anti-imperialism and the swp section in zimbabwe

[black magick hustla]

Me and Leo where discussing the IS and apparently there is a section in zimbawe. Suprisingly, according to their blog, it isnt a one man nucleus, as I thought. However there is something very interesting:



http://isozim.blogspot.com/

"OUR OFFICES IN CENTRAL HARARE HAVE BEEN RAIDED. POLICE CAME IN THE MORNING AND DEMANDED TO SEE SEVERAL LEADERS OF OUR ORGANISATION. THEY REMOVED FILES FROM OUR OFFICE.

THE POLICE CLAIM THAT OUR LAST NEWSPAPER ISSUE WAS "INFLAMATORY" OR "INCITING".

THEY ALSO DEMANDED TO KNOW WHO WRITES FOR OUR NEWSPAPER, WHERE IT IS TYPED AND WHERE IT IS PRINTED.

OUR COMRADES MANAGED TO JUST ESCAPE WITH OUR ONLY COMPUTER.

SOLIDARITY MESSAGES CAN BE TEXED OR PHONED THROUGH TO +263 912 908 847 OR +263 11 875 976 OR +263 23 295722 OR E-MAIL

So apparently the swp folks down there got raided by the state. I thought this was very interesting because while the swp and other leftists are preaching about "anti-imperialism" and protecting third world states against the imperialists, the quintissential "anti-imperialist" state that the western world despises and that leftists get up on arms to defend is probably Zimbawbe, and yet still are opressing people who put forward some sort of socialist message. It isnt surprising though, lots of "anti-imperialists" murdered and opressed communists, its just that a lot of folks in the left are too thick to understand this.

Someone in the comment section posted this:


Yeah I think that the July copy of IS Zim. was full of lies and anti-national crap. Quote: 'We say .. No to fake anti-imperialists!.. Join ISO'
Isn't that suppposed to say No to imperialists full stop? And The reasons you gave against the ZanuPF Manifesto stank of rank Western interference. The translations were only interpretations of the meaning of the reasons and poor ones at that. Zimbabwe is going through a rough time at the minute, and the last thing the government needs is more backstabbing.

It doesnt surprise me. There are a lot of leftists who would prolly say something like this.

I thought it would be something very interesting for IST folks to discuss. Do you people support zimbawe against imperialism? And by this I mean do you people build a defense on the Zanu? Do you think communists should defend it? What do you think about this.

[Junius]

Interesting article (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/oct2000/mdc-o07.shtml) (Trotskyist)

[BobKKKindle$]

Support for anti-imperialism is not the same as blindly supporting any government in an oppressed nation which uses anti-colonial rhetoric to mask or justify the oppression of the working class. The IST opposes Robert Mugabe as a leader who has committed terrible crimes against the people of Zimbabwe despite his progressive role in the liberation struggle against the British state, but if Zimbabwe ever came under attack from an imperialist power the IST would actively oppose the war and would also lend support to the defence of Zimbabwe regardless of whether the defensive struggle is conducted by the government or any other organization, as the IST recognizes that imperialism is a direct result of the capitalist system and the expulsion of an occupation force would be a progressive event both for the inhabitants of the occupied country and the workers of the country which conducted the initial invasion.

To make it seem as if anti-imperialism is synonymous with uncritical support for the Mugabe regime is childish and shows that you just don't understand what Trotskyism is. The ICC does not have a branch in Zimbabwe or any other African country because their refusal to lend even partial support to struggles against imperialism and their inability to work inside trade unions means they will never be able to develop strong links with ordinary workers who have an interest in advancing their conditions and prospects for revoltion through industrial organization and the struggle against imperialism.

[black magick hustla]

To make it seem as if anti-imperialism is synonymous with uncritical support for the Mugabe regime is childish and shows that you just don't understand what Trotskyism is. The ICC does not have a branch in Zimbabwe or any other African country because their refusal to lend even partial support to struggles against imperialism and their inability to work inside trade unions means they will never be able to develop strong links with ordinary workers who have an interest in advancing their conditions and prospects for revoltion through industrial organization and the struggle against imperialism.

