SWP march for poland.

[darren redparty]

articul8 said;
I don't know so much. As things stand the left is in a no win situation

- no-one wants a US puppet regime

but equally, victory for a rightist islamist coalition would only spell further oppression.

and mutley said;
- which is why the decision of the SWP to support reactionary islamic militia in afghanistan (basked by the CIA) wasn't its greatest moment.
Second - why I think you are wrong. I assume that you think that what is happening in Venezuela and Bolivia is important and should be defended against US imperialism. It is absolutely clear that it would be virtually impossible for the US to intervene with any significant military force as long as they are tied down in Iraq. So it is absolutely and unquestionably in the interests of Latin American workers that the Iraqi resistance - whatever their politics - keep fighting. The resistance in Iraq is indeed on our side

.

both of these statements in different ways show the impasse that face the 'leninist' left, on one hand articul8 ( for the best motives I feel) falls into the trap of creating false either/ors. either support the resistance or support the us puppet state. That other alternatives might be considered is inconceivable ( or worse ultra left!!).
mutleys argument, is, I think, less well intentioned. It seems that the people of Iraq are to be sacrificed in order to contain US imperialism.
This is a pretty shoddy argument. Unfortunately it is one that 'marxists' tend to fall into. And it is the result of an elitist theory that all too often reduces human beings to the passive object of history.
Personally I reject both the idea that there is no choice but to either support the resistance OR the occupation. the resistance is a reactionary stitch up of ba'athists and religious loonies, that offers the iraqi working class nothing but a choice between a bullet or a prayer, whilst the puppets in baghdad are merely the playthings of their US masters. Their can be no true free workers movement in iraq under the bayonets of the USMC!
I also reject Mutleys assertion that the Iraqi resistance is all that stands between the social democratic governments in south america and the arrival of the us military machine.
Might I suggest that the real solution for both Iraq and south america( and everywhere else) is a combatative and self confident working class, not befuddled with the siren voices of the so called 'left' trying to fool it into trusting the middle class leaderships of these 'anti imperialists' who, if victorious, would immediately turn on the workers.
may I suggest that comrades read http://www.af-north.org/thirdworld.html which rather better puts forward the argument i wish to make if I wasn't so tired.

 

[mutley]

'I also reject Mutleys assertion that the Iraqi resistance is all that stands between the social democratic governments in south america and the arrival of the us military machine. Might I suggest that the real solution for both Iraq and south america( and everywhere else) is a combatative and self confident working class, not befuddled with the siren voices of the so called 'left' trying to fool it into trusting the middle class leaderships of these 'anti imperialists' who, if victorious, would immediately turn on the workers.'

First I didn't actually say that. The resistance of workers and peasants in Latin America would also be a deterrent. But the fact that 138,000 troops are in Iraq is too. I hope they have to stay there.

Second, your position on the Chavez and Morales govts is crude to the point of idiocy. (no offense). Are you really saying that these are just to be understood as 'Social democratic govts? So there is no difference between what leftists would say in Venezuala now, and in Blair's Britain? The Morales govt is a distorted political expression of a movement that organised an insurrection last summer. The Chavez govt has been defended by mass mobilisations of workers and urban poor. Revolutionaries need to build organisations capable of independent action to be sure, but it's not the 'siren voices' that make people look to Chavez in particular, it's the fact that he has earned the unremitting hostility of imperialism and the local elites.

You really are going to have to work out some kind of analysis of imperialism mate. You can't just pretend that it doesn't exist.

 

[articul8]

.

both of these statements in different ways show the impasse that face the 'leninist' left, on one hand articul8 ( for the best motives I feel) falls into the trap of creating false either/ors. either support the resistance or support the us puppet state. That other alternatives might be considered is inconceivable ( or worse ultra left!!).

In my defence I did qualify my desciption of the impasse with "as things stand" - I agree with you (not surprisingly) that a "combative and self-confident" working class would change things utterly. But we also need to appreciate the objective barriers to its re-emergence (the Stalinist traditions of the Iraqi CP, the Ba'athist persecution of trade unionists etc.).

