Is anti-imperialism the most important struggle?

[gorillafuck]

On the contrary, Lenin supported the Kemalist regime in Turkey even as Kemal was leading the massacres of communists. So it would seem "anti-imperialism" as we see in today's left had precedents in Lenin.

Trotsky wrote: *quote*
This has been a failed strategy.

Oh wow, I didn't realize that. I'm gonna have to think about that.

[Devrim]

I am not sure what you're getting at? I oppose groups based on just nationalism.

I am talking about organisations such as the PLFP and their like, which I thought you supported. Sorry if I am wrong.

Devrim

[Rusty Shackleford]

the defense of the national bourgeoisie, i believe, is necessary in colonial and semi-colonial countries if under actual military attack. there is a condition though, and that is if the proletariat is either underdeveloped or underorganized. the "alliance" with the national bourgeoisie is not permanent though. soon after the defeat or victory the bourgeoisie soon becomes the running dogs of other imperialist powers in pursuit of profit.

if the chance for a socialist revolution is there though, take it.

the development of a bourgeoisie runs hand in hand withthe development of the proletariat in capitalist society, at least in the beginning. so if the working class needs to grow, it is in their interest to develop capitalism to an excent to lay the groundwork for socialism. this though, i also believe, is only relevant to history. nowadays there is no major inter-imperialist struggle. power is too far concentrated into the hands of american and western european imperialists who are all under the flag of NATO, WTO, IMF, and so on.

its all about context. currently though, the greatest danger to the working class is imperialism and the wars if has brought and will bring. workers are economically conscripted to act as cannon fodder. workers of other countries are bombed, starved, raped and pillaged. it is a huge and integral part of the working class struggle as a whole.

defeating the imperialist bourgeoisie in the west means self-determination for all peoples who were previously under their thumbs. from that point on the chance of revolution across the globe is probably increased.

[Devrim]

the defense of the national bourgeoisie, i believe, is necessary in colonial and semi-colonial countries if under actual military attack.

This is a call for national defence, pure and simple. If for example Iran was under attack would you really argue that Iranian workers should defend the state. Why should they?

there is a condition though, and that is if the proletariat is either underdeveloped or underorganized.

Where is this true? If we take the example of Iran again, it has a higher percentage of industrial workers than the UK.

soon after the defeat or victory the bourgeoisie soon becomes the running dogs of other imperialist powers in pursuit of profit.

Generally they are "the running dogs of other imperialist powers in pursuit of profit" already.

the development of a bourgeoisie runs hand in hand withthe development of the proletariat in capitalist society, at least in the beginning.

Is this still true? As you say?

this though, i also believe, is only relevant to history.

If this is the case, why do you still support ideas that no longer apply to the situation.

nowadays there is no major inter-imperialist struggle. power is too far concentrated into the hands of american and western european imperialists who are all under the flag of NATO, WTO, IMF, and so on.

This strike me as naive in the extreme. There is a constant inter-imperialist struggle. Even though the west may be dominant various 'small wars' are being fought across the world for the benefit of one power or the other.

its all about context. currently though, the greatest danger to the working class is imperialism and the wars if has brought and will bring. workers are economically conscripted to act as cannon fodder. workers of other countries are bombed, starved, raped and pillaged. it is a huge and integral part of the working class struggle as a whole.

And conscripted to act as canon fodder by their national or would be national bourgeoisie.

defeating the imperialist bourgeoisie in the west means self-determination for all peoples who were previously under their thumbs.

'Peoples' are divided into classes. There are two ways to defeat imperialist powers. One is world wide communist revolution. The other is the defeat of individual powers, which invariably causes the working class to lay down its life on behalf of a rival imperialist power.

Devrim

[HEAD ICE]

On the contrary, Lenin supported the Kemalist regime in Turkey even as Kemal was leading the massacres of communists. So it would seem "anti-imperialism" as we see in today's left had precedents in Lenin.

This is absolutely true, and is quite the shame. But still, I don't think Lenin would support what would qualify as "anti-imperialism" in this day and age.

I mean at least Trotskyists try to save themselves by saying they only give "critical support" (). There are threads on here where people give full uncritical praise and support to Ahmadinejad for "standing up" to American imperialism and would support the Iranian state in the event of an American invasion.

The funniest thing I've seen on this forum is someone saying how they used to support the PKK's fight for "national liberation" from Turkey only to have that position reversed because of America's support for the PKK.

[Rafiq]

I would support workers fighting off imperialists in their villages... but not the state

[Grid]

Imperialism isn't an issue anymore.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Imperialism isn't an issue anymore.

im sorry, what is Iraq, Iran, and the coup attempts in Latin America?

How about the us pressuring the duma on behalf of american financial institutions to make exceptions for american financiers.

[Rusty Shackleford]

also to the other posters.

should the proletariat just line up and be dominated by imperialist invaders then? or even better, join the ranks of those who invade? it is impossible for any sector of the working class to remain neutral.

what is preferable is a communist led NLM or something of the likes.

but also, do not forget china. the CCP was made up of various classes, though majority peasantry and proletarian. they developed out of the bourgeois nationalist KMT which at its foundation, was in fact, progressive and anti-imperialist. that changed over time.


also, some of my arguments, as i have said, are really only applicable to history. meaning some of it is no longer relevant. capitalism is everywhere.

also, dont claim that i do not value the lives of workers.

[Devrim]

but also, do not forget china. the CCP was made up of various classes, though majority peasantry and proletarian. they developed out of the bourgeois nationalist KMT which at its foundation, was in fact, progressive and anti-imperialist. that changed over time.

Just on a historical point, this is completely untrue. The CCP was 'officially' founded in July 1921 at the first congress, but of course had actually been in existence for some time before.

What is called the 'First United Front' began in August 1922, over a year later, when the Comintern agent in China, Sneevliet forced through the policy of party members joining the KMT against the wishes of the Chinese party leadership.

After the suppression of the Shanghai commune in 1927 by the very same KMT, events during which about 80% of the party membership was murdered, the CCP made a 'turn' towards the peasantry, and started to develop the theories that resulted in the idea of the party as not being the party of the proletariat, but representing a 'national bloc' of various classes, effectively destroying it as a party of the working class if the disastrous alliance with the KMT had already done this.

Devrim

[Devrim]

should the proletariat just line up and be dominated by imperialist invaders then? or even better, join the ranks of those who invade? it is impossible for any sector of the working class to remain neutral.

Perhaps it would be better for the working class to defend its own interests rather than lining up to be massacred on the alter of national capital, which is what you seem to suggest.

also, some of my arguments, as i have said, are really only applicable to history. meaning some of it is no longer relevant. capitalism is everywhere.

Yet your positions are still based upon them.

Devrim

[Rusty Shackleford]

Just on a historical point, this is completely untrue. The CCP was 'officially' founded in July 1921 at the first congress, but of course had actually been in existence for some time before.

What is called the 'First United Front' began in August 1922, over a year later, when the Comintern agent in China, Sneevliet forced through the policy of party members joining the KMT against the wishes of the Chinese party leadership.

After the suppression of the Shanghai commune in 1927 by the very same KMT, events during which about 80% of the party membership was murdered, the CCP made a 'turn' towards the peasantry, and started to develop the theories that resulted in the idea of the party as not being the party of the proletariat, but representing a 'national bloc' of various classes, effectively destroying it as a party of the working class if the disastrous alliance with the KMT had already done this.

Devrim

well shit, i really need to study china.