Actually, Zimbawbe is already being "attacked" by imperialists. The relentless campaign of the western media against Mugabe, and the financial aid to the opposition party is a symptom of this. The problem is that it is impossible to be "anti-imperialist" and latch yourself to a wing of capital. This dilemma is showed by the folks of the IST in Zimbawe, who lend their support to the MDC, while the latter being an obvious proxy of western interests, while still spouting anti-imperialist rhetoric. In the other side of the fence, there is the Mugabe and his regime, the quintessential "anti-imperialist" that all the leftists got their pants wet about. How did he end? He ended putting workers up against the wall.

Watering down your positions might may you more popular. But in the long run, there is no point considering that, if you water them down too much you stop being a communist, or if you water them down to little, the national bourgeosie will try to relentlessly erase you from the map.

[bretty]

Me and Leo where discussing the IS and apparently there is a section in zimbawe. Suprisingly, according to their blog, it isnt a one man nucleus, as I thought. However there is something very interesting:



So apparently the swp folks down there got raided by the state. I thought this was very interesting because while the swp and other leftists are preaching about "anti-imperialism" and protecting third world states against the imperialists, the quintissential "anti-imperialist" state that the western world despises and that leftists get up on arms to defend is probably Zimbawbe, and yet still are opressing people who put forward some sort of socialist message. It isnt surprising though, lots of "anti-imperialists" murdered and opressed communists, its just that a lot of folks in the left are too thick to understand this.

Someone in the comment section posted this:



It doesnt surprise me. There are a lot of leftists who would prolly say something like this.

I thought it would be something very interesting for IST folks to discuss. Do you people support zimbawe against imperialism? And by this I mean do you people build a defense on the Zanu? Do you think communists should defend it? What do you think about this.

Zimbabwe is not a state like the european state. It's much different, there are many actors at play. There's no reason to support a state that conducts repressive tactics on its people. I don't see why Zimbabwe is any different.

[PRC-UTE]

The problem is that it is impossible to be "anti-imperialist" and latch yourself to a wing of capital.

This is self evidently true, that under capitalism you must be anti capitalist to really break with imperialism, but not really any different than what many anti imperialists and republican socialists in Ireland argue.

So is your problem with anti-imperialism that you think it has never worked? Or that you are simply arguing that anti-imperialism must likewise be anti-capitalist?

[Yehuda Stern]

I would agree that the IST's involvement in the MDC is opportunist. I think it stems from a history of class betrayal and from the IST's refusal in practice to insist on creating a vanguard party. But on the other hand, I think it is also used at the moment by the left-communists to attack anti-imperialism and the concept of an anti-imperialist front in an opportunist way.

[Devrim]

The ICC does not have a branch in Zimbabwe or any other African country because their refusal to lend even partial support to struggles against imperialism and their inability to work inside trade unions means they will never be able to develop strong links with ordinary workers who have an interest in advancing their conditions and prospects for revoltion through industrial organization and the struggle against imperialism.

You are right about the fact that the ICC doesn't have any sections in Africa. However, the logic behind it is absolute nonsense. Surely if what you say were true, it wouldn't have any sections outside of Europe. And yet it does. The ICC has member sections in India, Mexico, and Venezuela. It also has members in Brazil. It has organisations that are expected to join it in the very near future in Turkey, and the Philippines. In addition to this there are lots of groups that they are in discussions with in South America.

Also the way you talk about 'ordinary workers' really displays your own social position and class background. Members of the ICC are 'ordinary workers'.


But on the other hand, I think it is also used at the moment by the left-communists to attack anti-imperialism and the concept of an anti-imperialist front in an opportunist way.

What is opportunist about criticising ideas that you disagree with?

Devrim

[Andropov]

Just because Mugae calls himself anti-Imperialst does not make him so.
Mugabes polcys of land redistribution look good on paper but in practice it was carried out with pure tribalism.
Firstly Mugabe primarily gave land to his cronies in Zanu-PF and his supporters.
Secondly he did not give any to the Matabele which is to be expected since his policys towards them normally include genocide.
From his slaughter of them in Matabele land in the 80s to his selective starvation and closure of water processing plants of Bulawayo which happens to be the largest Matabele dominated city.
Dont be fooled by his rehtorric because Mugabe is merely a tyrant poseing as a liberator.
Not that even matters since it is now the Generals who are ruling the state.

