Iraq: should we call for "troops out now"?
Solidarity is opening a discussion on whether or not we should call for the troops to get out of Iraq now. Short contributions to that debate are welcome.
Solidarity with Iraqi workers! Troops out now!
by David Broder
"What we refuse to do, and it is the crux of our dispute with Barry Finger, is raise a 'demand', Troops Out Now, whose likely, calculable, practical consequences we do not want. Which may well bring on a catastrophe that will abort all the possibilities that the rising labour movement is opening for the working class of Iraq."
(Solidarity 3/84, 17 November 2005)
Above, Sean Matgamna claims that calling for the withdrawal of troops is to demand a "catastrophe" to rain down on the labour movement - a cut-and-run would accelerate a civil war in which the workers would be crushed. It is true that kidnappings and murders of workers are overwhelmingly perpetrated by Islamists rather than by the US/UK occupation - apart from the December 2003 raid of the IFTU headquarters in Baghdad, deliberate military attacks on workers by the Americans have been relatively few.
Yet implicit in the argument that workers would suffer if the troops left is the idea that their presence serves as some sort of defence for workers - even if not "deliberately". If the occupiers' departure would leave the workers more vulnerable, it follows that one of the characteristics of the occupation must be preventing the annihilation of workers. But in reality, in no way has the presence of foreign forces protected trade union activity. The authorities take no action whatsoever to guard union buildings, Decree 8750 has made union activity effectively illegal, and they take no steps to save kidnapped labour activists. Islamists are given free rein to attack them across the country. The coalition appears happy to let this happen, as long as they are not attacking US/UK troops. The trade union movement exists semi-illegally, with no help whatsoever from the government - it organises in spite of the civil war going on around it, rather than because of "democratic space" under the occupation.
To the anger of workers, the imperialists have plundered the country's resources, privatising industries and stealing oil. Given that the Islamists are already attacking workers, particularly trade unionists, at will, the assertion that the withdrawal of troops would result in a sudden outburst of anti-worker massacres crudely ignores the reality.
The occupation serves as a recruiting agent for Islamism and a catalyst for violence - the groups which grow in "resistance" to it represent a huge danger for workers. The presence of coalition troops feeds the "legitimacy"
and support for "resistance" groups. Their policies have made the armed groups bigger and the ethnic tensions greater. Of course, the fact that the invasion has brought the Islamist groups to prominence does not mean that the withdrawal of troops would cause the Islamists to collapse. Their organisations have grown strong and sunk roots. However, a catalyst for their growth would be removed.
The role of imperialist troops is not to defend bourgeois democracy - even "our" government appears to be giving up on that. The troops will do nothing but defend themselves, defend the contractors, defend their barracks, until the imperialist powers finally go home. If they'd gone home three years ago, the Islamists would probably have been less able to grow. But that isn't the central question.
The point is surely that as Marxists hostile to both bourgeois-authoritarian "alternatives" posed in Iraq, it is not our role to predict which reactionary force is "better" than another, or what either might do if it won out militarily. I deny that the argument for "troops out now" relies on any conjecture about what might happen in the future. Our role is to support a working-class, democratic alternative, and use any avenue by which it might grow. The occupation of Iraq is one of the obstacles to this, not an alternative "solution". In this atmosphere, it is unfortunate that in many articles in our press comrades have made abstract conjecture about imperialism being able in some cases to play a world-historic progressive role, as if that could be relevant to the situation in Iraq.
In 1969 we argued within the IS for "troops out" of Northern Ireland, against slogans accepting British troops' role in preventing all-out chaos but also demanding they stay in their barracks. We pointed out that no independent working-class voice would grow if it relied on an imperialist army. How can it have true independence if it accepts the rule of bigger, reactionary forces? How could that appeal to the nationally oppressed? A huge majority of Iraqis oppose the occupation, and the workers' movement would be weakened if it argued that its own existence is reliant on the imperialists not giving up.
Who is in charge in Iraq?
If the scenario in Iraq was ever as clear-cut as being one of an all-out war pitting occupying troops against the Sunni and Shi'a sectarians (in which workers are a passive force simply "caught in the middle") - it is certainly not so now.
It is becoming increasingly less clear where the Islamist militias end and the proto-state structures of the imperialist occupation begin. It is becoming redundant to even talk of "the resistance". The most powerful and hegemonic elements of the movement to which this term refers are just as eager to work within the occupation's structures as they are to "resist" them.
The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), whose militia - the Badr Corps - is one of the best-armed and most dangerous in Iraq, has had representation on every "government" committee that the occupation has thrown up. Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army controls Sadr City, and the Badr Corps controls police authorities in some areas of Baghdad and uses them as instruments to conduct their struggle against women and LGBT people.
Far from acting as a bulwark against clerical-fascism or defending (by accident or design) democratic spaces against it, the occupation and its structures have given forces like the Mahdi Army and the Badr Corps untold power in Iraq, and opportunities they would not possibly have if they were simply sectarian militias engaged in guerrilla warfare.
The idea that the democratic space in which trade unions can operate remains open only because both the occupation and "the resistance" are too busy dealing with each other to devote too much energy into trying to shut it down looks increasingly spurious as the lines between them blur, and the most dangerous and threatening clerical-fascist forces become enmeshed in the occupation's structures.
The clerical-fascists are not, as we have consistently pointed out, national liberation forces who just happen to be right-wing. They are the representatives of local capital (and Iranian sub-imperialism) engaged in rivalry with international capital and US hyper-imperialism. Their aim is power in Iraq, and if they can advance this aim better by collaborating with occupation forces and working within the structures it has established, then they will. Clearly, this is the route they are choosing; refusing to raise demands for the end of the occupation because we want to keep "the resistance" powerless is a meaningless position.
Why "troops out now"?
The phrase "troops out now" is used poisonously by the SWP etc., who do not in fact aim for a withdrawal of US/UK troops under pressure from a mass working-class anti-imperialist movement in the UK linked to anti-imperialist workers in Iraq. Instead, they hope that the goodwill of political Islam in the UK along with a few "Trotskyists" will help the military victory of Muqtada al-Sadr, Al-Qaeda and allied forces.
The agency of troop withdrawal implied by the words is not however the "resistance". "Troops out now" is a demand placed upon the imperialist powers themselves. With the political weakness of both Bush's and Blair's governments, any serious anti-war movement would be able to put sufficient political pressure on them that they would be forced to abandon their
project to dominate the Middle East. Even the Tories, opportunistically, are trying to do this.
We should spell out quite clearly that we are in favour of the imperialist adventure ending immediately. No qualms, no qualification - immediate withdrawal is not a timetable, but a demand that they abandon all of their plans.
Against the occupation?
Our oft-repeated slogan "Against the occupation", if it comes with the proviso that troops leaving would make the situation worse, simply means abstract dismay that it is "necessary" for the occupation to continue until the workers can pose a serious challenge. As if it were like the birth of capitalism - historically progressive, but a pity it was so exploitative. Believing (or indeed, having the courage to admit you believe) that the withdrawal of troops would kill the remaining hope for Iraqi workers is to concede to the idea that imperialist troops, who barely dare to venture out into the streets, can help build a better, lasting solution for Iraq than the reactionary parties. Yet now the Americans leak plans to use Ba'athist Syria, along with clerical fascists like the Iranian government and Muqtada al-Sadr, to enforce law and order on their behalf! Another attack on Iraq's independence.
The continuing presence of foreign troops is part of the problem, and must be actively resisted - opposing imperialism is a key task for the Iraqi labour movement, and must be represented sloganistically.
Some protection
By Sacha Ismail
Of course, the occupation does not exist to protect the labour movement in any sense. But it is nonetheless true that, as against the "resistance" and the gangsters, its rule and that of its sponsored government provide some very limited space for the labour movement to exist. Can you deny that the Iraqi left and labour movement basically exist in occupied territory, not territory controlled by the "resistance"?
In normal capitalist countries, I don't think the police "protect the labour movement". But as against organised criminals and gangsters, I think the bourgeois rule of law gives the working class more space to operate. I am opposed to both gangsterism/organised crime and the state! I accept that the analogy is not perfect (I acknowledge the occupation is something more violently undemocratic and illegitimate than a 'normal' bourgeois' state, and that we need to be more even-handed here). But it tells us something. In both cases the nature and totality of the relations involved conditions how we oppose our more powerful bourgeois enemy. We do not at the moment raise the slogan "abolish the police". We are for the abolition of the police, but the immediate realisation of that slogan would not mean working-class power but anarchy and free run for people who are on balance worse than the bourgeois state. And, similarly, we should not say "Troops out now" or "End the occupation now", because, though we are for the removal of troops and the end of the occupation, the immediate realisation of the slogan would very likely mean numerous deaths and the labour movement being crushed in an all-out civil war.
No adequate slogans
By Clive Bradley
For sure, Iraq is already verging on catastrophe. If there was ever the possibility that the US and its allies might introduce some kind of functioning bourgeois democracy, it seems pretty much long in the past now. The occupation has played a role in fostering civil war - by forming alliances on sectarian bases, and so on - as well as simply having no plan beyond neo-con abstractions, alienating people whose good will they actually had, etc.
Much of the pro-war left likes to say that since it's the "resistance" killing people, the occupation can't be held responsible. This is bullshit. One half of the sectarian civil war is coming from two groups in the government - the Sadrists and the Badr brigades (it takes two sides for a sectarian civil war); and in any case, the idea that you hold no responsibility for going into a place with a programme of ideological abstractions and turn it into hell on earth doesn't wash, morally or in any other way.