But, yes, that approach - however apparently utopian - is still a hell of a lot better than giving (de facto?) support to reactionary forces.

 

[darren redparty]

Actually, I concede that my post last night was rather crudely put together, I was very tired,. But Mutley has fallen into a similarly simplistic approach to social democracy. Chavez and Morales goverments cannot be social democrats because they are not the same as Blair?
What nonsense!
surely much of the critisism of the Blairites in the UK is their abandonment of social democratic norms in their pursuit of power. See The guardian, the new statesman, red pepper, ssp propaganda, spew propaganda, and speeches and writing by people such as Tony Benn, roy Hattersley, and even, George galloway.
the south american social democrats, and that is what they are, have the support of 'their' working classes, this does not stop them being social democrats- wedded to reforming capitalism through parliamentary means. Thus when it becomes a choice between the interests of the state and those of the working class they will defend the state, as their agent for change.
Perhaps Mutley might consider reading about the fate of the allende goverment- this social democrat also had the wide support of the chillian working class and the hostility of the chillian bourgeoiusie and US imperialism (at that time embroiled in a far greater imperialist intervention in south east asia). Despite continuous warnings from the workers organisations that a coup was being prepared Allende disarmed the workers and disbanded radical military units entered in talks with the right parties and invited Pinochet into goverment. The coup itself was only completed once Allende had disarmed his own supporters.
I also reject Mutleys belief that to oppose national liberation struggles means having no understanding of Imperialism, by which I assume means lenins Theory set out in 'Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism' and bukharin s 'Imperialism and the world economy'. (I have both books sitting in front of me now.) If this is the case can I ask Mutley, where is the labour Aristocracy?
as someone who still considers himself a marxist, albeit a critical one, one of the most depressing sight is when 'marxists' lose themselves in 'macro-politics'- adopting forces alien and hostile to the proletariat for the sake of a macchiavaillian approach to 'social progress'.

 

[TremulousTetra]

.

both of these statements in different ways show the impasse that face the 'leninist' left, on one hand articul8 ( for the best motives I feel) falls into the trap of creating false either/ors. either support the resistance or support the us puppet state. That other alternatives might be considered is inconceivable ( or worse ultra left!!).
mutleys argument, is, I think, less well intentioned. It seems that the people of Iraq are to be sacrificed in order to contain US imperialism.
This is a pretty shoddy argument. Unfortunately it is one that 'marxists' tend to fall into. And it is the result of an elitist theory that all too often reduces human beings to the passive object of history.

How laughable, that the people of Iraq are waiting on the pronouncements of the SWP to decide as to whether or not fight US imperialism. In REALITY the Iraqi people are fighting US imperialism, and there is nothing wrong with internationalists asking the question of outsiders "what would be best for the international working class, a victory for US imperialism or those forces ranged against US imperialism?".

Personally I reject both the idea that there is no choice but to either support the resistance OR the occupation. the resistance is a reactionary stitch up of ba'athists and religious loonies, that offers the iraqi working class nothing but a choice between a bullet or a prayer, whilst the puppets in baghdad are merely the playthings of their US masters. Their can be no true free workers movement in iraq under the bayonets of the USMC!
I also reject Mutleys assertion that the Iraqi resistance is all that stands between the social democratic governments in south america and the arrival of the us military machine.
Might I suggest that the real solution for both Iraq and south america( and everywhere else) is a combatative and self confident working class, not befuddled with the siren voices of the so called 'left' trying to fool it into trusting the middle class leaderships of these 'anti imperialists' who, if victorious, would immediately turn on the workers.
may I suggest that comrades read http://www.af-north.org/thirdworld.html which rather better puts forward the argument i wish to make if I wasn't so tired.

the starving, including myself, would love the pie in the sky you prescribe (as if we wouldn't ), but until you are somebody else goes out and creates "I combative and self-confident working-class" movement in Iraq for us to support, I will make practical decisions on the reality of the present time. Critical support does not stop one being critical. But one starts with the support and then goes to the criticisms.

There is a very simple question, would a victory of the US imperialism help combativity of the Iraqi working class? Secondly would a victory of the US imperialism help combativity of the international working class?