[Yehuda Stern]

What is opportunist about criticising ideas that you disagree with?

Nothing. That I can respect. I just think that it is opportunist to deduce from the SWP's opportunist politics in Zimbabwe that all who talk about an anti-imperialist front have the same politics - much like Stalin's argument that since fascists oppose his regime, then all other who oppose his regime are fascists. I don't know if the equation stems from ignorance or from a conscious attempt to slander, but either way, it does not hold.


Dont be fooled by his rehtorric because Mugabe is merely a tyrant poseing as a liberator.
Not that even matters since it is now the Generals who are ruling the state.

We (the ISL, not the SWP - I can't and don't want to speak for them) are not fooled by Mugabe. We know very well who he is. However, we know that the political fight to destroy his regime and smash the capitalist state goes hand in hand with the fight against imperialist intervention in Zimbabwe.

[Junius]

Support for anti-imperialism is not the same as blindly supporting any government in an oppressed nation which uses anti-colonial rhetoric to mask or justify the oppression of the working class.

To make it seem as if anti-imperialism is synonymous with uncritical support for the Mugabe regime is childish and shows that you just don't understand what Trotskyism is.

yet, another comment by yourself:


Socialists do not support an imperialist occupation under any circumstances, but actively campaign for the defeat of imperialism and lend unconditional military support to organisations such as the Taleban which are currently fighting against occupation, even when we do not agree with the politics of organisations.

Well, which is it? You lend critical support or unconditional support? What determines whether it is critical or unconditional?


But on the other hand, I think it is also used at the moment by the left-communists to attack anti-imperialism and the concept of an anti-imperialist front in an opportunist way.

I think Zimbabwe is a good example of leftists being drawn into supporting one side of capital against the other; the MDC or Mugabe. Reality has shattered such an illusion; they now (or very soon will) both form part of the ruling class. This wasn't surprising in the least.

[BobKKKindle$]

Well, which is it? You lend critical support or unconditional support? What determines whether it is critical or unconditional?

Critical and unconditional are not mutually contradictory positions. The SWP gives unconditional military (as distinct from political) support to movements fighting against imperialism which means that we do not make our support conditional on these movements agreeing with our political perspective, and support them even if they promote reactionary ideas, as long as they continue the struggle against imperialism and command the support of the general population. It is not the position of socialists living in a western cultural environment removed from the struggles of workers in the developing world to tell the people of Iraq or any other country suffering under the yoke of imperialism that they do not have a right to resist occupation solely because the movements which have arisen from their struggles do not correspond with our ideological expectations. However, despite this position, we have always been willing to point out areas where we do not agree with these movements (for example, feminism in the case of the Taleban and other Islamic organisations) and have not reduced the content of our criticisms when they have achieved victories in the course of their struggles.

[Devrim]

Nothing. That I can respect. I just think that it is opportunist to deduce from the SWP's opportunist politics in Zimbabwe that all who talk about an anti-imperialist front have the same politics - much like Stalin's argument that since fascists oppose his regime, then all other who oppose his regime are fascists. I don't know if the equation stems from ignorance or from a conscious attempt to slander, but either way, it does not hold.

All those who 'talk about anti-imperialist fronts' do have the same politics in that they support anti-imperialist fronts. That is what we are against, not a particular version of the tactic. The criticism here is of one example.

Please, where is the opportunism?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Critical and unconditional are not mutually contradictory positions.

No, they are not. They are just different versions of Trotskyist 'gobbledegook', which allows them to claim to be supporting something, but not really supporting it.

Support is support whatever kind it is.


The SWP gives unconditional military (as distinct from political) support to movements fighting against imperialism

Actually the SWP gives military support to nobody, and political support to a whole host of anti-working class nationalists who end up shooting workers.

Devrim

[Junius]

Critical and unconditional are not mutually contradictory positions.

Why would you give critical support to Mugabe, and unconditional support to the Taliban?


The SWP gives unconditional military (as distinct from political) support to movements fighting against imperialism which means that we do not make our support conditional on these movements agreeing with our political perspective, and support them even if they promote reactionary ideas,

Its not just a matter of promoting 'reactionary ideas.'