But it is perfectly possible to make the assessment that, bad as things are, with withdrawal they will get even worse. If the Americans withdraw, the Maliki government will simply collapse. There will be no central authority at all, and all hell will break loose.
That I think is the key thing. It's true that the US army has limited real power, and has lost control of vast swathes of the country. But the occupation remains the real source of power of the state, or remains the substitute for a state, or whatever phrase is best; and its withdrawal would amount to the collapse of the state.
If that happens, I don't know what the immediate result will be. Almost certainly hundreds of thousands of people will flee, or try to; the militias will go crazy. It could be that in the relatively short or medium term that the Sunni groups will lose. But it would be naive to count on it. The sectarian hostilities seem now to be very deep. The Sunni groups will be sustained by hatred for the Shia, by revenge for the actions of the death squads, and all the rest of it.
We could well see the partition of the country, and ethnic cleansing. The Kurds will want to lock the craziness out, somehow - but they also want Mosul and Kirkuk...
It is entirely wrong to argue for "troops out now" on the basis of some kind of conviction that you know that things will be better, etc. We don't know. What then? Slogans are tools for mobilisation. In the UK, should we be aiming to mobilise people around the demand for withdrawal?
If reality is too complex and too uncertain to sum up in a slogan, well, that's one of the troubles with reality. We can say everything we need to say about the occupation without, necessarily, having to devise a snappy slogan which saves us the trouble of explaining anything. I would want to say a lot of things which David says. But if there is a reason to chant "troops out now", or use that as a headline, it needs to be because it implies something concrete.
Clearly, there isn't much chance of building a mass solidarity campaign with the Iraqi labour movement. But the need for one should still be our focus - because whatever happens as a result of decisions made by forces we don't control, the labour movement needs solidarity.
We should say: "The occupation is a disaster. We don't really know what will happen if and when they withdraw, though clearly it's been a disaster. But whatever happens, the labour movement, women's movement, etc, need our solidarity." Not snappy. But that's life.
Iraqi workers must oppose occupation
By Daniel Randall
Comrades may have seen an episode of The Simpsons in which a wild bear is found roaming the streets of Springfield. The whole town panics, and to appease the irate townsfolk the Mayor spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on a "Bear Patrol", featuring satellites, stealth-planes, ground troops and all sorts.
Sure enough, no more bears are found on the streets. The "Bear Patrol" is seen as a success. Only little Lisa sees through it; she picks up a rock from the ground, and says to her dad "by your logic, dad, I could just as well say that this rock keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers around, do you?"
Homer thinks about this for a couple of seconds, and then says "Lisa...I'd like to buy your rock..."
The rock is the troops, Homer is the Iraqi labour movement, and the bears/tigers are "the resistance". I'm sure you get the picture.
It's not clear to me that the Iraqi labour movement only exists because of the "protection" (de facto or not) that the presence of imperialist troops provides for it. Clearly, it's the case that the invasion of Iraq opened up the (limited) space that allowed unions like the UUI and GUOE to organise. But we shouldn't read off political conclusions from this; to draw an analogy, it's probably the case that a US invasion of Cuba would give Cuban workers more "space" than they currently enjoy, but I'm certain no-one in the AWL would think about advocating it.
There's a very strong case for saying that the "protection" the occupation provides is outweighed by the damaging potential of its own ambitions as a capitalist-imperialist project as well as its symbiotic relationship with "the resistance"; on the one hand, multi-level de facto complicity (more on that later), and on the other the catalytic relationship that David's already talked about. Every day of "protection" that the occupation provides is also a day of galvanisation and growth for "the resistance".
It is an inescapable reality that if you don't want the troops to leave because the consequences would be bad, you must prefer (not positively desire, but prefer) for them to stay.
Anyway, in significant parts of Iraq, "the resistance" is already in control. The Badr Corps and the Mahdi Army already control the police force in some areas.The enmeshment of "the resistance" with the state structures (such as they exist) makes the "the troops are fighting the resistance" paradigm seem a little shallow. In fact, "the resistance" is in control of the structures the troops helped put in place.
Also, the presence of imperialist troops in Iraq is a violation of the right to self-determination. Or are we saying that the space for workers to organise overrides democratic questions? Then why not advocate US invasions of Cuba and wherever else?
It's important to make such assessments about what would happen if the troops leave, but we don't always base our slogans on such judgements. The logic of the argument seems to be that, as the labour movement is not currently strong enough to survive without the troops, it would be unwise to advocate the troops' withdrawal even if we don't actually want the troops to be there. My view is that the labour movement will not and cannot become strong enough to be a socially hegemonic force if it is shackled to this kind of de facto reliance on the protection of the occupation. It will only strengthen itself in opposition to and in struggle against its enemies - which, as we all agree, quite prominently includes the US occupation.
I'm not necessarily in favour of "troops out now" as a slogan, and I agree that the primary slogan should be "solidarity with Iraqi workers"). I think it's necessary to state that the occupation plays a reactionary role, and that its presence violates democracy and self-determination in Iraq. "Troops out" or "end the occupation" are sufficient slogans; "troops out now" has, in my view, been poisoned by its usage in the British anti-war movement and struggling to "reclaim" it is probably possible but not worth our bother.
The point of our slogans is not to give military timetables to the bourgeoisie, but to build up the working-class as an independent political force at home and abroad; in short, to build the third camp.
The logic of our activity on Iraq (primarily through Iraq Union Solidarity) has been about doing this. I think it's time our slogans caught up.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Solidarity and "Out Now"
Clive -- there is no contradiction between building solidarity with the Iraqi labor movement AND building a movement that demands "out now" along with the other demands I listed:
- all U.S. military bases dismantled
- all intelligence agents and civilian occupation personnel repatriated
- all "free-market" economic decrees annulled
- all sweetheart contracts and appointees made revocable and removable at the democratic discretion of the Iraqi people
- and the U.S. and UK committing reparations to fund Iraq's reconstruction
And we should be demanding that all these things happen NOW, regardless of the balance of forces or the likelihood of their implementation.
From Kamil Mahdi, a political exile from Iraq
From http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Dec2006/dec-06-iraq.htm
"If the occupation suddenly comes to an end, there is probably going to be more violence in the short term. This is to be expected. But I think if the US was to set a date for withdrawal, an unambiguous one, there would be a good chance of a political process emerging to try to find from within Iraq a way of managing conflicts in the post-occupation period.
It is now clear that there are a number of forces in Iraq engaged in a war between themselves. There are a number of sectarian based parties, as well as violent forces, that are associated with the new institutions. There are all kinds of militias – not just the sectarian militias we hear about, but also lots of so-called security companies, which have a largescale armed presence in various parts of the country and are probably responsible for a lot of the violence.
Then there are the many security arms of specific parts of the state. Virtually every ministry has its own separate security force. These have been nominally coordinated and controlled by the US occupation, but in general they have not been well controlled and have even been used by the occupation for its own violent purposes. They certainly provide very little security for the population.
Some of these forces will clearly disappear with the end of the occupation. The foreign mercenaries have to go, as do the foreign bases. No Iraqi will accept foreign mercenaries in Iraq, and it is really a blight on civilisation to have these thugs and criminals renamed as ‘security consultants’.
The conflict is being accentuated while there remain so many outside players that can disturb the political process, as is the case now, and while the country remains under an occupation that is completely incapable of controlling security and is fuelling further fragmentation. But looking at the range of political forces in Iraq, it remains possible to conceive of a political process that might lessen the military conflict.
Of course, this is not what Iraqi democrats aspire to. We don’t aspire to a state of fewer armed groups fighting a little less among themselves. But at least this would open the way for some economic regeneration and political change – and, perhaps, help lead the country towards a genuine peace."
OK
Yes, these seem like good demands to me. And sure, now. Personally I don't see how they commit you to troops out now as a slogan, but at least this clarifies what we don't disagree about.
Logic
Daniel says, no one in the AWL would advocate a US invasion of Cuba, and says if the imperialist presence in Iraq provides space for the Iraqi Labour Movement then shouldn't we argue for a US invasion of Cuba to provide space for the Cuban Labour Movement.
I have to say Daniel be careful about putting ideas in people's heads. I'm sure that in the ranks of LFIQ such thoughts are already being formed. Unfortunately, it is the consequence of Schactmanite Third Campism which as Trotsky predicted means giving cover for imperialism, a moralistic view that bourgeois or imperialist "democracy" is morally superior to "Stalinist" dictatorship. Trotsky pointed out that this ideological trend arose on the back of severe pessimism in relation to the ability of the working class, and of the succumbing of petit-bourgeois elements, separated from the working class, to pressure from the petit-bourgeois liberal milieu.
The Schactmanites having refused to defend the socialised property relations in the USSR took the same position in relation to North Korea, and Schactman acted on behalf of US imperialism over Vietnam. The AWL welcomed and supported the capitalist forces of Yeltsin who was undoubtedly backed by imperialism in dismantling the nationalised and collectivised property in the USSR. The logical extension of that would of course to be at least indifferent to attempts by a "democratic" imperialism to overthrow "totalitarian" Stalinism in Cuba.