 

[darren redparty]

Articul8 agrees with me! ha ha in your face everyone else

seriously though, you ask what can we do in the here and now?
iraq, hell, everywhere, is not how we would like it to be so what do we do?
The SWPers ( and to be fair to them not just them but the whole Leninist tradition) maintain that we must choose between the forces on the ground.
To them that either/or dictum is central' thus; iraqi trades unionists are prevented from speaking at the esf for being opposed to the resistance. (interestingly enough the bete noir of the swp, the awl, champions the workers communist party in iraq as they agree with them on their opposition to the resistance, and ignore the wcpi's opposition to the occupation, which the awl are at best equivicable).
the swp also prevented Iranian oppositionists from speaking at an anti war march last year, as this might embarass the Iranian ambassador. ( a far cry from the days when chris harman championed the cause of the vietnamese trotskyites in front of the North Vietnamese ambassador at the VSC in 1968).
I think what is important is that we maintain the REAL alternative- that of international working class revolution.
Why MUST we choose between options dictated by capitalism? take palestine, one state or two? these are choices dictated by an assumption of; A, that race and religion are greater than class
B, that we are stuck with the nation state forever, and that there is nothing more that can be hoped for.
( actually, I decided that Class War was for me when someone pariodied them on urban as saying 'one state, two states, we say no states' and I thought YES that is what I want.)
Essentially we have to ask why become involved in far left politics?
If, as the swp say, it is to operate in the here and now and that principle is an impediment to gaining power to change things then why not join the bourgeoius parties? They are bigger and better at it and have been doing it far longer than we have.
When I joined the SWP in 1985 it was to say no to that hypocritical approach. It was in the belief that capitalism was wrong, that the state had to be overthrown in order to free ourselves and that the working class is the only agency capable of achieving this.
my question for mutley and resistance is this; when did that stop being the case?

 

[mutley]

Actually, I concede that my post last night was rather crudely put together, I was very tired,. But Mutley has fallen into a similarly simplistic approach to social democracy. Chavez and Morales goverments cannot be social democrats because they are not the same as Blair?

I didn't say that they weren't social democrats (tho' i'm not sure that description adequately describes Chavez in any case - exmilitary figure). I was saying (possibly not very clearly) that if you approach Chavez and Morales in exactly the same manner as you approach Blair then you get in a mess. In other words, if you just say - 'they're social democrats, so we can never support them in any way', then that's not good enough.

What nonsense!
surely much of the critisism of the Blairites in the UK is their abandonment of social democratic norms in their pursuit of power. See The guardian, the new statesman, red pepper, ssp propaganda, spew propaganda, and speeches and writing by people such as Tony Benn, roy Hattersley, and even, George galloway.
the south american social democrats, and that is what they are, have the support of 'their' working classes, this does not stop them being social democrats- wedded to reforming capitalism through parliamentary means. Thus when it becomes a choice between the interests of the state and those of the working class they will defend the state, as their agent for change.

Possibly but we aren't at that point NOW - and this matters! Did Chavez 'defend the interests of the state' when he refused to resign in the face of a military coup? In the face-off between the military and amass movement of the urban poor he refused to resign. 'The interests of the state' would dictate that he should have done

Perhaps Mutley might consider reading about the fate of the allende goverment- this social democrat also had the wide support of the chillian working class and the hostility of the chillian bourgeoiusie and US imperialism (at that time embroiled in a far greater imperialist intervention in south east asia). Despite continuous warnings from the workers organisations that a coup was being prepared Allende disarmed the workers and disbanded radical military units entered in talks with the right parties and invited Pinochet into goverment. The coup itself was only completed once Allende had disarmed his own supporters.

So should workers in Chile have not at least attempted to defend that govt? Of course not. The problem was that it was not possiblt to defend it adequately!

I also reject Mutleys belief that to oppose national liberation struggles means having no understanding of Imperialism, by which I assume means lenins Theory set out in 'Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism' and bukharin s 'Imperialism and the world economy'. (I have both books sitting in front of me now.) If this is the case can I ask Mutley, where is the labour Aristocracy?