Its a matter of the Taliban being a supporter of capitalism, and a former ruling class faction.

Its a matter of such a war bringing absolutely no benefit to the working class, but a strengthening of everything we should be opposing; nationalism, religious fundamentalism, a strenghthening of the obedience of the workers to the state, putting aside class-struggle and siding with a faction of the ruling class.


as long as they continue the struggle against imperialism and command the support of the general population

Do you think the Taliban has support from the general population?


It is not the position of socialists living in a western cultural environment removed from the struggles of workers in the developing world to tell the people of Iraq or any other country suffering under the yoke of imperialism that they do not have a right to resist occupation solely because the movements which have arisen from their struggles do not correspond with our ideological expectations.

I find this ironic, but I doubt you do.

More to the point, someone's position to voice communist solutions is not dependent on where they live. That is a horribly nationalistic stance. Workers have no country - we have a common similarity of class - and it is this which allows communists to voice their opinions on matters which affect other workers.

On the contrary, I think it is you imposing your ideological expectations on the Afghani people.

We have seen that the vast majority of the population has no interest in defending their country from imperialist aggression. Understandably enough, they are concerned with staying alive, and not dying for a faction of capital. It is you imposing unrealistic and horrific ideals on the working class: maintaining that they should die for their former masters.

It is your chauvinism that allows you to support a group which you think will benefit these 'poor brown people.'


However, despite this position, we have always been willing to point out areas where we do not agree with these movements (for example, feminism in the case of the Taleban and other Islamic organisations) and have not reduced the content of our criticisms when they have achieved victories in the course of their struggles.

Do you expect the Taliban to treat women equally if they gain power?

Do you expect the Taliban to get rid of capitalism if they gain power?

Do you expect the Taliban to not conduct ethnic massacres or attack people based on their religion?

Which is more likely if the Taliban wins: barbarianism or socialism?

[BobKKKindle$]

Why would you give critical support to Mugabe, and unconditional support to the Taliban?We give critical yet unconditional support to any movement fighting against imperialism without identifying politically with reactionary forces. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?


We have seen that the vast majority of the population has no interest in defending their country from imperialist aggressionIf this is the case, then why has the Taleban continued to draw recruits from some of the most impoverished and oppressed segments of Afghan society despite the efforts of the occupation forces to eliminate the movement ever since they first invaded Afghanistan in 2001? Why have secret polls including the poll released by the Telegraph in 2005 (link (http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=9421)) consistently shown that the majority of Iraqis support attacks directed against coalition troops and want the troops to withdraw as soon as possible? Why was Hamas able to win a clear majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament in 2006 as the only organization which has maintained a consistent struggle against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank? In all of these cases, ordinary people including workers have given their support to struggles against occupation. The reason for this is that living under occupation is detrimental to the economic development of any country as the occupying forces will take advantage of their position to exploit the markets and raw materials of the oppressed nation to benefit the ruling class of the country which conducted the initial invasion, and occupation also poses a threat to the lives of workers, as evidenced by the fact that over 8,000 people have died in Afghanistan to date and the death toll continues to increase every day due to the brutality of the occupying forces, and according to the Lancet medical journal more than 500,000 people have died in Iraq under the occupation regime, with an even greater number being forced to flee abroad as refugees due to the lack of internal political stability and the complete collapse of basic services such as healthcare.


Support is support whatever kind it is.You can support the actions of a movement without identifying politically with the movement or giving up political independence in favor of subordination to the interests of the movement. For example, socialists should support the reforms which have been introduced by the Chavez government in Venezuela as conducive to improvements in the social position of the working class and greater democratic control over production, but should also recognize that Chavez has deployed armed force against the working class when workers have tried to assert greater control over their lives in defiance of the state, and so there is still a need to develop independent revolutionary organization and defend the rights of workers. The fact that you can't distinguish different forms of support is a testament to your lack of analytical skills.

[Devrim]

The fact that you can't distinguish different forms of support is a testament to your lack of analytical skills.

But in fact I can distinguish quiet easily between different types of support.

I would say that military support includes actions like stage attacks, supplying weapons, and providing logistical support.

I would say that political support involves making arguments supporting a certain cause, in newspapers, meetings etc.

