national liberation, since it's a position shared by most self-described Leninists, and thus seemingly it would be a mainstream position on the left in general.

You keep saying this as if it's a fact, yet you seem to be the only one in the CC who defends that ridiculous position.

Again, find more than 4 people in the CC who agree with this, then you might have a point with the "but most Leninists believe this!!" line that you keep throwing around as if it somehow a justification for a reactionary stance even if it were true.

So go on CC members, do you agree with Yehuda that if Iran is attacked by the US, revolutionaries should forget about the mass killings that happened, forget about the persecutions and torture, and join the Iranian army to directly fight for the state that was hunting them down (and might still be) before the attack?

Or do you believe, like any serious person would, that they should indeed oppose the attack, and perhaps temporarily divert most of their activity towards repelling it, but not merge with the state-machinery (i.e., army) but prepare for fighting it after the attack is repelled? That is, take Lenin's line on the matter instead of the neo-Cliffite one.

It'd be interesting to see if 4 people will post in favor of the former, I highly doubt it though.

Also, notice how all defenders of Yehuda have not at all mentioned his glaring sectarianism and the hypocrisy involved in it. Is it not a fact that if he was a Stalinist and was just as sectarian as he is now, there would be no way in hell that he would get in the CC?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Led,

You use that quote to justify any vapid horseshit that you post.

In that same excerpt, Lenin supports the right of oppressed nationalities to throw off foreign rule. Yeshuda's and Random's position vaguely (I think) reminds me of Marx's position on the Irish independence movement, which Lenin said was "a splendid example of the attitude the proletariat of the oppressor nations should adopt towards national movements," but hell, I could of read it wrong! :rolleyes:

I'll let him continue:


At first Marx thought that Ireland would not be liberated by the national movement of the oppressed nation, but by the working-class movement of the oppressor nation. Marx did not make an Absolute of the national movement, knowing, as he did, that only the victory of the working class can bring about the complete liberation of all nationalities. It is impossible to estimate beforehand all the possible relations between the bourgeois liberation movements of the oppressed nations and the proletarian emancipation movement of the oppressor nation (the very problem which today makes the national question in Russia so difficult).



However, it so happened that the English working class fell under the influence of the liberals for a fairly long time, became an appendage to the liberals, and by adopting a liberal-labour policy left itself leaderless. The bourgeois liberation movement in Ireland grew stronger and assumed revolutionary forms. Marx reconsidered his view and corrected it. “What a misfortune it is for a nation to have subjugated another.” The English working class will never be free until Ireland is freed from the English yoke. Reaction in England is strengthened and fostered by the enslavement of Ireland (just as reaction in Russia is fostered by her enslavement of a number of nations!).


And, in proposing in the International a resolution of sympathy with “the Irish nation”, “the Irish people” (the clever L. Vl. would probably have berated poor Marx for forgetting about the class struggle!), Marx advocated the separation of Ireland from England, “although after the separation there may come federation”.



What were the theoretical grounds for Marx’s conclusion? In England the bourgeois revolution had been consummated long ago. But it had not yet been consummated in Ireland; it is being consummated only now, after the lapse of half a century, by the reforms of the English Liberals. If capitalism had been overthrown in England as quickly as Marx had at first expected, there would have been no room for a bourgeois-democratic and general national movement in Ireland. But since it had arisen, Marx advised the English workers to support it, give it a revolutionary impetus and see it through in the interests of their own liberty.


The economic ties between Ireland and England in the 1860s were of course, even closer than Russia’s present ties with Poland, the Ukraine, etc. The “unpracticality” and “impracticability” of the separation of Ireland (if only owing to geographical conditions and England’s immense colonial power) were quite obvious. Though, in principle, an enemy of federalism, Marx in this instance granted the possibility of federation, as well, if only the emancipation of Ireland was achieved in a revolutionary, not reformist way, through a movement of the mass of the people of Ireland supported by the working class of England. There can be no doubt that only such a solution of the historical problem would have been in the best interests of the proletariat and most conducive to rapid social progress.


Things turned out differently. Both the Irish people and the English proletariat proved weak. Only now, through the sordid deals between the English Liberals and the Irish bourgeoisie, is the Irish problem being solved (the example of Ulster shows with what difficulty) through the land reform (with compensation) and Home Rule (not yet introduced). Well then? Does it follow that Marx and Engels were “utopians”, that they put forward “impracticable” national demands, or that they allowed themselves to be influenced by the Irish petty-bourgeois nationalists (for there is no doubt about the petty-bourgeois nature of the Fenian movement), etc.?


No. In the Irish question, too, Marx and Engels pursued a consistently proletarian policy, which really educated the masses in a spirit of democracy and socialism. Only such a policy could have saved both Ireland and England half a century of delay in introducing the necessary reforms, and prevented these reforms from being mutilated by the Liberals to please the reactionaries.

