From: "Bob Malecki" <malecki-AT-mail.bip.net> Subject: VB: (Fwd) Re:M-TH: Kosovo Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 05:28:41 +0100 -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: ricardo <davidb-AT-ak.planet.gen.nz> Till: bob malecki <malecki-AT-mail.bip.net> Datum: den 16 mars 1998 03:42 Ämne: Re: (Fwd) Re:M-TH: Kosovo > >Bob, I can't access M.Th from this address, can you forward this to M.Th >please. >Dave. > >Reply to Bob on Kosovo. > >Bob writes: >> We would certainly in Kosovo go >> into a military defense with workers and their organizations against >> chauvinist Serb pogroms directed at them. But I allso said that we would >not >> give one bit of political support to the Albanian bourgeois nationalists >who >> are asking for NATO to intervene on their side.. > >OK but how does this differ from either Hugh's position or mine. Neither of >us gives any political or military support to the Albanian bourgeois >nationalists. You on the other hand, by denying that it is national >oppression that motivates these pogroms, cannot convince the workers >organisations that you would bloc with, that you are on their side. If you >go into Kosovo with arms to bloc with workers, the first thing they will >ask you is - are you for autonomy? You will say no and get shot. On the >other hand, we will say yes, of course, but only if we workers are in >control and we do not allow the pro-imperialists to run the show. We may >still get shot, but the chances are it will be by those who are aligned to >the bosses. So, how do you break workers from their bosses without at first >declaring support for their struggle for independence? To do anything else >is to impose an ultimatum - renounce your nationalism it is false and fight >with us for socialism now - with the obvious results. > > >> Communists like the ICL took the position of revolutionary defeatism on >all >> sides in this war while opposing all outside intervention...At best Hugh >is >> tailing Bosnian Muuslim nationalism and now Albanian nationalism (albeit >> with a fake left "Trotskyist" cover) in order to ride on the wave of >> reactionary popular front politics! > >My position is NOT the same as Hugh's on Bosnia. But to say that Hugh is >tailing Albanian pro-imperialism is to admit that your politics are >irrelevant to the situation. If you think that 'intervening' in Kosovo with >your socialist ultimatum, will have any other effect than to drive workers >further into the arms of the pro-imperialists, you are dreaming. To >recognise a national oppression does not mean to 'tail' the bourgeois >leadership. It means to actually fight it on the ground, as opposed to >standing on the sidelines and shouting 'socialism'. If you are saying that >because the pro-imperialists dominate the national movement it is hopeless >to win workers to socialism, then there will be few situations in which >communists can intervene, because the working class will never be ready for >your programme. So you can then join all the other lefts who say the >working class was not ready for us, or rather, the working class was >mislead by the tailers. But this is a passive tailing of the bourgeoisie >because its handing the bosses a victory on a plate without putting up a >fight. The point is that you have to intervene, in order to win over the >working class to a socialist programme. > >> He even goes futher and shouts his support to General Galteri in >> Argentina--The Irish Question and the middle east to strengthen his >> arguement. In these three cases it is under the guise of the >> anti-imperialist United Front that Hugh and others liquidate the need >for a >> communist opposition to these Nationalists and anti-imperialist fakers. >In >> fact supporting Galteri in the war with Britain was both the Morenoite >and >> LCMCRI's Social Democratic betrayal of August 1914 where they backed >their >> own Bourgeoisie in Argentina including the bloody military who has always >> drowned the Argentinean proletariat in blood! >> >Trotsky said defend Abbysinia from Italy despite the Negus (Emperor). >Defend Brazil from the US despite the generals. Why not Argentina, Iraq, >Northern Ireland? These are colonies or semi-colonies dominated by >imperialism. The AIUF does not mean political support or military >subordination to the national bourgeoisie. That's a long-time Spartacist >sectarian position which avoids you getting your hands dirty in a bloody >anti-imperialist war. August 1914 saw the communist movement actually >voting for war credits in an inter-imperialist war. Are you saying that >Argentina, Iraq and Northern Ireland are imperialists countries? If so, >where do they get their super-profits from? > >> Hugh's latest enthusiasim on this list both over Iraq and now Albania >where >> his organization went so far as saying that Sadaam's Iraq is in the >> forefront of the anti-imperialist struggle and now his cheerleading of >> Albanian nationalism under the cover of the legitimate support of the >> national question is hardly even the Leninist position in the classical >> sense! In fact Lenin saw the national question as a NEGATIVE question and >> worked out tactics in order to move things towards a future proletarian >> solution to the problem. Trotsky too witryh his permanent revolution was >> into this also. But Hugh is into the politics of the COMINTERN of Stalin >in >> word with his utter capitulkation to these mobilizations and their >political >> content which hardly is progressive and leading forward--but