Marcus and Revolution

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

I had to pick this quote from Marcus. Lets discuss openly and honestly.......

 'Revolutionaries should always call for the defeat of their own country as they must win the argument with people that the worst enemy is at home, in the form of the bosses, capitalists and bourgeoisie and these people need to be defeated first before you defeat any enemy overseas.'

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

BTW this is not having a go at you , Marcus, its just that I have heard this view before an think this perspective is  worthy of further investigation. ;)

[Marcus]

Revolutionaries should argue this position for a number of reasons.

Firstly its to win the argument that a victory overseas by "your country" won't actually be a victory for you, just for the bourgeoisie. You will still be trapped in horrible wage slavery and the might of the bourgeoisie will have been increased by a successful military victory, leaving you nothing to gain from a "victory" and a lot too lose considering it is the workers who fight the imperialists wars!

Secondly its to disprove the idea that there is any progressive role for imperialism in the world. People use that argument "oh we're bringing democracy to the Arab world" or "freeing the Iraqi's from Saddams tyranny". Bollocks. We all know that the invasions of Iraq and Afghnistan were about oil and gas pipelines and gaining military bases in the Middle East and Central Asia. They were not there to bring democracy or create "progressive" praliamentary democracies. They are about cementing imperialisms hold on the middle east and vital economic resources found there and the Iraqi's and Afghans have paid for this with  hundreds of thousands of dead. Imperialism will not create "stable" democracies as that is not why they are there. The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan now demonstrate this.

Thirdly revolutionaries argue for defeat for their own country as a defeat for an imperialist nation will weaken the bourgeoisie significantly and open the possibility of a revolution to get rid of the bourgeoisie for good. As Lenin said "Turn the imperialist war into a civil war". This should be the goal of all revolutionaries.

[Marcus]

*Bump*

I'm interested to hear what other peoples views on this are. Anyone?

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

In what circumstances dont you argue for the defeat of your own' country'?

My position is to stand on the side of the international working class. The only war is a class war.
I feel you have completely misrepresented this position with your position on Afghanistan.

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

Revolutionaries should argue this position for a number of reasons.

Firstly its to win the argument that a victory overseas by "your country" won't actually be a victory for you, just for the bourgeoisie. You will still be trapped in horrible wage slavery and the might of the bourgeoisie will have been increased by a successful military victory, leaving you nothing to gain from a "victory" and a lot too lose considering it is the workers who fight the imperialists wars!

That to me is pretty obvious. I wouldnt argue othere wise .
I stand by the working class in all instnces, argueing for socialism.
(i notice in earlier posts you keep sayibng 'people' instead of working class. Any reason for this?)

Secondly its to disprove the idea that there is any progressive role for imperialism in the world. People use that argument "oh we're bringing democracy to the Arab world" or "freeing the Iraqi's from Saddams tyranny". Bollocks. We all know that the invasions of Iraq and Afghnistan were about oil and gas pipelines and gaining military bases in the Middle East and Central Asia. They were not there to bring democracy or create "progressive" praliamentary democracies. They are about cementing imperialisms hold on the middle east and vital economic resources found there and the Iraqi's and Afghans have paid for this with  hundreds of thousands of dead. Imperialism will not create "stable" democracies as that is not why they are there. The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan now demonstrate this.

Again, true up to a point. You dont argue for a socialist society based on the working class. You also have to remember that for the average worker in the UK the fundamentalist regimes are abhorent dictatorships .You have to make a clear socialist position which you dont seem to do. You seem to mistake defeat for your own country as an argument for socialism. It is clearly not.Thirdly revolutionaries argue for defeat for their own country as a defeat for an imperialist nation will weaken the bourgeoisie significantly and open the possibility of a revolution to get rid of the bourgeoisie for good. As Lenin said "Turn the imperialist war into a civil war". This should be the goal of all revolutionaries.

I would love to see these quotes by Lenin in context!! Anyone can pick a sentence by Lenin and use it however they like.Lenin also saw that capitalism was more progressive than feudalism. But that didnt stop him from from supporting the international working class.In other words he wouldnt have argued for the defeat of a capitalist /imperialist aggressor against a backward feudalist nation unless under certain conditions..He would have taken the view , like Trotsky,  that only the working class could change society on an international basis.

[Marcus]

That to me is pretty obvious. I wouldnt argue othere wise .
I stand by the working class in all instnces, argueing for socialism.
(i notice in earlier posts you keep sayibng 'people' instead of working class. Any reason for this?)