[Led Zeppelin]

Led,

You use that quote to justify any vapid horseshit that you post.

I was going to add that I had posted the same thing to you when you took some snippets from Lenin out of context and took it out your ass all distorted and dirty, and that then you tried to do the same thing with what I had quoted, but was refuted easily because shit doesn't stick to historical fact.

Now it is known.


In that same excerpt, Lenin supports the right of oppressed nationalities to throw off foreign rule. Yeshuda's and Random's position vaguely (I think) reminds me of Marx's position on the Irish independence movement, which Lenin said was "a splendid example of the attitude the proletariat of the oppressor nations should adopt towards national movements," but hell, I could of read it wrong!

Marx's position was the same as Lenin's position, until Lenin changed it later on (as was required given the rise of imperialism and the effects that had). See, this is what happens when I get into arguments over this with people like you, i.e., people who don't know shit about Marxist history but think they do because they read some half-assed article on a Cliffite rag.

The initial "Marxist position" in the pre-imperialist epoch was simple and revolved around lesser-evilism, this changed in the imperialist epoch:



When Marx and Engels, in their time, asked “The victory of which nation (i.e., which national ruling class) would have the most advantageous consequences for the working-class movement?” and decided support or non-support on this ground, this also obviously based itself on a kind of lesser-evil choice, though they did not use the term. But this approach had two fundamental historical premises:

(1) The difference between the two belligerents was not basically one of “lesser” or “greater” evil, but of the difference between the historical roles which they played. Marx and Engels’ “lesser evil” was essentially an historical category, not at bottom a matter of eclectically reckoning up “consequences” on two pans of a balance-scale. This is why Lenin was still using their method when he made his great contribution in drawing a sharp dividing line between the progressive wars of the young bourgeoisie against feudal reaction and the modern wars among bourgeoisies all of whom were gripped in a world-wide imperialism which decisively conditioned the politics and consequences of these wars. But this replaced Marx and Engels’ “lesser evil” criterion.

(2) Throughout his world-war polemics against the social-patriots, Lenin always emphasized another accompanying difference between the two epochs: Today, he argued, unlike yesterday, the struggle for socialist power is on the order of the day in Europe. The socialist working class is on the scene as a contender for power itself. This means: There may still be “lesser” and “greater” evils (there always will be) but we do not have to choose between these evils, for we represent the alternative to both of them, an alternative which is historically ripe. Moreover, under conditions of imperialism, only this revolutionary alternative offers any really progressive way out, offers any possibility of an outcome which is no evil at all. Both war camps offer only reactionary consequences, to a “lesser” or “greater” degree.

In this context, any number of quotations can be found in Marx and Engels in which they come out for the defeat of one side in a given war on the ground of the progressive consequences which would thereby be facilitated. By the same token this meant for them: preferring or desiring the victory of the other side, on the ground of the same progressive, revolutionary consequences.

The initial Marxist position of lesser-evilism in the pre-imperialist epoch lead Lenin to support Japan in the Russo-Japanese war because Japan was materially more advanced. It would of course be moronic to suggest that Lenin would have supported Germany in World War 1 for the same reasons and that he would have called on revolutionaries in Germany or Russia to join the army for whatever reason, oh wait, history shows that he didn't because he wasn't a Cliffite.

Shock.

Don't come whining to me about the national question when you know nothing about it, and when what you quote has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Did you see what I mean about Cliffites? "Quoting snippets of Lenin out of historical context to prove a point."

[Labor Shall Rule]

This is not even a debate on the 'national question'.

It's about this: do the occupied have a right to ward off their occupiers?

Lenin, in full agreement with Marx on Poland and Ireland, granted the right of succession to Finland, Poland, and other 'prisoners' that were attached to Great Russia. The Third International indeed supported anti-colonial (sometimes nationalist) revolts to Euro-American rule in the darker nations - both before and after the Stalinist period. It's not important to cry over whether that wrinkled Russian guy would truly support national-liberation. It is essential, however, to identify why calling for 'military defense' of Iraq, Iran, or Palestine is an issue to put under careful consideration.

The U.S. in the Persian Gulf has forced in lucrative oil contracts, by silencing the General Federation of Iraqi Workers (GFIW) and substantially increasing the presence of occupation forces (i.e. 'the surge'). It has, thus, raised up the rate of exploitation. If Iraqis want socialism, then they must decolonize first by ending the special tax status of American corporations. But how?

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, firstly, thank you for keeping a respectful tone, I'll do the same in reply to you.

