Lenin and the Iraqi “resistance”

Submitted by Anon on 18 November, 2006 - 2:14

The SWP isn’t keen on systematic discussion of ideas — but on the few occasions when its publications do make a nod towards theory, they tend to rely on a small number of well-worn quotations. Among SWP favourites at the moment is this, written by Lenin in July 1916, and now used to justify support for the so-called resistance in Iraq:

“To imagine that a social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against national oppression. . .is to repudiate social revolution. . .Whoever expects a ‘pure’ social revolution will never live to see it.”

Lenin was discussing the Easter Rising against British rule in Ireland which had taken place earlier that year. In the Winter 2005 edition of the SWP’s International Socialism journal, Anne Alexander and Simon Assaf represent this statement, out of context, as follows: “Lenin bitterly attacked those socialists who were more interested in their own political differences with the rebellion’s nationalist leadership than with the impact the uprising had on the British ruling class”. But was this actually Lenin’s point?

In fact, Lenin’s target was not those who criticised the rising’s leaders. His own implied description — “the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices” - was hardly flattering.

The background was a long-running debate between Lenin and other revolutionaries - Bukharin, Pyatakov and, in this case, Radek - who argued that, under full-blown imperialism, national struggles were no l onger possible. Radek dismissed the Easter Rising as a putsch, a tiny conspiracy of no social importance because the land question in Ireland had been defused. Lenin said no, it was proof that national struggles could and would still erupt.

Lenin: “It manifested itself in street fighting conducted by a section of the urban petty bourgeoisie and a section of the workers after a long period of mass agitation, demonstrations, suppression of newspapers, etc. Whoever calls such a rebellion a ‘putsch’ is either a hardened reactionary or a doctrinaire hopelessly incapable of envisaging a social revolution as a living phenomenon.”

Moreover, he goes on: “the class conscious vanguard of the revolution, the advanced proletariat, expressing [the] objective truth of a variegated and discordant, motley and outwardly fragmented, mass struggle, will be able to unite and direct it”. Far from advancing the idea, as the SWP do, that the working class and the left should keep quiet until national liberation has been achieved, Lenin advocated a fight for working-class leadership of national struggles.

This attitude to Ireland was in line with Lenin’s more general approach to national liberation movements: “the given war or revolt [must be] assessed on the strength of its real social content (the struggle of an oppressed nation for its liberation from the oppressor nation)… If we do not want to betray socialism we must support every revolt against our chief enemy, the bourgeoisie of the big states, provided it is not the revolt of a reactionary class” (our emphasis). Elsewhere he wrote: “Imperialism is as much our mortal enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism...Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism” (our emphasis).

So, according to Lenin, national liberation movements must be assessed on their real social content. Where they represent struggles by the oppressed for liberation from their oppressor, they should be supported. Where they represent the struggle for power of a reactionary class, they should not.

In fact, Lenin almost seems to have anticipated that some would misuse his general idea of support for anti-imperialist struggles:

“The several demands of democracy, including self-determination, are not an absolute, but only a small part of the general-democratic (now: general-socialist) world movement. In individual cases, the part may contradict the whole; if so it must be rejected… no democratic demand can fail to give rise to abuses, unless the specific is subordinated to the general; we are not obliged to support either ‘any’ struggle for independence or ‘any’ republican or anti-clerical movement… no formula for the struggle against national oppression can fail to suffer from the same ‘shortcoming’.”

Now apply these criteria to the reactionaries of the Ba’athist-cum-Islamist “resistance” in Iraq! The point is not to treat Lenin as a prophet and pretend we know what his attitude to Iraq today would have been, but to establish that his method of analysing the world was the opposite of what the SWP, for its own reasons, claims it was.

Bishops and brickies

Following the 24 September anti-war demonstration, the SWP’s Lindsey German, who is convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, boasted to the BBC about the explicitly cross-class character of the organisation she leads: “The Stop the War Coalition have received support for this demonstration from musicians, artists, academics, theatre and film personalities, business [!], religious and trade union leaders… The Lib Dems have this week called for our withdrawal, Anglican bishops have added their voice to this demand.”

At least she gets trade unionists in somewhere… but how is this any different from the Popular Front strategy of uniting “bishops and brickies” which the Stalinist Communist Party pursued from the 1930s till its ignominious demise?

Conservatives and cops

On a similar note, have a look at the list of signatories for the “Only united communities will defeat terrorism and protect civil liberties” statement, which is being launched at a public meeting at Westminster Central Hall on 12 October. As well as various trade unionists, Labour MPs and the NUS, it includes not only the typical array of right-wing religious leaders and Socialist Action-linked “campaigns” — but also members of the House of Lords, Tory MPs and councillors and the Met Black Police Association. Fantastic. . .

8-10-2005

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.