It is not just now that the opposition to "Troops Out" is wrong from a Marxist perspective it has been wronmg from the beginning. A perpsective of building an independent working class alternative inside and out of Iraq could never be achieved whilst at the same time providing left cover for imperialism with the ridiculous notion that it was in some sense protecting the Iraqi Labour Movement. Only by manking clear that the opposition to both imperialism and to the clerical-fascists and their bourgeois allies was total could that be achieved. The only slogan that could have achieved that was "Imperialist Troops and Foreign Fighters Out Now, For a Secular Democratic Iraq". On that basis the Labour Movement could have carried through the tasks of a bourgeois revolution in Iraq to achieve the requirements of self-determination against both imperialism and the clerical-fascists - both those of the Resistance and Al Qaeda and those represented by the Shia clerical forces - drawing in behind it the Iraqi peasantry and petit-bourgoisie, and could have addressed the needs of the Kurds and other minorities. In the process of that struggle the Labour Movement with the support of the international working class could have strengthened its position, and through the natural logic of Permanent Revolution it would have become increasingly clear that these bourgeois democratic tasks could only be completed if the working class, drawing the peasantry and petit-bourgeoise behind it went further than just a bourgeois democratic revolution.
Would such a strategy have succeeded? In all honesty given the weakness of the Labour Movement in Iraq, and the weakness of the international Labour Movement compared to the power of imperialism and the clerical-fascist forces in Iraq, probably not. As Marxists we should always tell the truth even when it is unpalatable. But it was the corect course none the less. Lenin said that he fully expected his revolution to fail, but that even with that knowledge it was the right thing to do, because in carrying it rhough the working class would learn invaluable lessons, and the alternative was to teach the working class the wrong lesson i.e. to be submissive, not to fight, or worse to sow illusions in the ability of the bourgeoisie to act progressively in such circumstances.
Unfortunately, as Trotsky pointed out in relation to the anti-marxist poltiics of the Schactmanites in the US this pessimism in relation to the working class - which arose conjuncturally in the 1930's at a time of working class defeats and a low point in the Kondratiev long wave, just as similar pessimism has arisen during the late 1980's and 90's after a simiklar period of defeats and an identical point in the Kondratiev Long Cycle - leads instead to a seearhing for alternative forces to that class. For Burnham it was the Bureuacratic elite, for Schactman it was "democratic" imperialism. Today the inheritors of these politics have found on the one hand political islam as the alternative, on the other for LFIQ and at least some comrades in the AWL it is bouregois democracy or progressive imperialism. Reading other articles in relation to the Labour Party, for isntance, I notice a similar pessimism, in relation to the NHS there are calls for defence, but nothing about offence, nothing that calls for a real independent working class alternative to the existing inadequate, bureuacratic, inefficient state capitalist provision, in short a call simply for the bourgeois state to respond to the appeals for moral rectitude, for a civilised approach to respond to common sense.
Pat Murphy's latest article in relation to the McDonnell campaign I found a welcome releif from that perspective. Only the resurgence of the working class will brush aside that petit-bourgeois pessimism, but in the proicess it will become vital for the working class to renew its leadership, to put in place new leaders in whom the spirit of revolutionary optimism is instilled.
Arthur Bough
Addenda
Daniel,
If you think I was exaggerating in relation to Cuba consider the following. There have been many articles in Solidarity and on the website arguing for unconditional defence of the NHS in Britain i.e. no mention of its inefficient, bureuacratic, state capitalist nature. There has not been one demand as far as I can see even for a democratisation of the health service let alone demands for workers and patients control within it, still less direct workers ownerswhip.
In contrast to this unconditional defene of an unquestionably state capitalist enterprise established by a bourgeois state, and still controlled by a bourgeois state what has been said about defending the far superior socialised healthcare and education systems in Cuba. Paul Hampton has written some excellent articles on the background to the Cuban revolution etc. yet at a time when those socilaised healthcare and education systems - which are probably far more important to Cuban workers than the NHS is to the average British worker - there has not been one single comment about whether we should defend those socialised systems in Cuba, and if so how.
Why is that? The reason is simply. To call for defence of socialised healthcare in Cuba would mean admitting that it is progressive. But if socialised healthcare in Cuba is progressive, then all other socialised production in Cuba is progressive too, and should be defended. But that goes against the whole basis of the Schactmanite version of the Third Camp.
Arthur Bough
Or alternatively...
... all welfare programmes under whichever social system are broadly progressive and therefore to be defended, so this is simply a non issue.
That Cuba has a health service is no more proof that the country is a workers' state than that we have an NHS proves Britain is.
Fine
That's good. So when can we expect to see the articles calling on the workers to defend the socialised healthcare and other socialised property relations in Cuba then? And what can we expect to be the policy and tactics on defending those socialised property relations if the Cuban bureaucracy or sections of it also defend them against attempts by the US or Cuban capital to overthrow them.
Arthur Bough
Giggle
Clive,
While I was in the gym yesterday I was thinking about what you said while trying distract myself from the burning in my legs. I have to say the more I thought about it I had to suppress a giggle.
My understanding is - and if I am wrong believe me I would love to be corrected - that the AWL rejects TRotsky's demand for Defence of Degenerated and Deformed Workers States and instead accepts Schactman's version of the Third Camp - as Trotsky pointed out at the time exactly what this Third Camp was he didn't really know as he believed that in terms of classes there was only the camp of the bourgeoisie and the camp of the proletariat, and if you were talking about camps other than class based camps then there were far more than three. If I understand the position correctly that is why the AWL supported the Yeltsin bourgeois political counter-revolution - though how that fits in with supporting neither camp I don't really see, it sounds more like TRotsky's analysis that those who turned their back on defenceof the USSR would find themselves giving at least tacit support to imperialism.
But thinking specifically then about Cuba I am then puzzled as to just how your position outlined above of defending socialised healthcare would be applied. Are you really saying that your position would be to call on workers to organise defecne around their hospitals, clinics etc. because these are progressive, but to not defend their factories, shops and offices because they are reactionary state capitalist/bureuacratic collectivist property???? Do you really beleive that the US troops, or ex-pat Cuban forces led by the CIA would be making such a distinction? And what other than overturning all of these property relations do you think such a counter-revolution would be aimed at?
I was also trying to work out exactly what you would do when workers encircled by well armed and US led covert forces at one of these healthcare facilities saw Cuban troops coming down the road to help defend the facility. Would you be calling on the workers to also turn their fire upon them as class enemies too, not part of the Third Camp?
Arthur Bough
The 'third camp'...
... is Trotsky's phrase. Obviously it means the workers, independent of and against whoever their exploiters might be. The rest of this post, Arthur, to be honest is a confused mess of absurdity unworthy of you.
I would 'defend' good health care in Cuba in the same way as in Britain. Of course an invading army would not be making a distinction between hospitals and factories (yes, both state-owned; you can call it socialised if you want, it still doesn't tell you who the ruling class is), but it is therefore a mystery why you are.
We would be for resistance to such an invading army under these specific conditions as we would be for any small country invaded in the same way (think - oh, Grenada, Guatamala... it's not hard to think of them).
We did not 'support' Yeltsin. We didn't support the bureaucracy's attempted coup, perhaps you mean. You mean - you did? Jesus.
Did we support the millions of workers who, in many cases, organised general strikes against their state and indeed its disastrous social system? Absolutely, yes. We argued for those movements to take a socialist direction. They didn't. But their overwhelming desire not to live in those systems, and preference even for Western capitalism, bourgeois democracy and what have you, is hardly an advertisement for the post-capitalist virtue of the social relations against which they rebelled.
Confusion
"The Third Camp is Trotsky's phrase. Obviously it means the workers, independent of and against whoever their exploiters might be."
But the reason I used the term Schactmanite version of the Third Camp was precisely because of what TRotsky said about it.
"The very first 'programmatic' articles of the purloined organ (he means Burnham and Schactman's taking of The New International) already reveal completely the light-mindedness and hollowness of this new anti-Marxist grouping which appears under the label of the 'Third Camp'. What is this animal? There is the camp of capitalism; there is the camp of the proletariat. But is there perhaps a 'third camp' - a petty-bourgeois sanctuary? In the nature of things, it is nothing else. But, as always, the petty-bourgoies camouflages his 'camp' with the paper flowers of rhetoric. Let us lend our ears! Here is one camp: France and England. There's another camp: Hitler and Stalin. And a third camp: Burnham with Schactman. The Fourth International turns out for them to be in Hitler's camp [Stalin made this discovery long ago]. And so,a new great slogan: Muddlers and pacifists of the world, all ye suffering from the pin-pricks of fate, rally to the 'third camp'."
"Trotsky - Petty-Bourgeois Moralists and the Proletarian Party".
So much for what Trotsky thought of the Schactmanite version.
Where have I made a distinction between between socialised healthcare in Cuba, and socialised factories, shops and offices. The whole point is that I don't. That I call for defence of all socialised property. That is the difference between the Marxist position and the Burnham-Schactman position. I merely pointed to the fact that all you have committed yourself to is defending the healthcare. You have still to tell us whether you would defend the socialised factories, shops and offices, and how. You have still to tell us what your attitude would be to the Cuban troops and other sections of the burueacracy that came to the defence of that socialised property.
The argument we would be for resistance to an invading army to any small country is as you know full well a means of avoiding the real question i.e. defence of socialised property. All you are telling us is that you would defend a small workers state (not on the basis of its class nature, of its socialised property but merely on the bouregois democratic grounds of self-determination), but not socialised property in a larger one. So what you are saying is that the most important thing for you now is not issues of class (because the issue of property relations is in the end a question of which class is socially dominant) but issues of bourgeois democracy i.e. infringment of the bourgeois democratic right to self-determination. You will defend that bourgeois democratic right (which of course all Marxists would) but you will not defend socialised property, unless it is 'progressive' healthcare!
"We didn't support Yeltsin."