Now, if we accept this, and I think that most people would, what on Earth are we to make of this.


The SWP gives unconditional military (as distinct from political) support to movements fighting against imperialism

If the SWP were really giving military support to organisations like the Taliban (and I am 100% sure that they are not), their members would be well advised not to shout about it in public. On the contrary, what the SWP gives to various nationalists is exactly political support. The fact that it may have a little gentle criticism tagged on with it doesn't change anything.

There is no problem with my analyitical skills. The problem is Trotskyist mumbojumbo that has no meaning in the real world.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

I think Zimbabwe is a good example of leftists being drawn into supporting one side of capital against the other; the MDC or Mugabe. Reality has shattered such an illusion; they now (or very soon will) both form part of the ruling class. This wasn't surprising in the least.

I agree, it wasn't, and could easily be anticipated. I would still defend Zimbabwe from imperialist attack. That position does not depend on the regime but on the fact that Zimbabwe is a third world country, and successful aggression against it by an imperialist power strengthens imperialism as a whole.


All those who 'talk about anti-imperialist fronts' do have the same politics in that they support anti-imperialist fronts. That is what we are against, not a particular version of the tactic. The criticism here is of one example.

We would never advocate working in the MDC, or in any bourgeois party. We would never give them any sort of support, critical or otherwise. We say the same for Mugabe. Our military support to Zimbabwe, again, depends in no way on the regime of the country. This is quite enough to show by itself that the ridiculous attempt to lump together all those who use the phrase "anti-imperialist front" is, well, ridiculous.

[Devrim]

We would never advocate working in the MDC, or in any bourgeois party. We would never give them any sort of support, critical or otherwise. We say the same for Mugabe. Our military support to Zimbabwe, again, depends in no way on the regime of the country. This is quite enough to show by itself that the ridiculous attempt to lump together all those who use the phrase "anti-imperialist front" is, well, ridiculous.

This is where the ridiculous starts. You are a small group in Israel. I presume you give no military support to the Zimbabwean state.

On your actual point, I don't see any qualitative difference between your position and theirs. You seem to be saying that they would join bourgeois parties and you wouldn't. From our perspective this is just a variant of calling for national defence, which you both do.

The whole idea of military support as talked of by the Trotskyists is nonsense. In the overwhelming vast majority of cases you do not give military support. It is political support.

Incidentally, the left communists (KAPD) gave military support to the USSR in the Soviet Polish war. By this I mean they armed themselves and attacked trains carrying munitions to Poland. This was condemned by the KPD as adventurism.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

This is where the ridiculous starts. You are a small group in Israel. I presume you give no military support to the Zimbabwean state.That point is ridiculous on its own - of course we're talking theoretically here. You could also say that being a small group, we can't support a Palestinian workers' state in the strict sense of the word. There's a difference between programmatic principles on the one hand and what you're capable of in practice.



On your actual point, I don't see any qualitative difference between your position and theirs. You seem to be saying that they would join bourgeois parties and you wouldn't. From our perspective this is just a variant of calling for national defence, which you both do.We call for smashing the bourgeois state and its regime, and creating a workers' state as the only way for the workers to truly become free of imperialism. This is hardly national defense, unless you consider defense to be preparing the destruction of that which you are defending.



The whole idea of military support as talked of by the Trotskyists is nonsense. In the overwhelming vast majority of cases you do not give military support. It is political support.What other Trotskyist groups speak of is not my responsibility. To me the difference between political and military support is very clear - political support means giving support to some leadership or party, while military support means fighting the same enemy as other political forces. It's a military variant of the united front, if you will. It has also been advocated by Lenin in the imperialist epoch.

[Devrim]

That point is ridiculous on its own - of course we're talking theoretically here. You could also say that being a small group, we can't support a Palestinian workers' state in the strict sense of the word. There's a difference between programmatic principles on the one hand and what you're capable of in practice.

So the support that you actually give is not military at all, but political.


We call for smashing the bourgeois state and its regime, and creating a workers' state as the only way for the workers to truly become free of imperialism. This is hardly national defense, unless you consider defense to be preparing the destruction of that which you are defending.

Did you call on Lebanese workers to defend Lebanon against Israeli invasion?