I don't accept that the western working class is a labour aristocracy in the sense of a layer whose living standards are directly dependent on value produced in poorer countries. The problem of poorer nations is that they are excluded from production, not that they are super-exploited.

as someone who still considers himself a marxist, albeit a critical one, one of the most depressing sight is when 'marxists' lose themselves in 'macro-politics'- adopting forces alien and hostile to the proletariat for the sake of a macchiavaillian approach to 'social progress'.

My point is that when Imperialism attempts to wreck any attempt at independent national development in (for example) Latin America, then the conflict between a smaller nationalist regime and the big boys is not one in which revolutionaries can be neutral. Independent working class organisation fine, prepare for a revolutionary seizure of power yes. (neither of which happened in Chile) Pretend to be neutral between the likes of Chavez and Morales, and the like of Bush and Blair - No.

Are you really saying that in Nicaragua, between the Sandinista regime and the Contras you'd have been neutral??? Ur 'avin' a laugh!

Incidently, such a line would lead to complete, utter sterile isolation in reality in Latin America.

 

[dennisr]

The USSR and Poland sent food and messages of "solidarity". They also sent extra coal, which undermined the strike. Solidarity opposed the coal exports and supported the strike in every way they could.

Yep - one of the first events i was involved in with the minors support group in pompey in 1984 was putting up South Wales miners down to picket docks against the arrival of a coal ship from 'socialist' Poland at the beginning of the strike

 

[JoePolitix]

Darren

Why do you think that socialists allying with social democrats and bourgeois radicals against imperialism/rightist reaction is anti-Marxist?

 

[mutley]

I think, in response to Darren who posted while i was writng my post, that it's the question of neutrality that i have a problem with. You could argue that the swp was right when Harman criticised the VC and wrong now - that can be left - but Harman criticised the VC from a position of supporting them absolutely in the fight against the US.

Similarly, whtehr a particular speaker from Iran or wherever should speak on a demo is one thing, but the basic issue is are you neutral if they attack Iran?

It's not about joining one of the forces on the ground, it's about supporting them against Imperialism. How that translates concretely depends on the balance of forces (ie whether ethere's three of you or a mass working class movement)

As for the class war slogan 'one state two states we say no states' - that is utter utter puerile bollocks. There is absolutely no case in history, when people actually were up against imperialism, where such a slogan has actually gained a mass following. I mean for the concrete reality of (for example) the hamas election victory, such a slogan is about as useful in either explanatrory power or as a guide to action as a fart in a hurricane.

Spain? Anarchists joined the govt. (i'm not just going nyaa nyaa i mean it. The slogan has absolutely no actual concrete use in reality. it just sounds good on demos - mainly in the west)

 

[JoePolitix]

As for the class war slogan 'one state two states we say no states' - that is utter utter puerile bollocks.

That may be so but the "one state" solution only has slightly more chance of being implimented in the foreseeable future. That doesn't stop SWPers banging on about ad nuasium in that debate...

 

[TremulousTetra]

Articul8 agrees with me! ha ha in your face everyone else

seriously though, you ask what can we do in the here and now?
iraq, hell, everywhere, is not how we would like it to be so what do we do?
The SWPers ( and to be fair to them not just them but the whole Leninist tradition) maintain that we must choose between the forces on the ground.
To them that either/or dictum is central' thus; iraqi trades unionists are prevented from speaking at the esf for being opposed to the resistance. (interestingly enough the bete noir of the swp, the awl, champions the workers communist party in iraq as they agree with them on their opposition to the resistance, and ignore the wcpi's opposition to the occupation, which the awl are at best equivicable).
the swp also prevented Iranian oppositionists from speaking at an anti war march last year, as this might embarass the Iranian ambassador. ( a far cry from the days when chris harman championed the cause of the vietnamese trotskyites in front of the North Vietnamese ambassador at the VSC in 1968).
I think what is important is that we maintain the REAL alternative- that of international working class revolution.
Why MUST we choose between options dictated by capitalism? take palestine, one state or two? these are choices dictated by an assumption of; A, that race and religion are greater than class
B, that we are stuck with the nation state forever, and that there is nothing more that can be hoped for.
( actually, I decided that Class War was for me when someone pariodied them on urban as saying 'one state, two states, we say no states' and I thought YES that is what I want.)
Essentially we have to ask why become involved in far left politics?
If, as the swp say, it is to operate in the here and now and that principle is an impediment to gaining power to change things then why not join the bourgeoius parties? They are bigger and better at it and have been doing it far longer than we have.
When I joined the SWP in 1985 it was to say no to that hypocritical approach. It was in the belief that capitalism was wrong, that the state had to be overthrown in order to free ourselves and that the working class is the only agency capable of achieving this.
my question for mutley and resistance is this; when did that stop being the case?

