Politics of the SWP.

[TremulousTetra]

Wıll you please stop tryıng to change the debate. I am specıfıcally ınterested ın Afghanıstan.

erm, I am honestly not trying to change the debate, I am sticking steadfastly to the position I have held from the beginning. That is that the position of Socialist Worker is historically consistent, we have consistently supported the right to self-determination

Please explaın.

no problem whatsoever, if you make your question more specific.

So ın your opınıon, the removal of rıghts from women that they had before ıs progressıve, the persecutıon of people for not holdıng the correct relıgıous belıef or for beıng gay ıs progressıve? [\QUOTE]No! Read again what I said.

So are you sayıng that you wııl support any organısatıon no matter how reactıonary and no matter how much the local people wıll suffer repressıon under ıt ıf ıt a local organısatıon.

it's a judgement call isn't it? In this case we weren't just talking about "the local people" of Afghanistan. Socialist Worker are an internationalist organisation. We take an internationalist perspective. A Vietnam syndrome for Russia, or even the collapse of the Russian empire, had consequences peoples of many countries far beyond "the local people" of Afghanistan. And I think it was this element of the equation that weighed most heavily. But with regard to the "local people" of Afghanistan, the you have any evidence that the vast majority did not support the expelling of the Russians? Do you think the pro-Russian regime in Afghanistan was any less a puppet than the regime in Vietnam?

I agree, however, there ıs such a thıng as leadıng by example.

I agree, and we should do everything to support the most progressive elements. Can you think at the time of the conflict in Afghanistan of an organisation in Afghanistan Socialist Worker should have been supporting instead?

I doubt ıt, but, there ıs a dıfference between support for a mysogynıstıc, reactıonary, theocratıc organısatıon, wıth the stated ıntentıon of settıng up a relıgıous state, funded by the CIA and an ındependent movement wıth flaws.

if this had been a conflict in complete isolation, with no progressive ramifications for the international working class beyond the borders of Afghanistan, then Socialist worker may have shared the same view as you. But this was not the case was it? The defeat of the Russian empire had ramifications which would progressive for "the local people" of many countries in its empire, not least the Russians. In fact it had progressive ramifications for the international working class globally. The Russian empire, as the world's number two terrorist state, had the power to inflict misery on "the local people" of many countries.

ETA Am away atm so wıll probably not get back to thıs for a whıle.

no prob

 

[poster342002]

A Vietnam syndrome for Russia, or even the collapse of the Russian empire, had consequences peoples of many countries far beyond "the local people" of Afghanistan.

A plumetting life-expectancy being one of them.

 

[poster342002]

if this had been a conflict in complete isolation, with no progressive ramifications for the international working class beyond the borders of Afghanistan, then Socialist worker may have shared the same view as you. But this was not the case was it? The defeat of the Russian empire had ramifications which would progressive for "the local people" of many countries in its empire, not least the Russians. In fact it had progressive ramifications for the international working class globally.

I still cannot work out what "progressive ramifications" for the global working class were brought about by the above. Have you noticed the all-out assault (which they seem to be winning) on the global working class undertaken by western capitalism and islamist terrorism since these events? Have you seen the assortment of batty, rightwing idiots that have taken power in much of the former eastern bloc (a lot of whom queued up to back Bush's war on Iraq)? Not a lot of working-class resurgence going on there.

I was no fan of the USSR, but so far no good has come since it's demise.

 

[TremulousTetra]

A plumetting life-expectancy being one of them.

I still cannot work out what "progressive ramifications" for the global working class were brought about by the above. Have you noticed the all-out assault (which they seem to eb winning) on the global working class undertaken by western capitalism and islamist terrorism since these events? Have you seen the assortment of batty, rightwing idiots that have taken power in much of the former eastern bloc (a lot of whom queued up to back Bush's war on Iraq)? Not a lot of working-class resurgence going on there.

I was no fan of the USSR, but so far no good has come since it's demise.

I understand where you are coming from, and they are honest and decent questions. However, with no intention to be sarcastic, I would suggest this is a bit of "what have the Romans ever done for us" syndrome.