No, just you being pedantic. Of course I support the working class, and of course I argue for socialism, I don't make these arguments for revolutionary defeatism in some sort of vacuum, completely independent of the class struggle. If you read any of Workers Power's material it calls for the working class to take the lead in these anti-imperialist struggles as it is the only progressive class and the only one which can bring about socialism. What we don't do is not support a struggle just cause the working class isn't involved in it.

Again, true up to a point. You dont argue for a socialist society based on the working class. You also have to remember that for the average worker in the UK the fundamentalist regimes are abhorent dictatorships .You have to make a clear socialist position which you dont seem to do. You seem to mistake defeat for your own country as an argument for socialism. It is clearly not.

You are asked for my position on revolutionary defeatism and why revolutionaries argue it, when did I say this was an "argument for socialism."? I've been explaining arguments for why you should call for the defeat of your own country, and why revolutionaries should do this as a defeat for imperialism weakens the bourgeoisie which in the end benefits the workers. Its not "an argument for socialism" its an argument for calling for the defeat of your own country. I would say its necessary to achieve socialism cause the working class will only defeat imperialism when they show proper international solidarity with the workers of other nations which means supporting their national liberation struggles.

I know how these places appear to the average worker, as I said its not an easy argument to make, but if you ever want to win and defeat the capitalists you have to convince the workers that they are worse than these tin pot dictators, which they are, and that they should be fighting them rather than some third wrold tyrant with a few scuds or some feudalistic reactionaries.

I would love to see these quotes by Lenin in context!! Anyone can pick a sentence by Lenin and use it however they like.Lenin also saw that capitalism was more progressive than feudalism. But that didnt stop him from from supporting the international working class.In other words he wouldnt have argued for the defeat of a capitalist /imperialist aggressor against a backward feudalist nation unless under certain conditions..He would have taken the view , like Trotsky,  that only the working class could change society on an international basis.

Thats an interesting point. Capitalism once upon a time did have a progressive role, and you are correct that Marxists would have supported capitalist interventions as they still had a progressive role back then. I think (I could be wrong) Marx viewed British capitalisms role in India as progressive as it created a capitalist state out of a feudal one. However that was over 100 years ago. Capitalism is no longer progressive. We are in the age of imperialism, decaying reactionary capitalism and it can no longer play a progressive role. This is why you see Afghanistan in such a mess now, as capitalism no longer has any progressive role to play in its development. Lenin and Trotsky, I think, would have supported the defeat of imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan as they knew that imperialism would have no progressive role to play in these countries, or anywhere for that matter and their continued presence would only lead to more death and misery.

I agree that only the working class can change society, but how do you think this comes about? I argue that one of the necessary steps the "international working class" has to take to win the struggle against imperialism is to show class solidarity with their brothers and sisters in Iraq and Afghanistan and call for the defeat of their own countries which are causing such harm to the Iraqi and Afghani people. And yes I said people on purpose cause people are dying, not just "workers".

Here is a Workers Power article on Iraq, read it fully, or just the last section, as that outlines clearly the demands we place on the Iraqi working class and its organisations, trade unions etc, to take the lead in the struggle against American imperialism and fight for a socialist Iraq.

http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=26,92,0,0,1,0

And here is another more recent one where we argue that Iraq needs a revolutionary workers party to defeat imperialism and prevent the creation of an Islamic state. I hope that is socialist enough for you.

http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=78,787,0,0,1,0

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

'No, just you being pedantic. Of course I support the working class, and of course I argue for socialism, I don't make these arguments for revolutionary defeatism in some sort of vacuum, completely independent of the class struggle. If you read any of Workers Power's material it calls for the working class to take the lead in these anti-imperialist struggles as it is the only progressive class and the only one which can bring about socialism. What we don't do is not support a struggle just cause the working class isn't involved in it.'

First of all I dont read workers power material. Why should I?
Secondly , I support thw working class as the only progressive class , that can achieve socialism.
Your answer to this is
'What we don't do is not support a struggle just cause the working class isn't involved in it.'
I say to you , good luck!!

'You are asked for my position on revolutionary defeatism and why revolutionaries argue it, '

I am a revolutionary but I dont necessarily argue for it  unless it has a direct relevance to the struggle of the proletariat.Tell me does calling for the defeat of a capitalist aggressor against a barbaric feudal state benefit the working class? I can see you think it does but I cannot see it relevance to Marxism in this instance.