it never did stop being the case.

In 1985 the SWP barely did anything with the rest of the revolutionary left. All its activity was based upon intervening in the reformist left. That reflected an absolute fact, the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. Where ever the working class is politically, that is where revolutionaries have to start from, not where they would like them to be. The SWP is absolutely consistent Vietnam, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, liberation theologists in SA, and etc ad nauseam, we give critical support to those standing against imperialism.

fraternal greetings ResistanceMP3

 

[darren redparty]

It seems that I have touched a few nerves.
Joepolitix asked whether I believed that socialists alliing with social democrats in the face of reaction is anti marxist- Firstly that depends on what you would describe as marxist as most 'marxism' has been statist and reformist, whether leninist,stalinist, trotskyite or social democratic then this would be perfectly 'marxist' My problem is with statist marxism's fetish of leadership that sees the class struggle through the prism of leaders, where working class leaders are not available then petty bourgeous ones will do- so long as there are always leaders.
It is possible to oppose imperialism without endorsing the regimes under imperialisms assault. Mutley raises the question of Nicaragua, an interesting choice as the swp in the eighties was noticable by its refusal to support the sandinista regime as opposed to the nicaraguan people and instead argued for a working class solution in central america. the end of the Sandinista regime is instructive especially the way in which the leadership transferred large tracts of nationalised land to themselves and Ortegas recent alliance with the former contras.
Why does it always have to be Either/or?
why is a slogan puerile bollocks if it is not supprted by HAMAS

 

[poster342002]

well if you look in my original post on the topic you can see a beautiful symmetry, the opposition to both American and Russian imperialism, support for my enemy's enemy, and the consistency with a consistent line throughout the Cold War "neither Washington nor Moscow". Now I agree with all your aspersions upon the Mujahideen so there's little room for debate there. But how could you support the Viet Kong, if every "enemy's enemy" you support has to be lilywhite first?

The Viet-Cong was nowhere near as reactionary as the Mujahadin.

 

[articul8]

that it's the question of neutrality that i have a problem with.

If I read him right, Darren wasn't arguing for a neutral position - as though it was of no consequence whether US or the islamic right won the day. He was asserting the basic need for a secular class-based movement of Iraqi workers is the prerequisite for their liberation.

victory for the US or reactionary mullahs are different kinds of defeat.

And I think to suggest that the future of workers in Bolivia or Venezuela depends on the success of right wing islamists is completely and utterly alien to the marxist approach.

 

[poster342002]

I assume that you think that what is happening in Venezuela and Bolivia is important and should be defended against US imperialism. It is absolutely clear that it would be virtually impossible for the US to intervene with any significant military force as long as they are tied down in Iraq. So it is absolutely and unquestionably in the interests of Latin American workers that the Iraqi resistance - whatever their politics - keep fighting. The resistance in Iraq is indeed on our side.

By that same logic, it would have been better if the German Nazi armies had managed to dig in for longer during WW2 as it would have tied up US forces and allowed greater opportunities for workers movements elsewhere in the world to grow without the threat of US invasion.

 

[poster342002]

your position on the Chavez and Morales govts is crude to the point of idiocy. (no offense). Are you really saying that these are just to be understood as 'Social democratic govts? So there is no difference between what leftists would say in Venezuala now, and in Blair's Britain?