Anybody who says that imperialism's completely and utterly negative, would be wrong in my opinion. every form of imperialism has played a progressive role at some point in it's existence. However, from a Marx perspective, Imperialism's do not collapse out of some form of bad fortune, they collapse because there is something innate within the social relations, which makes the system contradictory and antagonistic. It makes the system prone to collapse. So in my opinion the collapse of the Russian empire was always 99% inevitable. This would always have led to some kind of degeneration of the circumstances, UNLESS there was a social revolution and the antagonistic class relations were replaced with a classless society.

now, I don't know whether you remember the era of Margaret Thatcher? But at the time it was argued you could do nothing, because the Tories were invincible. Imagine how it felt in the dictatorship Russia, where you could be hauled off to the gulags? In completely the opposite direction, right round the world there were still people who had illusions in "state capitalism". So what I am saying is, is that there are many factors the collapse of the Russian empire has affected, which make the idea that the people can change the world 'more realistic'.

Now, obviously this hasn't come about. I would argue there is other major countervailing factors at play.

Got to admit, I feel I've poorly answered your question. I honestly feel the collapse of the Russian empire was a good thing. But I cannot grasp how I can succinctly demonstrate this. Perhaps it would be a good topic for a thread.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I have brought this back here, and edited it, because I think this part of what you said in this thread on Russia's collapse is more pertinent here. Please forgive me editing your quote.

I cheered at the colapse of the Stalinist regimes at the time and had high hopes forthe future. Sadly, almost 20 yaers on and things have actually turned out far worse than before.

so you can actually understand why at the time SW would have seen the collapse of the Stalinist regimes as a good thing, progressive?

 

[poster342002]

I have brought this back here, and edited it, because I think this part of what you said in this thread on Russia's collapse is more pertinent here. Please forgive me editing your quote.
so you can actually understand why at the time SW would have seen the collapse of the Stalinist regimes as a good thing, progressive?

Yes, but in some cases - Afghanistan being the most obvious one in point - what was obviously coming would be far, far worse.

I'm sure you wouldn't be cheering the collapse of the Bush regime in the USA if what was likely to follow it was a KKK government - even it it was committed to withdrawing from Iraq.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yes, but in some cases - Afghanistan being the most obvious one in point - what was obviously coming would be far, far worse.

I'm sure you wouldn't be cheering the collapse of the Bush regime in the USA if what was likely to follow it was a KKK government - even it it was committed to withdrawing from Iraq.

that is a good point well made, however I would argue slightly wrong in this scales of comparison. A more accurate comparison in my opinion would be, would the victory of anti-imperialist forces in Iraq and Palestine be too high a price to pay for the collapse of the American Empire?

 

[poster342002]

that is a good point well made, however I would argue slightly wrong in this scales of comparison. A more accurate comparison in my opinion would be, would the victory of anti-imperialist forces in Iraq and Palestine be too high a price to pay for the collapse of the American Empire?

I think it would depend to a large degree on just what sort of regime took over in those places. I don't think a victory of the far-right in those places would be worth it, tbh.

 

[TremulousTetra]

hmmmm, my response to that is in the Russian thread.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think it would depend to a large degree on just what sort of regime took over in those places. I don't think a victory of the far-right in those places would be worth it, tbh.

well actually it isn't just in the Russian thread. You see I believe in social evolution. That means, there is a discernible ' logic' to the social evolution that has taken place so far, and could possibly take place in the future. As a continuation of what has happened so far I believe there is 99% chance there are two extreme possibilities, socialism or barbarism. At some point in the future there will even be a social revolution, an evolution of society, to a truly classless and stateless society OR there will be the common ruin of the antagonistic classes. I believe the contradictions and antagonisms within the current social relations are irreconcilable.

so the future isn't predictable. It is either or. I agree with you that I wouldn't like to see the victory of far right regimes in those places. but one thing is sure we cannot avoid taking part in, social evolution.

PS. But it is the case that we already have the right wing regimes in those places. (I do NOT agree with the analysis made by some people that the Bush regime, or places like Saudi Arabia, the Taleban etc are fascist.)

 

[poster342002]

As a continuation of what has happened so far I believe there is 99% chance there are two extreme possibilities, socialism or barbarism. At some point in the future there will even be a social revolution, an evolution of society, to a truly classless and stateless society OR there will be the common ruin of the antagonistic classes.

As I said on the other thread, I fear the latter is now the most likely outcome. It's getting harder and harder to see a way to the former, whilst the latter grows ever more likely.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I know where you're coming from, have been there myself many times. My belief is it is not that it is not possible, it is the muck of ages, the shit politics, that gets in the way.

The only people that can be trusted to get rid of regimes like Ceausescu, Slobodan Milosevic, the Taleban etc, are the people who live there. The best thing we can do to support them is stop our governments from funding, arming, and supporting dictatorships, terrorists etc, and fighting for revolution here.

Self-Determination!