in fact is >> being used by the ex-Stalinists to go backwards and create ruling classes >in >> this part of the world! >> So what we have here is both Hugh and Dave trying to use the correct >> classical position on the national question that Trotsky and Lenin had >and >> applying it to the WRONG situation and taking the working class not >> forward--but BACKWARD!!!!! > >Hugh is more than capable of defending himself. You'r right in words, the >national question is a class question, thats why we have fight on its >territory, rather than keep our hands clean by taking ultra-left purist >positions. That's exactly why Lenin granted the right of nations to >self-determination inside the SU. That's why Trotsky called for an >independent socialist republic of the Ukraine. Because in doing so, workers >in the oppressor countries must declare their solidarity with workers in >the oppressed countries to fight against national oppression and to win >them over to socialism and to fight the plans for restoration. So its not a >question of moving the national question along towards a "future >proletarian solution" , the National question is a class question from the >start. Without a proletarian policy of supporting unconditionally the >right to self-determination, there will be no "future proletarian >solution", but rather a bourgeois, reactionary, restorationist class one. > >> In fact Hugh is turning his back and supporting one side against the >other >> here. That is the problem. And Dave's banal left rhetoric of a federation >in >> a future republic maks no sense unless one understands that we do not get >> their by supporting struggles which de facto mean one side getting the >> upperhand and reversing the forms of oppression. This is what Hugh does >> concretely with his one sided support to first the Bosnians and now the >> Albanians. > >It does not follow that the Albanians will reverse the discrimation, unless >the workers are totally coopted by the pro-imperialist leadership. Are we >saying that this is already the case? Or that it must inevitably happen? >No. It is not totally the case, though the absence of a revolutionary >movement has already meant that the bosses have almost no opposition to >their pro-imperialist plans. It will happen, inevitably, only if this >situation is allowed to remain. The bosses pro-US plans will involve the >workers in reverse discrimination and a new Balkan war that may spread >accross the whole of south-East Europe. They only way to stop this is to >unite Albanian workers with Serb workers, and the international working >class, against their respective bosses. This cannot happen unless Serbian >workers defend the right of Kosovo workers to autonomy, win their >confidence by fighting alongside them against Serbian repression. Only on >this basis can a cross-national class alliance develop capable of defeating >both reactionary national leaderships. So far from a popular front, this >must be a genuine international workers unite front against national >oppression and its ultimate cause imperialism. > >> Sure Dave! Lets see you get the above off the ground. But the main slogan >of >> the Albanian nationalists is getting just NATO to solve there problems. >Just >> as the Croats want the Germans to solve there problems. Just as the Serbs >> want the Russian capitalist state to solve there problems, just as the >> Bosnian Muslims want the Allyotohahs to solve their problems. >> >Bob's radicalism really masks a deep pessimism about the Spartacists >inability to intervene to any effect in any situation. He treats history >as a qualitative piece of shit which is miraculously going to be changed >into a little piece of heaven on earth, by some external moral force >acting upon workers. Its not fate that says that every little tin-pot >nationalist dictator or warlord will win. We have to intervene in the shit >to stop these reactionaries from sucking the workers into new wars and >murder camps. You can't do that by pulling out of the game because there >are too many players who interpenetrate and break all the rules. This >interpenetration is the legacy of 1000's of years of oppression. Bosnia was >the pits because of mutual cleansing. But Kosovo has not yet seen this >happen. It will happen unless we convince Serbian workers to stop >oppressing Albanian workers in Kosovo. > >> Dave is fighting for "democracy". We Communists fight against all forms >of >> nationalist oppression--but we do this without giving one bit of >political >> support to any of the contending nationalists in the former >Yugoslavia..And >> the problem with at least Dave and Hugh's position is that they have >taken >> sides and support one of the contending bourgeoisies against the other in >> this part of the world albeit with a left face and in the name of >> "Trotskyism"... > >The irony is here that Hugh and I are clearly NOT supporting any >bourgeoisie, in fact the opposite, by trying to split workers away from >their pro-imperialist bosses. On the other hand, Bob's Spartacist position, >IS defending the Kosovo Albanian pro-imperialists by default, because >there is no way that the Spartacists can intervene on the side of the >oppressed Kosovo workers without being shot out of hand as foreign >oppressors dressed up as international communists. You can do all sorts of >things in the name of "trotskyism", including using the old man's name in >vain as you call from the side-lines. > >Dave. --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005