I don't disagree that it is important to ward off imperialists. As I said before, I am not a left-communist, I don't see the world in black and white like they do. If Iran is attacked, hell, if any nation is attacked by an imperialist power, I would, from my position in an imperialist country, oppose that attack and support any opposition against it. Take the Iraq war for example. I support the opposition against US troops coming from militants that are branded "reactionary". I agree with you that for the workers' movement to gain strength and be in a favorable position it is first and foremost important to kick out the imperialists.

However, I don't believe that revolutionary workers in Iraq shouldn't organize independently and fight against the imperialists from their own perspective, while agitating for their own goals and aspirations at all times. That is, I don't believe that revolutionaries should merge with other elements, especially not when they are reactionary. Work together (not politically but practically)? Fight alongside? Yes, naturally that will happen, and obviously unity in the anti-imperialist struggle is most efficient militarily.

The reason revolutionaries should stay independent though is because they must form the embryo of a future workers' movement when the imperialists are kicked out. They must have already agitated and fought for their own ideas and own perspectives, they must keep their independent line on the causes and reasons for their struggle, which is a class-struggle, not just a national struggle.

When you merge into a nationalist movement (which is often reactionary politically) you lose that.

[Saorsa]

I think the mayority of maoists would support the iranian military if the bombs dropped on Tehran.

That's a quote from the original discussion in Yehuda Stern's nomination thread, and it's shit. The Maoists in Iran have learned their lessons from the Islamic "Revolution", and many of them are in the bloody countryside fighting the Iranian military right now! I'm not aware of any Maoists in Iran, either the ones currently waging armed struggle or the others involved in work in the exile community, that advocate support for the Iranian military.

Hands off the People of Iran has the correct line on this issue, in my opinion.

http://www.hopoi.org/main.html


Founding statement

No to imperialist war!
No to the theocratic regime!




Translations (currently still the old version)

German (http://www.hopoi.org/main%20german.html)
French (http://www.hopoi.org/main%20french.html)
Italian (http://www.hopoi.org/main%20italian.html)
(http://www.hopoi.org/main%20italian.html)فارسی
(http://www.hopoi.org/mainfarsi.html)
We recognise that there is an urgent need to establish a principled solidarity campaign with the people of Iran.
The contradictions between the interests of the neo-conservatives in power in the USA and the defenders of the rule of capital in the Islamic Republic has entered a dangerous new phase.
US imperialism and its allies are intent on regime change from above and are seriously considering options to impose this - sanctions, diplomatic pressure, limited strikes or perhaps bombing the country back to the stone age.
The main enemy is imperialism. The Iranian regime does not represent a progressive or consistent anti-imperialist force.
In Iran, the theocracy is using the international outcry against its alleged nuclear weapons programme to divert attention away from the country's endemic crisis, deflect popular anger onto foreign enemies and thus prolong its reactionary rule. The pretext of external threats has been cynically used to justify increased internal repression. The regime's security apparatus has been unleashed on its political opponents, workers, women, youth and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people. The rising tide of daily working class anti-capitalist struggles has been met with arrests, the ratification of new anti-labour laws and sweeping privatisations. Under the new Iranian government, military-fascist organisations are gaining political and military strength, posing an ominous threat to the working class and democratic opposition.
Paradoxically, the US/UK invasion of Iraq has actually increased the regional influence of Iran's rulers - it led to the election of the pro-Iranian Shia government currently in power in Baghdad. This means that any support from the anti-war movement for the reactionaries who currently govern Iran and repress its people is in effect indirect support for the occupation government in Iraq.
The task of the anti war movement in Britain and HOPI is threefold. One to fight against any imperialist attack on Iran and support the Iranian peoples right to defend themselves by any means necessary. Secondly not to flinch from publicising the reactionary nature of the Tehran regime and its attacks on the workers and democratic movement. Thirdly to build links with all progressive forces fighting the regime – workers, women, trade unionists, socialists.
We recognise that effective resistance to this war can only mean the militant defence of the struggles of the working class in Iran and of the rising social movements in that country. We want regime change - both in Iran and in the imperialist countries. But we know that change must come from below - from the struggles of the working class and social movements - if it is to lead to genuine liberation.
We call on all anti-capitalist forces, progressive political groups and social organisations to join activists of the Iranian left to both oppose imperialism's plans and to organise practical solidarity with the growing movement against war and repression in Iran headed by the working class, women, students, youth and LGBT people.
Our campaign demands are:


No to imperialist war! For the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US/UK troops from Iraq and all the Gulf region!
No to any imperialist intervention. The immediate and unconditional end to sanctions on Iran.
No to the theocratic regime!
Opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression
Support to all working class and progressive struggles in Iran against poverty and repression!
Support for socialism and democracy in Iran and therefore solidarity with all democratic, working class, socialist and secular movements in Iran.
Opposition to Israeli, British and American nuclear weapons. For a Middle East free of nuclear weapons as a step towards world-wide nuclear disarmament!