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

So the support that you actually give is not military at all, but political.

I don't see how there's evidence for that in the quote that you have used, if at all.


Did you call on Lebanese workers to defend Lebanon against Israeli invasion?


We called on Lebanese workers to take part in the resistance, but at the same time to propagate Marxist ideas to the rest of the working class and to constantly expose the reactionary role played by Hizb Allah, especially in the anti-Siniora movement which developed after the war. Being Grantists at the time, we of course advised them to work in the CP, but today I think we would not do so (I doubt the Lebanese CP was ever in a condition that justified entryism).

[Devrim]

I don't see how there's evidence for that in the quote that you have used, if at all.

You said that you don't give actual military support. You talked about 'theoretical' military support. I would call that political support.


We called on Lebanese workers to take part in the resistance, but at the same time to propagate Marxist ideas to the rest of the working class and to...blah...blah...blah...

Yes, this is a call for national defence. It doesn't matter how you dress it up with talk of Marxism.

Devrim

[Leo]

You could also say that being a small group, we can't support a Palestinian workers' state in the strict sense of the word.

Well, you can't support something that doesn't exist, can you? You can politically support the idea of it and factions which according to you are working for it, you can call for people to work for it and for the formation of it etc. but you can't physically, or militarily support it in any way.



This is where the ridiculous starts. You are a small group in Israel. I presume you give no military support to the Zimbabwean state.

That point is ridiculous on its own - of course we're talking theoretically here.

Clearly your understanding of "military support" then is not to give actual support in military terms to bourgeois factions, but try to urge people who you discuss with or who read your press or posts from the places dominated by these bourgeois factions (workers, students, perhaps communists etc.) to militarily support them, that is to join them and fight for their cause?

[Yehuda Stern]

You said that you don't give actual military support. You talked about 'theoretical' military support. I would call that political support.

That's just fancy word usage. What I mean is that if we had the means to give military support, we would. Seeing, however, as we can't join the resistance in any country attacked by imperialism, the position remains a theoretical one. To claim that that on its own makes this support political is pretty strange.


Yes, this is a call for national defence. It doesn't matter how you dress it up with talk of Marxism.

It is a call for an anti-imperialist united front - it doesn't matter how you dress it up with talk of chauvinism.


Well, you can't support something that doesn't exist, can you? You can politically support the idea of it and factions which according to you are working for it, you can call for people to work for it and for the formation of it etc. but you can't physically, or militarily support it in any way.

Well, yes. Again, the position is theoretical. This was just to say that just because you can't put your position to practice at some given point, doesn't mean you can't have the position in theory.


Clearly your understanding of "military support" then is not to give actual support in military terms to bourgeois factions, but try to urge people who you discuss with or who read your press or posts from the places dominated by these bourgeois factions (workers, students, perhaps communists etc.) to militarily support them, that is to join them and fight for their cause?

No. First of all, should it be possible for any revolutionary to join an anti-imperialist fight, he should certainly do so. But if he does that, he's not fighting for the cause of the bourgeoisie - he just fights a common enemy with them, meanwhile preparing their overthrow as well.

[Guerrilla22]

The fact that there offices were raided really isn't surprising given the nature of the regime there. I would have been surprised if they were left alone.

[Leo]

No. First of all, should it be possible for any revolutionary to join an anti-imperialist fight, he should certainly do so.OK, so yes, not no, you are calling for them to militarily support the allegedly anti-imperialist factions of the class enemies and to join them, it's just that you don't consider this to be "fighting for their cause".


But if he does that, he's not fighting for the cause of the bourgeoisie - he just fights a common enemy with themSince the bourgeoisie always completely dominates and leads what you call "anti-imperialist" fights, fighting with a "common enemy" in their ranks, side by side with them, with their methods is exactly fighting for their cause.


It is a call for an anti-imperialist united front - it doesn't matter how you dress it up with talk of chauvinism.Regardless of what you name it, you are binding the fate of proletarians from 'backward nations' to the interests of their bosses.

Not that you have bad intentions or anything, but I think the appropriate name for this is obvious enough so that I don't have to name it again.