'I know how these places appear to the average worker, as I said its not an easy argument to make, but if you ever want to win and defeat the capitalists you have to convince the workers that they are worse than these tin pot dictators, which they are, and that they should be fighting them rather than some third wrold tyrant with a few scuds or some feudalistic reactionaries.'

This position shows how desperate you are. You show frustration in your inability to grasp Marxism.
What do you really mean by this?

'Capitalism is no longer progressive. We are in the age of imperialism, decaying reactionary capitalism and it can no longer play a progressive role.'

Agreed.But...

'Lenin and Trotsky, I think, would have supported the defeat of imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan as they knew that imperialism would have no progressive role to play in these countries, or anywhere for that matter and their continued presence would only lead to more death and misery.'

They would have called for the creation of a workers state with the support of the peasantry, as part of a federation of socialist workers states in the region.
You have to re read Lenin and Trotsky on 'revolutionary defeatism' and then come back with your conclusions.

Marcus, you go on to say

'I argue that one of the necessary steps the "international working class" has to take to win the struggle against imperialism is to show class solidarity with their brothers and sisters in Iraq and Afghanistan and call for the defeat of their own countries which are causing such harm to the Iraqi and Afghani people. '

How is what you are argueing as  'revolutionary defeatism ' be described as class solidarity? You are way off the mark here Im afraid .
To me it seems like you are treating the class struggle as secondary to your revolutionary defeatism position.

[Marcus]

First of all I dont read workers power material. Why should I?

You are asking why we argue for revolutionary defeatism and misinterpreting our position on it, so I advised you to read what we write in support of the resistance.

From WPB 289 September 2004

The resistance of local guerrilla struggles must be transformed into a national popular uprising. What is crucial is not so much the quantity or quality of the insurgents’ arms, but the attitude of the masses, first and foremost the working class, but also the urban poor and the youth. To make the US occupiers and their Iraqi stooges turn tail and run, they must change from being sympathetic observers of the fight into resistance fighters en masse.

Only by mobilising the people via democratic mass organisations – in the enterprises, in the workers’ quarters of the cities, among the urban poor and in the villages – will it be possible for the Iraqi working class to seize leadership of the national liberation struggle from the reactionary Islamist clergy. The organised working class must link the fight for jobs, basic services and democratic rights, including women’s rights and the rights of the Kurdish people to self-determination, to the armed struggle against Allawi and the occupation forces.

The creation of workers’ and peasants’ councils, democratically elected in the cities and villages, will be needed to carry through a general strike, which could then develop into a mass armed uprising. In such a way, national independence could be embodied in a sovereign revolutionary Constituent Assembly.

The Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions and the independent unions can play an important role in this, but only if they take sides in the armed struggle. Opposition to the Islamists is necessary, but so is a united front with them. The suspension of oil supplies to Baghdad by the workers in Nasiriyah on 10 August was an excellent example of such solidarity action. The oil workers’ statement read: “We stopped pumping in protest at the inhuman conduct of the interim government and its co-operation with the occupation forces to ransack the holy city of Najaf and insult the Shia, their symbols and holy places.”

But to carry the revolution from this starting point on to the social liberation of all the toilers and the oppressed, that is, into a socialist revolution, a political leadership is also needed. This must be a genuine Trotskyist leadership which says openly that without proletarian revolution there will be no national liberation or democracy.

You then say this:

Secondly , I support thw working class as the only progressive class , that can achieve socialism.
Your answer to this is
'What we don't do is not support a struggle just cause the working class isn't involved in it.'
I say to you , good luck!!

I agree that the working class is the only progressive class, so for there to be progressive change they must take the lead in any struggles right? So we argue for them to involve themselves in struggles to win the leadership of those struggles away from the reactionaries and onto a progressive path. I don't think I can make that any clearer.

I am a revolutionary but I dont necessarily argue for it  unless it has a direct relevance to the struggle of the proletariat.Tell me does calling for the defeat of a capitalist aggressor against a barbaric feudal state benefit the working class? I can see you think it does but I cannot see it relevance to Marxism in this instance.

I say it has a direct relevance to the class struggle as any victory for imperialism is a defeat for the workers. The setting up of a stable puppet regime in the Middle East which could guarantee the imperialists a steady flow of oil to support their economies would strengthen them and put them in a stronger position to crush the workers. The resistance prevents them from doing this, and the defeat of imperialism in the Middle East and the disruption of that oil supply would have a corresponding weakening effect upon imperialism, increasing the strength of the workers.