I am glad to here it. The point came from a previous discussion where that was raised by some other poster. I waited in vain for a denial from the AWL that that was the case, but none came. I am glad to see your denial. No I would not have supported the attempted coup I would have been calling on workers to throw out Yeltsin, and to resist his bourgeois counter-revolution. If within the context of such resistance sections of the bureuacracy fought to defend socialised production, however, I would not have been averse to a United Front with them, provided that the working class maintained its own political and organisational independence. Clearly, if you believe that the bureuacracy as a whole forms a new class then such a united front would be impermissible.
As I recall the railway workers in Russia remained attached to the mensheviks. The railway workers were one of the most advanced, and well organised section of the Russian working class. They too in 1917-18 seemed to prefer the idea of western capitalism to Bolshevik rule. So was Trotsky right to send in the Red Army, and to introduce militarisation of labour in the railways? Was their preference for capitalism rather than Bolshevism not a good advertisment for that rule?
Would I support workers fighting for the restoration of capitalist property? No. Not all workers struggles are progressive. If workers engaged in a mass strike demanding a repatration of immigrants I certainly wouldn't support that, and supporting strikes etc. demanding a reintroduction of capitalism - actually many of the strikes were demanding transfer of ownership to their workers and managements which I would support - is reactionary, not just because it is like supporting a return of capitalist property relations to feudal property relations, but because it sows illusions in the heads of the working class about what the real solution to their problems is.
The answer to the workers problems was to move forward through a political revolution to socialism, not to move backwards to capitalism. Marxists did no service to the working class supporting action to move in the wrong direction.
In short what I am still waiting to see are the articles setting out a demand for the working class internationally to defend not just the bourgeois democratic right of self-determination - which even a petit-bourgeois democrat can support - but the defence of socialised property relations in Cuba, and the programme for such defence.
Arthur Bough
Addenda
I have just found the previous discussion where the issue of AWL support for Yeltsin was raised by Duncan Church. That discussion is here.
Euston Manifesto
What I found interesting is that in TomU's response he does not deny the AWL's support for Yetsin, merely the @spin' that this support meant support for imperialism.
Arthur Bough
More Thoughts
Clive,
the more I have thought about your argument above the more I have felt uncomfortable with the direction in which it is heading. It is completely untenable. I was going to post this as a aseparate blog because this thread was supposed to be about withdrawing troops from Iraq, and this seems to have strayed, but in reality it hasn't, because the two things are inextricably linked by the political method, and direction of ideological travel in both cases.
1. You single out welfare (though the speciifc issue was socialised healthcare) as being progressive under any system. But why? The provision of healthcare is in reality no different than the provision of any other commodity. The only reason that healthcare is considered different as from a purely subjective/emotive perspective. But for every argument that can be raised for healthcare being socialised the same argument can be made for almost any other type of commodity. For example, far more important for general human survival and well-being than healthcare is the provision of food and shelter, and certainly environmental health services such as sewage, street cleaning etc. Without any of those things humans would live a pretty miserable and short life no matter how much was spent on healthcare. In fact, we know that nearly all the improvement in life expectancy during the 20th century was the result of improved diets, housing, and living standards with very little attributable to improvements in healthcare. We also know, including from some studies copleted only a couple of years ago that both in relation to health and to education the overriding factors are housing, and environment, and these in turn were a function of income, which is itself a function of access to decent employment. There is no objective basis for singling out healthcare for special treatment in relation to socialisation compared to the provision of any other commodity only a subjective one.
In fact, looked at from the point of view, purely subjectively, of the individual patinet the only real basis would be the greater economic efficiency of socialised healthcare compared to the expensive provision of private healthcare. In terms of quality of provision for instance private provision would probably win hands down. Marxists do not deend socialised healthcare on that basis, do not determine its progressiveness in that way, any more than they do for any other socialised provision. They do so from the objective basis set out by Engels in Anti-Duhring that state-capitalism even points the way to the solution of man's problems even if it does not itself solve those problems. It is then up to the working class to pick up the ball and run with it.
b) But if we continue your line of argument then from what you have said you do not necessarily consider other forms of socialised property as being progressive, only socialised healthcare/welfare from the standpoint of some siubjective, emotive criteria rather than the Marxist method of historical materialism. We would then expect that given the Schactmanite "Third Camp" position of equidistance you would have no dog in a fight between one form of "capitalist" property and another. That after all is the basis of the Schactmanite argument against Defence of (Stalinist)Workers States. But on that basis you would then have to remain on the sidelines in any fight against privatisation of some state capitalist property. So for example when Livingstone wants to privatise the Tube your line should be "Neither PFI nor London Transport" but international socialism. Fortuntaely, you do not draw the necesary conclusion from the absurd theories you have adopted when it comes to actual workers struggles. But that is not healthy for a marxist tendency either. It is symptomatic at best of centrism, at worst of opportunism.
c)Here I think is the link with Iraq. I have said before that the AWL's position on Iraq has been far superior to that of other Marxist groups, and I maintain that position. But given the appalling position of the SWP, for instance, that really doesn't say too much. The AWL has done, as it always has in the past, excellent work in supporting Iraqi Trade Unionists, and in making the argument that the focus must be on supporting the Iraqi Labour Movement. All very true, but in the end what does that say politically. The demand that workers should have the right to organise freely in Trade Unions is not a socialist demand (though it is obviously one which socialists not only demand, but which is a prerequisite for a struggle for socialism) it is a bourgeois-democratic demand. Demanding, working for and engaging in activity around such a demand is just as easily done by radical petit-bourgeois as it is by Marxists. Trotsky commenting on the attitude of Burnham and Schactman to theory pointed out in relation to "common sense" and focus on "practical activity" that it is quite possible for soemone that does not use a scientific method to stumble across the right answer, and it is likewise possible for soeone that adopts the scientific method to arrive at the wrong conclusion. But were I about to undergo brain surgery I would still prefer the surgeon that adopts the scientific method rather than the butcher that just might stumble on the right thing to cut out.
The basic argument you have put forward the method adopted in relation to both the question of defence of workers states, and of the role of imperialism in Iraq seems to me to be that not of Marx, but that of Sismondi or worse still that of the Liberal Narodnik. The method of petit-bourgeois economic romaticism. Instead of focussing on what is, you focus on an idealised version of socialism. When reality does not match up to it, you turn your back on it. In Iraq, because you have lost faith in the power of the working class you implictly put faith in a "progressive" imperialism - and even a "hope" that the reactionary clerical-fascists represented in the Government, effectively installed by the Occupation, might not be as bad as their Iranian counterparts - to provide space for the working class focussing again not on what imperilaism is doing but on what it "might" do were it to live up to its "progressive" potential. The same was true of the attitude in Kosova with a "hope" that imperialism might act progressively, presumably there was a similar "hope" that out of Yeltsin's bourgeois political counter-revolution something "progressive" might emerge rather than the degradation, anarchy and gangsterism that was the inevitable result predicted by Trotsky 60 years earlier as the feature of such a counter-revolution.
d) The epitome of that approach is summed up in your argument that the strikes by workers "their overwhelming desire not to live in those systems, and preference even for Western capitalism, bourgeois democracy and what have you, is hardly an advertisement for the post-capitalist virtue of the social relations against which they rebelled."
What clearer statement of the subjective rather than the Marxist objective method of analysis could there be than this? I have pointed out previously the example of the overturn of the Cromwellian state to demonstrate that a passive return of power by a ruling class to a previous ruling class is not unknown in history. But surely no Marxist would argue that such a restoration was progressive! We might as historical materialists understand why such a restoration occurs, why there was disatisfaction with Cromwell's dictatorship - just as with Bonaparte's Dictatorship, or Stalin's Dictatorship - but such dissatisafaction can tell us nothing about the progressive or otherwise nature of the economic basis of such societies.
When industrial capitalism really took off at the end of the eighteenth century the condiiton of the working class - to say nothing of the peasantry that was expropriated and thrown into the working class - deteriorated catastrophically as marx outlines in Capital. At the beginning of that process at the start of the Industrial Revolution the condition of many capitalists as marx sets out was even worse than that of their workers - because they were busy accumulating Capital to compete rather than spending money on consumption. Looked at from the subjective Sismondist viewpoint you have now adopted a return to the previous condition must have seemed a "progressive" alternative not just to the workers, and former peasants, but also to some of those artisans forced to adopt the capitalist method of production - perhaps why for example Wedgwood and other workers become capitalists sought legal restrictions on the length of the working day. It was indeed, at that time the objective material basis on which arose a set of ideas to that effect. The ideas of Luddism, and the ideas of the aristocratic socialists, the economic romanticists that sought some form of alternative economic development an idealised that had all the advantages, but none of the downside of real historical progress.
Many workers were udnestandably attracted to these ideas became Luddites, joined up with the reactionary socialists as Marx described them, some even thought of escaping the march of history by returning to a previous existence in the US. Did any of this imply that the "idiocy of rural life", the paternalism of feudalism, or even the simple commodity production of nascent petit-bourgeois capitalism was progressive vis a vis the brutish, vicious, degrading, dictatorship of the 19th century bouregoisie? Not according to Marx it didn't. He had no problem cutting through all that subjective mush and seeing beneath it at work the historical process, and condemned those that wanted some idealised development for what they were reactionary romanticists.