Do you still consider Blair's government to even be 'social democratic'?

 

[JoePolitix]

It seems that I have touched a few nerves.
Joepolitix asked whether I believed that socialists alliing with social democrats in the face of reaction is anti marxist- Firstly that depends on what you would describe as marxist as most 'marxism' has been statist and reformist, whether leninist,stalinist, trotskyite or social democratic then this would be perfectly 'marxist'

Darren I can assure you that non of my nerves have been adversly effected by your posts. I was merely posing a playful question.

That obscure ntext known as the Communist Manifesto was fairly Marxist in my opinion. In it Chas and Fred made it perfectly clear that Communists forming alliances with the radical bourgeois and social democrats was purely a tactical question. Ultimetly it boiled down to whether or not such an alliance/bloc served the independant interests of the proletariat:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm

Personally I'm not interested in the otho-trot absolute opposition of "popular fronts" as a matter of principle. I think its sectarian nonsense.

 

[mutley]

If I read him right, Darren wasn't arguing for a neutral position - as though it was of no consequence whether US or the islamic right won the day. He was asserting the basic need for a secular class-based movement of Iraqi workers is the prerequisite for their liberation.

victory for the US or reactionary mullahs are different kinds of defeat.

And I think to suggest that the future of workers in Bolivia or Venezuela depends on the success of right wing islamists is completely and utterly alien to the marxist approach.

Not 'depends on' but possibly 'will be greatly influenced by'.

Once they've dealt with the islamists, what do you think will be next on the agenda?

 

[mutley]

By that same logic, it would have been better if the German Nazi armies had managed to dig in for longer during WW2 as it would have tied up US forces and allowed greater opportunities for workers movements elsewhere in the world to grow without the threat of US invasion.

No, the nazi armies were an equal threat to workers around the world. Right wiong elements in the iraqi resistance aren't

 

[TremulousTetra]

It seems that I have touched a few nerves.
Joepolitix asked whether I believed that socialists alliing with social democrats in the face of reaction is anti marxist- Firstly that depends on what you would describe as marxist as most 'marxism' has been statist and reformist, whether leninist,stalinist, trotskyite or social democratic then this would be perfectly 'marxist' My problem is with statist marxism's fetish of leadership that sees the class struggle through the prism of leaders, where working class leaders are not available then petty bourgeous ones will do- so long as there are always leaders.
It is possible to oppose imperialism without endorsing the regimes under imperialisms assault. Mutley raises the question of Nicaragua, an interesting choice as the swp in the eighties was noticable by its refusal to support the sandinista regime as opposed to the nicaraguan people and instead argued for a working class solution in central america. the end of the Sandinista regime is instructive especially the way in which the leadership transferred large tracts of nationalised land to themselves and Ortegas recent alliance with the former contras.
Why does it always have to be Either/or?
why is a slogan puerile bollocks if it is not supprted by HAMAS

this is precisely what I am talking about above, you have to start from where the working class are politically.

so the critical support for the Sandinista regime from the SWP recognised that the working class there was much further on and raising the argument of "power to the 'workers councils' " was not an abstract argument. (either way we still opposed imperialism and wanted defeat for the American attempts to overthrow the regime, the Contras etc).

in the case of Hamas there is a very simple question, does the election of a Hamas government reflect where the Palestinian working class are ideologically? I personally agree with all the criticisms Chomsky made of the PLO. The PLO were a bunch of gangsters, who did nothing to further the cause of the Palestinian people, but I supported them in their opposition to imperialism while being critical of them. Likewise with Hamas now the working classes there.

in the Labour Party, in the Catholic Church, in the synagogue, in the mosque from wherever the working class opposes imperialism revolutionaries should stand shoulder to shoulder in the opposition, AND THEN be critical.

fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3

 

[JoePolitix]

No, the nazi armies were an equal threat to workers around the world. Right wiong elements in the iraqi resistance aren't

Equal? Surely much more of a threat?

Unless there is no difference for workers between bourgeois democracy and fascism

 

[TremulousTetra]

The Viet-Cong was nowhere near as reactionary as the Mujahadin.

you haven't read my posts have you?