This is why I support the resistance and why I say it had direct relevance to the struggle of the proletariat. Likewise in Afghanistan the prevention of the creation of a stable regime saps the resources of the imperialists and prevents them stabilising the region around their plans which would strengthen their position at home against the workers.

'I know how these places appear to the average worker, as I said its not an easy argument to make, but if you ever want to win and defeat the capitalists you have to convince the workers that they are worse than these tin pot dictators, which they are, and that they should be fighting them rather than some third wrold tyrant with a few scuds or some feudalistic reactionaries.'

This position shows how desperate you are. You show frustration in your inability to grasp Marxism.
What do you really mean by this?

This has to do with Marxism because as a Marxist I realise that global capitalism is a far more reactionary force than a few feudal barbarians and in comparison their defeating the imperialists gives impetus to workers struggles in imperialist countries as it weakens the imperialist power in those countries. While on the surface the victory of reactionaries would seem like a loss to progressive forces, the weakening it brings about in the forces of imperialism would be a gain for the working class in imperialist countries. I do not however want a victory by the reactionaries. My support for them isn't because I desire them to win instead of the proletariat, but because to encourage the workers to enter armed struggle and turn it from a reactionary struggle into a progressive one that struggle must be supported even before it has taken on a progressive character. We want it to be a progressive struggle, but we don't place that as a condition upon us supporting it.

They would have called for the creation of a workers state with the support of the peasantry, as part of a federation of socialist workers states in the region.
You have to re read Lenin and Trotsky on 'revolutionary defeatism' and then come back with your conclusions.

We argue for this position. You refused to read the articles so I am forced to spell it out for you. We do argue for the workers to take power, as was demonstrated by the WP article I quoted above. I unfortunately cannot find any articles relating to Afghanistan but I think it highly unlikely that we didn't call for, as you said, the peasants to take power along with the tiny Afghan proletariat. You seem to think support for a resistance which at the moment is lead by reactionaries cannot be combined with calls for the working class and progressive forces to take the lead in this struggle and turn it from a  reactionary lead national liberation struggle into a revolutionary socialist one. I would argue that that uncondtional support for the struggle is necessary to encourage progressive forces to get involved in it. If revolutionaries join with the bourgeois press in declaring the resistance entirely reactionary then what reason do progressive forces have for entering into it, or joining forces with those revolutionaries in other coutnries who declare their struggles to be reactionary?

How is what you are argueing as  'revolutionary defeatism ' be described as class solidarity? You are way off the mark here Im afraid . To me it seems like you are treating the class struggle as secondary to your revolutionary defeatism position.

They need to show class solidarity and support the resistance. Now what does supporting the resistance mean? It means you support the resistance defeating imperialism, and therefore defeating your own country. If you don't support the resistance triumphing over imperialism then this support is meaningless. This is why I link international solidarity with defeat for imperialism.

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

While going through IDOM the otherday I came across this quote purely by accident. It was in relation to the Falklands/Malvinas war in 1982.
I think it makes the correct point about a class position imperialist war and might be worth further discussion.

'On the other hand, the small grouplets claiming to be Marxists, or even Trotskyists, argued that, since Argentina was a colonial country, it should be supported in the war. Thus, they showed not the slightest understanding of the method of Marx, Lenin or Trotsky. Their ultra-left madness was perfectly summed up in the hare-brained slogan "Sink the fleet!"

The ultra-left sects always succeed in getting it wrong, especially when there is a war. They make every mistake imaginable, and some that are not. Their usual mistake is to adopt a crude caricature of Lenin's position of revolutionary defeatism. This boils down to the abandonment of a class position and support for the bourgeoisie of the enemy camp - that is, inverted chauvinism. In the case of the Falklands war, this expressed itself as - support for the Argentinean junta! Needless to say, with such an approach, they could never win over workers. On the contrary, their demands played right into the hands of the Tories and British imperialism.

The sects repeat like parrots the ABCs of Marxism, but it never enters their heads that after the ABC there are other letters in the alphabet. That it is obligatory for Marxists to oppose imperialist war is an elementary proposition that a child of six could tell you. However, as Trotsky explained at great length in 1939-40, it is also necessary to explain this to the workers in language they can understand, taking into consideration all the concrete conditions.'

(Phil Mitchinson IDOM)