Well, yes. Again, the position is theoretical. This was just to say that just because you can't put your position to practice at some given point, doesn't mean you can't have the position in theory.But, as you would of course have to agree, there can be no real separation of theory and practice. It's just that while actual military support would be supporting something with military actions, your version of "military support" is a kind of support which has the aim of convincing people to support something with military actions. Your support is similar to militarism, it is political support of military actions, but political support nevertheless. So you say you don't politically support the Iraqi fundamentalists' ideology, but you politically support them when they blow people up.

[Yehuda Stern]

Since the bourgeoisie always completely dominates and leads what you call "anti-imperialist" fights, fighting with a "common enemy" in their ranks, side by side with them, with their methods is exactly fighting for their cause.

Revolutionaries would obviously not fight with the method of the ruling class. In fact, they would fight with methods that would facilitate the ruling class' overthrow.

And what does it mean, that the bourgeoisie dominates these struggles? It means simply that the workers must fight to dominate them instead. That's part of the class struggle.


But, as you would of course have to agree, there can be no real separation of theory and practice. It's just that while actual military support would be supporting something with military actions, your version of "military support" is a kind of support which has the aim of convincing people to support something with military actions... So you say you don't politically support the Iraqi fundamentalists' ideology, but you politically support them when they blow people up.

This paragraph makes absolutely no sense. My "version" of military support is just military support. It may be abstract in the sense that we can't act on it, but to say that that makes it political support is just pretty silly.

And no, I don't support Iraqi fundamentalists at any time. I support the fight against imperialism, which means that if I were an Iraqi, I would fight the occupying imperialists along with the fundamentalists, though I would not join their organizations or of course take part in purely sectarian actions.

[Leo]

Revolutionaries would obviously not fight with the method of the ruling class.

OK, so are you saying then that revolutionaries indeed should not take the gun and start killing the national enemy, or should not plant bombs etc. since them jumping on such bandwagon* is clearly them doing things the way the ruling class want them to.

Then of course there would be no military support. To militarily support the ruling class, you have to fight with their methods, there is no alternative.

*For bourgeois factions to be strong militarily, they need some proletarians to be giving them "military support" already, and that is full support, a convinced support, otherwise the bourgeois faction nearly won't have any military strength.


In fact, they would fight with methods that would facilitate the ruling class' overthrow.

You can't oppose something you support.


And what does it mean, that the bourgeoisie dominates these struggles? It means simply that the workers must fight to dominate them instead.

Now that is pure fantasy which had no historical examples at all.

When the workers become class conscious enough to develop antagonism against the bourgeoisie that dominates a national liberation movement, they become antagonistic against the national liberation movement itself and generally start fighting for socialism instead of allegedly anti-imperialist national liberation.

This is how it worked in practice. Examples that first come to my mind are the Baku commune in 1918, in which Armenian and Azeri proletarians in the city abandoned their respective nationalist parties in time in order to base their politics around their class interests, the workers movement and communists in Turkey in the 20's who rapidly grew in opposition to the Kemalists only to be sabotaged in every step by the Communist International's position, Central Asian proletarians against the Basmaci national liberation rebellion and workers of Shanghai in 1927 against the "anti-imperialist" Kuomintang.


This paragraph makes absolutely no sense. My "version" of military support is just military support. It may be abstract

Nevertheless, it has a practical effect, since all political positions do. As it is obvious you do not militarily support them but you politically support their military actions.


And no, I don't support Iraqi fundamentalists at any time.

I do remember reading you approve of their suicide bombings and stuff.


I support the fight against imperialism, which means that if I were an Iraqi, I would fight the occupying imperialists along with the fundamentalists

Can you please clarify further how this works in your mind? How will you be "fighting the occupying imperialists along with the fundamentalists"? How will this whole thing work in practice according to you?

[Devrim]

This paragraph makes absolutely no sense. My "version" of military support is just military support. It may be abstract in the sense that we can't act on it, but to say that that makes it political support is just pretty silly.

But it is not military support as we have already established. Your 'version is that you claim to be giving military support while providing none. The idea of 'abstract military support' is absurd. Either you provide military support, or you do not. It is a real physical thing, not a political opinion.

Actually, I would argue that actual military support is also political support, but what you call 'abstract military support', or what one could really refer to as 'imaginary military support' is political support nothing else.

Devrim