 

[mutley]

It is possible to oppose imperialism without endorsing the regimes under imperialisms assault. Mutley raises the question of Nicaragua, an interesting choice as the swp in the eighties was noticable by its refusal to support the sandinista regime as opposed to the nicaraguan people and instead argued for a working class solution in central america.

No, we were for a defeat for the US. We argued hard that that necessitated independent revolutionary action, but we were not neutral between the Sandinistas and the US

the end of the Sandinista regime is instructive especially the way in which the leadership transferred large tracts of nationalised land to themselves and Ortegas recent alliance with the former contras.

So they lost and they ratted on people. That doesn't mean neutrality when they were still - in however a vascillating sense - fighting.

Why does it always have to be Either/or?
why is a slogan puerile bollocks if it is not supprted by HAMAS

I didn't say 'if it's not supported by Hamas'!! I said that the slogan has got neither explanatory or effective mobilising power in the face of real - tortuous and twisted - developments such as the Hamas victory.

It's puerile bollocks whatever Hamas think of it.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Equal? Surely much more of a threat?

Unless there is no difference for workers between bourgeois democracy and fascism

I think that was probably a slip of the tongue joe.

 

[cockneyrebel]

the question is what was the difference between American imperialism in Vietnam, a Russian imperialism in Afghanistan?

That assumes on whether you would have called the USSR imperialist. Groups like the SP and WP didn't.

 

[mutley]

Equal? Surely much more of a threat?

Unless there is no difference for workers between bourgeois democracy and fascism

Yes. I was thinking of the last period when they controlled a shrinking slice of central europe but i agree there is a qualitative difference.

 

[nwnm]

"That assumes on whether you would have called the USSR imperialist. Groups like the SP and WP didn't."

Yes, that meant that groups such as the SP and yourselves weren't particularly consistent in their opposition to stalinist regimes. When the wall was coming down in East Germany for example Militant, [predecessor of 'The Socialist'] argued whilst thousands of workers and students were on the streets of "not ruling out joint work with the Communist party [i.e. the ruling party in East Germany] against the restoration of capitalism" (Militant 12/1/1990). So in a battle between the workers and students and the state apparatus, you want to side with the ruling party which sent troops onto the streets to crush a strike wave in the 'GDR' in the 1950s? Would your 'united front' have included the Stasi?

 

[herman]

The point of my OP was this- no movement was going to gain much ground in Eastern Europe during the 80s by offering any brand of free market capitalism. Thus those who would desire an outcome of a market oriented Europe would more than likely box clever and support opposition groups who talked left, whether this was the groups were left wing in practice or not.

In the power politics of the time any opposition to the USSR (whether left in practice or not) would have been favourable to Washington as it would have been a means to sew division.

I am astounded that anyone could not have seen this strategy for what it was.

To be critical of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc states is one thing, but for any on the left to support the free market as an alternative is criminal.

While this is all in the past the outcomes of such a strategy are clear as daylight today.

Incidentally now that the then friends of the SWP are the ruling class the future is not looking especially rosey for those who worked in the shipyards where all this started. Backing a union is one thing, but this was like backing the UDM.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Yes, that meant that groups such as the SP and yourselves weren't particularly consistent in their opposition to stalinist regimes. When the wall was coming down in East Germany for example Militant, [predecessor of 'The Socialist'] argued whilst thousands of workers and students were on the streets of "not ruling out joint work with the Communist party [i.e. the ruling party in East Germany] against the restoration of capitalism" (Militant 12/1/1990). So in a battle between the workers and students and the state apparatus, you want to side with the ruling party which sent troops onto the streets to crush a strike wave in the 'GDR' in the 1950s? Would your 'united front' have included the Stasi?

It also meant that the SWP (and its predecessor) had very strange views on things like the Korean War and supported proxy armies of the CIA in Afghanistan. All the time while equating the USSR with the USA. The fact that until those regimes collapsed capitalist economists wouldn't include their economic data in world economic figures (because they weren't capitalist economies) seemed to go right over your heads.....