But the method you adopt can lead to even worse conclusions. By all accounts millions of German workers in the 1930's, especially those that found work after years of unemployment, seeing rising standards of living, a reestablishment of national pride after the humiliation of Versailles, an accommodation of some of their long standing reactionary prejudices against Jews etc. felt exceptionally good about the the regime of Adolph Hitler. The same kinds of sentiments seem to be rising amongst many British workers ground down by bouregois democratic capitalism in Britain towards the BNP. So what then if we are to judge the "progressiveness" of social systems not on the Marxist basis of an objective assessment of the realtions of production but on the subjective basis of the content or otherwise of workers are we now to judge that Nazi Germany was "progressive" vis a vis bouregois-democratic capitalism?????
e) The result of that method in Iraq has been to give tacit support to imperialism, and worse still to its reactionary agents in the Government out of a lack of faith in the working class, and a subjectivist view of imperialism as at least "relatively" progressive. In place of an independent working class perspective you have focussed instead on the practical tasks as Burnham and Schactman put it of building the Iraqi Labour Movement - a necessary and worthy task, but one which ultimately is limited to a bourgeois-democratic rather than socialist outlook. The clear example of that was to see the sham elections as "progressive" when in fact in terms of the working class the best outcome of those elections would have been the establishment of some comprador regime, and the worst and most likely outcome that which has come about the legitimisation of reactionary Shia clerical-fascism backed now by state power. Again you substituted the programme of the petit-bourgeois for that of the socialist as outlined for example by TRotsky in the "Action Programme for France" where he emphasised the struggle for bourgeois democrratic demands by the methods of proletarian struggle not those of bouregois demcoracy, by the establishment of factory committees, peasant committees, workers militia etc. and tied those bourgeois democratic demands inextricably to the need for a fight for socialism.
The disastrous position of Iraq obviously for all that cannot be blamed on the AWL, because it has no real influence on the course of events. But if it did then I am afraid comrades you would have been pouinting the working class in the wrong direction, just as you were pointing them in the wrong direction in relation to Yeltsin, and appear to be doing implictly in relation to Cuba.
A healthy Marxist orgainsation looks at reality and sees if events have confirmed its prognosis. Faced every day by the obviousness that imperialism has not "provided space" for the Labour Movement in Iraq, that it has not acted even relatively progressively, but has necessarily fuelled the ranks of the "Resistance", has stimulated sectarian Civil War not just in Iraq, but probably in Lebanon and Gaza, and has at the same time armed the clerical-fascist forces of the Shia that again day after day defy the notion that they are not as bad as their counterparts in Iran, that there was nothing remotely "progressive" about the sham elections that gave "democratic" cover to the Shia clerical fascists I hope that comradres in the AWL are coming to the conclusion that their position was wrong.
It was not wrong simply accidentally, but because of a wrong method, the method of petit-bourgeois romanticism, of Schactmanite "Third Campism". That while everything around that position is collapsing Sean still wants to cling to the idea that the imperialist troops in Iraq serve some progressive function, and fills the paper with obtuse articles relating to Schactman and the Third Camp, however,is a bad sign
Arthur Bough
Arthur...
... I'm not going to argue the toss about socialised property and what have you. If you want to think there was/is something progressive about property relations in the Stalinist states, I suppose it doesn't do anyone any harm.
I am also bored to death with the preposterous allegation that my/the AWL's position on Iraq is 'tacit support for imperialism' and what have you. I don't know how many times I have to explain what I think about Iraq until someone on the other side of this argument actually pays attention to a single word of it, so I'm not going to repeat it all here. Apparently it is beyond some people that you can oppose something without calling for immediate insurrection against it. All right: I guess that so many intelligent people can't grasp it means it's my problem not theirs. How you all function in daily political life, god only knows, but there you are.
I did not at any point say that SCIRI or Muqtada al Sadr were "hopefully" better than the clerical government in Iran. On the contrary, I have had long arguments with the 'pro-war left' about how SCIRI's involvement, for instance, in all occupation-backed governments since the fall of Saddam reveals the nature of the US-sponsored 'political process'. The argument I had with you was about a) Sistani (and the Dawa Party) and b) the attitude socialists should have taken to the various elections in Iraq. Once again, I have no intention of simply repeating myself. But I at no point put any hope in Sistani to do anything in working class interests, or whatever it is you seem to think. And I think your position on the elections was ultra-left nonsense.
Clearly, there is not much chance of bourgeois democratic structures taking hold in Iraq now. If you want to think this means you were right in our argument about whether or not the immediate result of the elections was Iran-style government, it was perfectly reasonable for Sunni sectarians not to vote, and so on - fine. I concede to your Marxist clarity. The truth is that there is no socialist party in Iraq able to effect events (the closest being the WCPI), and it's impossible to know how things might have turned out if there had been anybody following my advice. It's always comforting to think they would have turned out better. But I remain highly sceptical that sectarian aloofness from the millions of Iraqis voting in elections was the right policy, nor simply declaring that what is now happening was already happening immediately after the election.
But whatever. Maybe I was too hopeful. I do not accept that my 'hope' was in the benificence of Shi'a Islamists, however, nor American and British soldiers. What I certainly underestimated was the depth of sectarian/communalist division in Iraq. This is largely because every authority on Iraq I have ever read underestimated it too.
Reply To Clive
“... I'm not going to argue the toss about socialised property and what have you. If you want to think there was/is something progressive about property relations in the Stalinist states, I suppose it doesn't do anyone any harm.”
Clive, I have to say I am very concerned at the reluctance of comrades to say anything clear in relation to the defence of socialised (nationalised if you like) property relations, in particular in relation to Cuba given the current situation. You tried to avoid the question by giving the answer that you would defend a small country on the basis of the right to self determination, you referred to defending healthcare and welfare as progressive thereby again avoiding the issue of other state property, Sacha in his post referred to a post which again only refers to healthcare and education. The Schactmanite position is of course clear – opposition to the demand for the defence of deformed workers states. If that is your position no defence because its not workers property but state capitalist or whatever, why not simply say so, and defend that position in relation to Cuba. But then as I point out above if that is your position then the question is why you defend such state capitalism in Britain opposing privatisation of the NHS, Tube etc. I can only assume that the reluctance to address this issue reflects a deeep down recognition that there is something wrong with the Bureuacratic Collectivivst argument.
“I am also bored to death with the preposterous allegation that my/the AWL's position on Iraq is 'tacit support for imperialism' and what have you. I don't know how many times I have to explain what I think about Iraq until someone on the other side of this argument actually pays attention to a single word of it, so I'm not going to repeat it all here. Apparently it is beyond some people that you can oppose something without calling for immediate insurrection against it. All right: I guess that so many intelligent people can't grasp it means it's my problem not theirs. How you all function in daily political life, god only knows, but there you are.”
I presume you are familiar with the story of the mother who watched her son at the passing out parade, and who thought it was wonderful that it was just her son that was in step, and everyone else was out of step. It is not that we haven’t paid attention to what you say, its that we don’t agree with it. We understand your argument, but put in place the counter argument that if your reason for not raising the demand that the troops should leave now is because they serve some progressive purpose – fighting the Resistance, creating a space for the Labour Movement – then you cannot claim equidistance between the Occupation and the Resistance, you clearly see the Occupation as a lesser evil. Moreover, you cannot avoid the argument that in opposing a call for the troops to leave now, you by the same token are calling on the Labour Movement to place some faith in the progressive role of imperialism in undertaking that function. No one is suggesting that you are consciously trying to act as the stooge of imperialism, what is being said is that the logic of your argument is to give credibility to the idea that imperialism is (whether it can is a different and irrelvant question) fulfilling a progressive function.
“I did not at any point say that SCIRI or Muqtada al Sadr were "hopefully" better than the clerical government in Iran.”
I didn’t say you had. But these were the forces taking part in the elections. Elections a weak Iraqi Labour Movement had no chance of winning or even doing well in, and which was/is facing a clerical-fascist enemy, and whose main task, therefore, lay in preparing as best it could on its own territory of proletarian struggle for its own defence, rather than being dsitracted into questions of bouregois democracy, especially when the result of those bourgeois democratic electoins, was and could have been no other than to hand democratic legitimacy to those clerical-fascist forces, and worse to hand over to them the resources of the state in addition to those they already posessed through their militias as a means by which to beat down the working class, women, gays etc. What was supposed to be the outcome of the elections that these fascist forces would somehow be transformed by the power of the structures of bourgeois democracy? Had the workers and peasants of Iraq risen up demanding a Constituent Assembly, and it had been forced upon the Occupation the situation may have been different. They did not. The whole procedure was a sham from start to finish set up by the Occupation in cahoots with the reactionary Shia clerics.
“Once again, I have no intention of simply repeating myself. But I at no point put any hope in Sistani to do anything in working class interests, or whatever it is you seem to think.”
And I have not accused you of doing so, but you did say that Sistani was not like the Iranians. The fact is that Sistani has called for homsexuals to be murdered, and his militia have been carrying that out. You have a “hope” that Sistani is not like the Iranians, I am not prepared to bet the Iraqi working class’s neck on it.
“And I think your position on the elections was ultra-left nonsense.”
And I think that in the midst of a growing Civil War, and physical attacks on the working class from many different sides sowing illusions in a bourgeois democracy amongst a working class where no such illusions are already implanted is a diversion from the necessary task of building their own defence, and their own democracy. To the extent that it sows illusions in the ability of bourgeois democracy to meet even their immediate needs of defence against such attacks it is reactionary. To the extent that such elections could have had no other outcome than to hand power to the clerical fascists, and to legitimise them it was highly irresponsible.
“Clearly, there is not much chance of bourgeois democratic structures taking hold in Iraq now. If you want to think this means you were right in our argument about whether or not the immediate result of the elections was Iran-style government, it was perfectly reasonable for Sunni sectarians not to vote, and so on - fine. I concede to your Marxist clarity.”
I have no interest in being proved right only in trying to help formulate a correct analysis from which to develop action. My argument has never been about whether Sunnis should vote or not (you seem to imply in your statement above that all Sunnis are sectarian, I assume you do not really mean that). My argument in relation to the elections was as set out above a question of what the correct tactics for the Iraqi working class should be, and that was not to be diverted into bouregois democratic elections at a time when they needed to be organising to defend themselves on the basi of reliance on their own forces, not on the basis of relying on the ability, willingness or prospect of bourgeois democracy doing that for them. I did make the point that a boycott of the elections by Sunnis would be understandable given the likely outcome of the elections. The fact that the Shia majority, the forces of Sadr now with the cover of police and army uniforms have done as the Sunnis feared and used it to better undertake pogroms against them vindicates the understandable fears of those Sunni. You did not need marxist clarity to have foreseen that likelihood. I’m sure the Sunnis, sectarian or otherwise did not rely on Marxist to deduce the risk to them. All that was required was to not be blinded by a belief in the progressive potential of bourgeois democracy in such situations.
“The truth is that there is no socialist party in Iraq able to effect events (the closest being the WCPI), and it's impossible to know how things might have turned out if there had been anybody following my advice. It's always comforting to think they would have turned out better. But I remain highly sceptical that sectarian aloofness from the millions of Iraqis voting in elections was the right policy, nor simply declaring that what is now happening was already happening immediately after the election.”
Its true that the sectarian violence is worse now, but it is also true that at the time of the elections there were already substantial attacks on workers and socialists. It is true that there is no socialist party in Iraq capable of affecting events. But as trotsky pointed out in relation to Russia in 1917, the Bolsheviks also were a tiny minority unable to influence events, and they faced much larger forces in the Mensheviks, SR’s and Kadets that were able to influence events. What changed that was not some miracle, but the correct orientation to the class struggle. The alternative to not participating in the events was not simply to do not, not simply sectarian aloofness, it was to focus on a programme of proletarian struggle, on building factory committees, peasant committees, and workers militia to defend against the attacks by the clerical-fascists. In short a similar programme to that put forward by Trotsky in the Action Programme for France. The defence of bourgeois demcoratic freedoms not by the methods of bourgeois democracy, but by the methods of proletarian struggle. Whether such a course would have been succesful no one can say. All Marxists can do is to map out the correct line of march.
“But whatever. Maybe I was too hopeful. I do not accept that my 'hope' was in the benificence of Shi'a Islamists, however, nor American and British soldiers. What I certainly underestimated was the depth of sectarian/communalist division in Iraq. This is largely because every authority on Iraq I have ever read underestimated it too.”
But if you do not believe in the beneficence of American and British soldiers to provide a space for the Labour Movement in Iraq then surely there can be no question of them fulfilling any useful role in staying, and therefore, no basis for not calling for them to leave immediately.
Arthur Bough
OK one last attempt
... on the troops out thing. I could do a point by point reply, but it's too exhausting. (Eg, referring to "Sunni sectarians" does not mean all Sunnis are sectarian. Jesus. You're the one who likes moaning about syllogisms). But. You say:
"It is not that we haven’t paid attention to what you say, its that we don’t agree with it. We understand your argument, but put in place the counter argument that if your reason for not raising the demand that the troops should leave now is because they serve some progressive purpose – fighting the Resistance, creating a space for the Labour Movement – then you cannot claim equidistance between the Occupation and the Resistance, you clearly see the Occupation as a lesser evil."
This is clearly a sentence written by someone not actually reading what I say. It is precisely the type of ridiculous, not-answering-the-actual-argument comment which has depressed and now bored me throughout this whole debate from the outset (not only, I should say, with you, Arthur, but you are an example of what I mean).
I think the status quo - the occupation; the civil war partly caused by the occupation; etc - is awful and untenable, and the job of socialists is to oppose the status quo and seek to 'overthrow' it, or replace it with something better or at least moving towards something better.
It is beyond me - really, it beggars my imagination and understanding - why, if I say that I think something specific, in this case a decision by the US government to abandon all efforts to impose its will on Iraq, continue to support the government and state structures it has tried to create, and so on, is likely to result in something even worse than the appalling, untenable status quo, it means I am ascribing to the status quo any progressive, benevolent, or whatever it is, quality.
If the US were literally to up and leave 'now' - oh, let's say by the end of January - there would be a free for all, with god only knows what practical consequences. There simply is not some knowable alternative government, state structure, or something, which will replace the occupation; there is not some movement with which the occupation could negotiate to effect its withdrawal; immediate withdrawal simply means vacating the country to allow, probably, terrible, bloody civil war to be unleashed, with whatever consequence.
I don't see why either we in the UK, or the labour movement in Iraq, should centre our/their agitation around the purely negative and nihilistic demand which amounts to 'fuck knows what's going to happen in Iraq but it's none of our business'.
I really, really don't understand why to say this means that in the slightest sense I support, endorse, give left cover to, fail to oppose, or whatever, the occupation, or suggest the workers' movement should depend on it, trust it, imagine it defends or protects them, or anything else said in opposition to my argument in this debate.
If you can give me an actual argument, as in, evidence which defies refutation, that immediate withdrawal, as in, immediate withdrawal, will *not* produce the results I have suggested, I will concede defeat in this argument. So far, nobody has. They have argued a) that things will be okay, b) or anyway no worse than they are now, or c) this is irrelevant because we should oppose imperialism. Argument c) only makes sense if you believe that it is, as I have said, none of our business what happens in Iraq, all that matters is that imperialism gets out. Maybe that's right. But in that case, argue it. I have yet to hear anyone actually argue it, or even acknowledge that it is what they are in fact saying.
They have also argued d) that the Iraqi labour movement should oppose the occupation and fight to hegemonise general opposition to the occupation. This is not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether 'troops out Wednesday' (I write on Tuesday) is the best slogan to achieve this end.
Instead of that, I think we should focus on building solidarity with the workers' and democratic movement - whatever happens (and whatever happens will not, in reality, be determined by us - 'us' here meaning the left, the anti-war movement, the British labour movement, the international labour movement, the Iraqi labour movement, or anyone else who might meaningfully be called 'us'. It will be determined by the American ruling class on the basis of a calculation about its own interests).
There. That's it. If your response is that nevertheless I am somehow supporting, relying on, or whatever, imperialism, well then, I'll retire. As in, give up; since argument plainly has no purpose.
Not The Last Surely
No Clive, we have read that argument we understand it, and we disagree with it. I realise coming from the same Leninist tradition that it is difficult to come to terms with the idea that other people might disagree for reasons other than not understanding the real truth only possessed by the revolutionary party, but that’s life.
“It is beyond me - really, it beggars my imagination and understanding - why, if I say that I think something specific, in this case a decision by the US government to abandon all efforts to impose its will on Iraq, continue to support the government and state structures it has tried to create, and so on, is likely to result in something even worse than the appalling, untenable status quo, it means I am ascribing to the status quo any progressive, benevolent, or whatever it is, quality.”
Take a sick person. The doctor has been prescribing medicine for them for some time. The doctor says. “Look the medicine I have been giving you has caused you to suffer liver and kidney failure, and your heart is looking pretty ropey as a result too. I would really like you to stop taking this medicine but if you do, you will die.”
That is the argument you are presenting. Does this argument mean that in the specific conditions that the sick person is in that the medicine is fulfilling a useful function. Well, unless there was some other medicine the patient could be taking that would work to combat their illness without the side effects, unless the medicine is just prolonging the inevitable and causing the patient to suffer unduly, the answer is clearly yes, the medicine is fulfilling a useful “progressive” function. If it is taken away the patient will die.
Now you can make the argument that the Occupation fulfils a useful function despite its side effects just as the medicine does. That is what LFIQ says openly. But you then have to justify that position, show that it actually does what you claim it does, and also have to show that there is no better alternative. But you cannot logically argue the opposite case i.e. its role is not progressive, it makes things worse, it arms the Shia militias and gives them state legitimacy and so on, but then conclude that things would be worse were it not there. Either the patient will die if the medicine is removed or they won’t. If your argument is that the patient will die if the medicine is removed, and you can see no way of an alternative then you have to carry your convictions as LFIQ do and argue for the occupation to stay and continue to perform that “progressive” function.
“If you can give me an actual argument, as in, evidence which defies refutation, that immediate withdrawal, as in, immediate withdrawal, will *not* produce the results I have suggested, I will concede defeat in this argument. So far, nobody has. They have argued a) that things will be okay, b) or anyway no worse than they are now, or c) this is irrelevant because we should oppose imperialism. Argument c) only makes sense if you believe that it is, as I have said, none of our business what happens in Iraq, all that matters is that imperialism gets out. Maybe that's right. But in that case, argue it. I have yet to hear anyone actually argue it, or even acknowledge that it is what they are in fact saying.
They have also argued d) that the Iraqi labour movement should oppose the occupation and fight to hegemonise general opposition to the occupation. This is not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether 'troops out Wednesday' (I write on Tuesday) is the best slogan to achieve this end.”
I am ignoring a,b and c because I have not argued any of those positions. As far as I am aware none of the people participating in this debate here that are friendly to the AWL such as myself and USRed have raised those arguments either. But I am glad you have raised this point because I had intended to reply to your point in the previous post about “Troops Out Now” meaning a call for immediate insurrection. It is a spurious arguemnt, which to some extent I dealt with in my post on the dialectics of the situation.
I know you don’t like analogies, but let’s try to put this in terms that any ordinary worker active in their union could understand. The annual pay claim comes up. Workers at the factory have fallen behind other groups, there is low unionisation, but considerable dissatisfaction and many grievances of the workforce. Other unions are putting in pay claims for 10%, a similar claim is easily defensible as being justified. The union leadership believe they would like to put in a claim for 10%, but looking at the low unionisation and weak organisation decide its not immediately achieveable. Perhaps, some time in the future when the union is stronger they console themselves. But of course, such a union leadership would never see the day when that required strength dawned. Only by putting forward confidently the demand for what was required, organising for it, agitating for it, giving the workers confidecne that it was achievabnle, drawing in the non-unionsied workers on the basis that the union was worth joining in order to get a decent standard of living would it ever stop being weak, and be in a position to achieve its aims.
Or more appropriately. A union membership look to put in a pay claim. Their company faces the potential of takeover by a renowned anti-union company. The union leadership argue. Yes, brothers and sisters you do deserve a large pay rise, but if we fight for it the company might be taken over by Company B, and we will be much worse off. Better that we keep our heads down for now, rather than risk that.
Of course such sentiments are found in the Labour Movement in situations like that. But usually they are then sentiments expressed by right-wing reformists, or by union burueacrats who prefer to place their faith in doing deals with or the benificence of supposedly “progressive” employers rather than placing their faith in, and trying to mobilise the strength and independent action of the union members. It is never the sentiment expressed of the revoluitonary Marxist, whose position always is to put forward the necessary demands, the demands that are worth fighting for, that are capable of giving a focus around which the membership can be mobilised, and radicalised.
As far as I can see neither I nor USRed or any of the other comrades sympathetic to the AWL that raise the demand for Troops Out Now do so in the context that we are calling here and now for an insurrection. We do so in the same spirit as the revoluitonary Marxist in the workplace that puts forward the necessary demand, out in the open, and then propagandises for it, explains it, organises and mobilises around it, and thereby builds the independent strength of the workers to achieve it. And like the revolutionary Marxist in the workplace that would argue that their employer would sell out tommorrow to Company B if it was in their interest to do so, we argue that the best means by to put off Company B from taking over the Company, and to be able to take them on even if they do is for us to place no faith in our own employer, and instead to mobilise our strength to draw in the non-unionised workers behind us and to fight here and now for our interests against the employer, and not to put that off to some more convenient time in the future.
“Instead of that, I think we should focus on building solidarity with the workers' and democratic movement - whatever happens (and whatever happens will not, in reality, be determined by us - 'us' here meaning the left, the anti-war movement, the British labour movement, the international labour movement, the Iraqi labour movement, or anyone else who might meaningfully be called 'us'. It will be determined by the American ruling class on the basis of a calculation about its own interests).”
I agree that is the point made above, except. Your “focus on solidarity” etc. is the equivalent of the Trade Union leader who rather than arguing the need for a fight that will mobilise and enthuse the membership, instead looks at their weakness and decides instead to go for sending the stewards on a course in organising, prints up more leaflets on why people should join the union etc. rather than realising that the reason that people aren’t joining is because they see no point in handing over money to an organisation that won’t fight, that the reason the stewards can’t organise is not because of poor organising skills but because they lack support from below, and they lack support from below because the members have not been enthused to fight. And it is precisely because the decision to leave or not will be made by the US whether or not the demand “Troops Out Now” is raised or not that the demand can only be unerstood as a rallying, and mobilising demand around which the working class is enthused to organise to build its strength, not as some empty plea to imperialism. (I leave out the people like the SWP here for whom the demand is simply addressed to whichever group of reactionaries they think might bring it about, because I am not going to let the SWP determine my politics by simply putting a minus sign where they put a plus sign).
“There. That's it. If your response is that nevertheless I am somehow supporting, relying on, or whatever, imperialism, well then, I'll retire. As in, give up; since argument plainly has no purpose.”
The Trade Union Branch secretary that argues that “its better the devil you know” case above is wrong. There course of action will result in the demobilisation of the membership and all the opposite of what they desire. But in most instances such Branch officials are not motivated by any ill-will, rarely are they stooges of management etc. They simply have a different view, and one that a revolutioanry Marxist would disagree with. The tradiiton of Leninism would be to traduce such people as class traitors etc. It is one of the things I think is wrong with Leninism. People with the best motivations in the world towards the working class, and towards the goal of achieving socialism can just simply have a different view of the world, have a different set of ideas in their heads about the best way of achieving the end result. Simply branding such people class traitors or whatever is one of the reasons why Leninist sectarianism has so successfully divided the Labour Movement over the last 100 years. But it is nevertheless true that what such a Branch official subjectively believes to be doing the right thing can in reality, objectively be the wrong thing, and lead to the opposite result to what they seek. The job of the Marxist is to point that out.
Arthur Bough
Bargaining
All right, there's argument e) it's a bargaining demand analogous to a pay claim, which helps build confidence. Yep, I throw up my hands.
Actually you're not listening to me because you keep repeating the claim that I ascribe something positive to the occupation, which I do not.
And if you are not arguing a) that things will be okay - by which I mean that immediate withdrawal will not lead to civil war and so on - what the hell is your main point? This is not, Arthur, because I believe I have received wisdom and I am a nasty Leninist who doesn't know how to cope with disagreement. It's because your arguments all seem to me ridiculous. (You presumably think I'm not hearing your argument, too. In fact it hasn't occurred to me to therefore accuse you of "not understanding the real truth". Seems to me the boots on the other foot, mate).
So - what do you think will happen? Seriously. Enough with the private meanings - it's a tactic to build confidence that isn't supposed to have any bearing on what is likely to *happen*... The US decides to abandon ship, leaving its Iraqi allies in the lurch. They do this 'now', ie not contingent on anything put in its place (whatever that might be, obviously serving their interests). What will Iraq look like, the day or month after this decision? Who will form the government?
I think the almost certain actual, living, real-world consequence will be a terrible civil war with I don't know what precise outcome. Of course the labour movement should fight for workers' unity and so on; but I think it is very unlikely to survive.
But it simply does not follow, unless there are wires seriously crossed and misfiring in my brain, that this therefore means I am ascribing good or positive attributes to the occupation, US policy, the Iraqi government, or whoever. I am not 'supporting' in whatever sense a 'lesser evil'.
And the occupation isn't analagous to 'medicine'. For one thing it was a medicine I opposed giving the patient in the first place. But would I, or anyone, in these circumstances - you've been giving a patient poison, but if you take the poison away they will die - therefore be ascribing something positive to the poison? All right, I suppose so in some circumstances, but it's hardly a ringing or even very muted endorsement of the poison; and anyone who wanted to go on and on about how outrageous the doctors were who couldn't see how bad the poison was would be, well, a bit perverse. Wouldn't they? In any case we're talking about politics, not medicine.
Whatever your dialectics and analogies are telling you (and if you ask me it's you stuck on Aristotelian syllogisms, A=A, when in fact it doesn't) - and everyone else who wants to say 'troops out now' without explaining who, therefore, is 'in now' - this, it seems to me is the actual political question you need to answer. I would imagine, too, it's a question on the minds of most workers in Iraq. Sure they want the occupation to end - and so do I! - but what is the alternative? Our role, surely, is to help build an actually progressive alternative - yes, sure, of course, while opposing the occupation and the government it supports.
Reply To Clive
“All right, there's argument e) it's a bargaining demand analogous to a pay claim, which helps build confidence. Yep, I throw up my hands.”
But its not that I have only just raised this formulation. I have argued that meaning for the demand for Troops Out Now right from the beginning. Just go back over all the many posts I have made in the last year, and you will see that is the case. If you haven’t registered that until now its you that have not been reading carefully what I have been saying.
“Actually you're not listening to me because you keep repeating the claim that I ascribe something positive to the occupation, which I do not.”
No I don’t. And I don’t think Usred does either, but he can speak for himself. Go back and read carefully what I said. I did not say that you ascribe some progressive role for the Occupation. In fact I contrast your/AWL position on that to the position of LFIQ – and in previous posts have contrasted it favourably, just as I contrast your position favourably with the SWP. It is why I have stated your position is the best. But I still think its wrong. I am not saying that you “ascribe” a progressive role to the Occupation. I am saying that the objective consequence of your argument whether you intend it or not – and I belive you when you say you do not intend it – is to achieve precisely that end. The argument we do not call for the trooops to leave because the result would be worse than it is now, can convey to the working class no other meaning than the continued presence of the Occupation serves a useful purpose for the working class.
“And if you are not arguing a) that things will be okay - by which I mean that immediate withdrawal will not lead to civil war and so on - what the hell is your main point?”
My main point is that the event “The troops leave” and the demand “Troops Out Now” are under current circumstances unrelated. “The troops Leave” is not condiitonal upon the riaising of the slogan, “Troops Out Now”. If the troops leave as you admit yourself, it will not be because Iraqi or other workers raise the demand it will be because they have decided to do so for their own interests. The only basis on which “The Troops Leave” is conditional upon the raising of the slogan “Troops Out Now” is if the Iraqi or international working class is strong enough to be able to put that slogan into practice. Under those conditions the argument that troops should not leave because the situation would be worse would not apply because the working class would be strong enough to have a say in the matter. The argument that I, and I think Usred are making, and the argument I have made previously and again above in relation to the TU analogy is that the raising of the demand now is a precondition for building that strength partly for the reason that every poll of Iraqi citizens shows that they want the troops out now, and they believe the Occupation is making things worse.
“It's because your arguments all seem to me ridiculous. (You presumably think I'm not hearing your argument, too. In fact it hasn't occurred to me to therefore accuse you of "not understanding the real truth". Seems to me the boots on the other foot, mate).”
But except in this post above I have not accused you of not understanding me, or not reading what I have said. I have accepted that it is quite possible for two people to be honestly trying to come to a correct analysis, and course of action, and yet arrive at different conclusions. My main concern is not the difference of opinion, but the fact that this difference of opinion seems to stem from a different method of analysis i.e. your adoption of the Schactmanite petit-bourgeois subjectivist method in place of the Marxist method. And again in saying that let me refer to a note that Lenin made in “A Characterisation of Economic Romanticism” I have quoted above in a post, it is not said as an abusive epithet or an attack on individuals but said in the proper “historico-philosophical sense, describing only the error of the theoreticians….. It does not apply at all to the personal qualities of these theoreticians, or to their programmes. Everybody knows that neither Sismondi nor Proudhon were reactionary in the ordinary sense of the term”.
“So - what do you think will happen? Seriously. Enough with the private meanings - it's a tactic to build confidence that isn't supposed to have any bearing on what is likely to *happen*... The US decides to abandon ship, leaving its Iraqi allies in the lurch. They do this 'now', ie not contingent on anything put in its place (whatever that might be, obviously serving their interests). What will Iraq look like, the day or month after this decision? Who will form the government?”
Okay I am happy to set out what I think is going to happen. Firstly, it looks to me like there are divisions within US and UK imperialism opening up. I am not sure even that Blair was acting on behalf of British imperialism in the first place to be honest. I think the interests of British imperialism lie mostly in Europe not in the US. Blair’s support for Bush simply demosntrates the extent to which Governments have some freedom of action relative to the direct interests of the ruling class. There have also always been divisions within the US ruling class too over the issue, as well as conflicting bureuacratic interests within the state apparatus between the CIA, Pentagon, and State Department most evident in the fact that different sections of the US bureuaucracy backed different bouregois candidates – all of whom were spectacularly unsuccesful. I think there was probably an element of the Bush Whitehouse also acting independently of the general interests of the ruling class in the US, driven on by political forces within the neo-con right, the religious Right, and probably those that lobby within the US Government on behalf of Israel – by which I do not mean just the Jewish lobby taken as the large number of politically active Jewish people in the US, but the covert links between Mossad and the US permanent state etc.
The likely format appears to be an increase in the short term of US troops to try to bring some stability. The likely outcome more US troops killed as they venture out of their barracks, more hostility generated in the Iraqi communities as the Occupation necessarily come into conflict with Iraqi civilians. The likely target will be the forces of Sadr both because it is his forces that are largely undertaking pogroms in the Sunni triangle, and because he represents the Jacobin element. The US I think has probably decided that the best solution is the break up of Iraq. Hence the talk of discussions with Iran and Syria. Weakening the forces of Sadr in the Sunni triangle is a necessary part of that, My guess is that the US will then retreat to Kurdistan – because it wants the oil, because the Kurds will accept them there as a means of preventing a Turkish invasion, and because the US and Europe do not want a Turkish invasion either. They will also retreat to Kuwait for similar reasons trying to broker a deal with Iran that guarantees sovereignty to the South rather than it being swallowed up by Iran – which I doubt most of the Southern Iraqis want. The US has also built a huge defensible enclave in the Sunni triangle where it clearly intended to station troops for some considerable time. It may abandon that, or it may try to do a deal with the Sunnis in the event of a break up to offer them protection against Sadr, adeal they may accept if they have their own government. To be honest the US is not likely to be too bothered about the latter other than for general strategic rreasons, because the Sunni triangle has no oil. The consequence would probably be ethnic cleansing of the Shia from the Sunni triangle, a price the US will be prepared to pay. It will also be interesting to see what happens in coming weeks as to whether Saddam is hanged or not.
Such processes rarely go smoothly, and whatever US plans I agree escalating violence seems likely. Whether it escalates to all out Civil War I’m not sure. If you were a Shia living in the South would you really want the Sunni triangle? They have already expressed the desire for autonomy for their region. The Kurds already have it, and would have their own state if they could get it. And rather than be in a Shia dominated state facing continual violence the Sunni might be happy to reside in their own state, especially one that is now being offered largesse by Saudi Arabia, and other rich Gulf States.
But as I have said above none of that is condiitonal upon whether the Labour Movement in Iraq or internationally raise the demand for troops out now. It is given the curent correlation of forces entirely in the gift of US imperialism, and to some extent the attitude of the neighbouring states including Saudi Arabia.
“I think the almost certain actual, living, real-world consequence will be a terrible civil war with I don't know what precise outcome. Of course the labour movement should fight for workers' unity and so on; but I think it is very unlikely to survive.”
You may be right, sometimes no matter how good the tactics employed battles cannot be won. Do you remember the Star Trek episode where Spoc is in the shuttle craft totally adrift without sufficient fuel to get to anywhere. He flares off the fuel in a last fling. The Enterprise luckily sees the flare and goes to pick him up. Kirk admonishes him for what was an “irrational” act. Spoc rationalises it, by saying it was a calculated risk that the flare would be seen. Sometimes in desperation we undertake such “irrational” acts. I know during the worst depths of my depression I became obsessive compulsive having to follow ridiculous rituals every day that totally contradict everything a materialist believes in. But I don’t recommend it as an alternative to a scientific evaluation, and the recommendation of the correct course of action, even if that course of action is likely to end in failure. In my opinion not demanding Troops Out Now is irrational because it undermines the necessary focus on the independent action of the working class to resolve its problems, and instead places that faith “tacitly”, unconsciously or whatever other phrase oyu want to use in some other force even if only temporarily, just as I placed the same belief in following some ritual for no other reason than having lost faith in my own ability to control my life, or Spoc’s flaring of the engines in the hope that something might turn up.
“And the occupation isn't analagous to 'medicine'. For one thing it was a medicine I opposed giving the patient in the first place. But would I, or anyone, in these circumstances - you've been giving a patient poison, but if you take the poison away they will die - therefore be ascribing something positive to the poison? All right, I suppose so in some circumstances, but it's hardly a ringing or even very muted endorsement of the poison; and anyone who wanted to go on and on about how outrageous the doctors were who couldn't see how bad the poison was would be, well, a bit perverse. Wouldn't they?”
Okay let’s modify the analogy slightly. Let’s say it’s a heroin addict. There are two approaches one is to say you need to get off the heroin now, as soon as possible, let’s find ways of achieving that. The other is to say well yes, the heroin isn’t any good for you, but if you stop taking it you’ll feel like shit so in the meantime let’s just not worry about that and deal with some of your other problems. The second option of dealing with other problems in order to make the addict stronger and better capable of dealing with their addiction is not excluded by taking the first option, indeed it is probably an integral part of it. But without the focus on trying to deal with the addiction, the second option is not likely to be succesful, because it will continually be undermined by the addiction.
I was not suggesting in my original analogy that someone was deliberately administering poison just that the medicine they gave in good faith had serious side efects. I doubt the LFIQ wanted to adminster poison to Iraq. The point is whether as you say the “medicine” should have been administered in the first place. We would agree it shouldn’t, LFIQ would not. The question then arises should we be telling the patient not to rely on this medicine, but instead to rely on their own resources etc. whilst recognising that they need to build their own strength in order to do so. With someone that is obese you can either say get off your arse, eat less and do some exercise that way you will be able to avoid medicine for your hypertension and diabetes, and avoid surgery for your failing heart, or you can say keep taking the pills till you feel you can do without them.
“Whatever your dialectics and analogies are telling you (and if you ask me it's you stuck on Aristotelian syllogisms, A=A, when in fact it doesn't) - and everyone else who wants to say 'troops out now' without explaining who, therefore, is 'in now' - this, it seems to me is the actual political question you need to answer. I would imagine, too, it's a question on the minds of most workers in Iraq. Sure they want the occupation to end - and so do I! - but what is the alternative? Our role, surely, is to help build an actually progressive alternative - yes, sure, of course, while opposing the occupation and the government it supports.”
I didn’t understand the first part of this paragraph. I don’t see how my position is at all syllogistic. I am arguing there is a process going on. There are active forces involved, and the progressive, the dynamic force that can effect a change is the working class. The condition for that is that the working class become stronger. The question then becomes how does it become stronger. The argument that both I and I think Usreed are putting is that a condition for it becoming stronger is to address one of the main issues concerning the Iraqi working class, peasantry and petit-bouregoisie – that is the question of the Occupation. This is no different than when we used to criticise the Militant for wanting to ignore the question of the Border and just concentrate on Trade Union issues. Your focus on those same Trade Union issues now, and refusal to deal with the issue of the Occupation other than at some point in the future is almost identical to the position they held then. Actually, Marxists do not say that A is not equal to A. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. That is the point we reject its immutability not the general proposition.
Arthur Bough
Happiness Versus Scientific measures of Social Progress
“But their overwhelming desire not to live in those systems, and preference even for Western capitalism, bourgeois democracy and what have you, is hardly an advertisement for the post-capitalist virtue of the social relations against which they rebelled”
Clive
“Although the accusation that Narodism is petty-bourgeois is described by him with supreme severity as “simply a bogey,” he produces no proof of this assertion, except the following incredibly amazing proposition: “The criterion . . . is not economic categories, but the happiness of the majority.” Why, this is the same as saying: the criterion of the weather is not meteorological observations, but the way the majority feels! What, we ask, are these “economic categories” if not the scientific formulation of the population’s conditions of economy and life, and moreover, not of the “population” in general, but of definite groups of the population, which occupy a definite place under the present system of social economy? By opposing the highly abstract idea of “the happiness of the majority” to “economic categories,” the reviewer simply strikes out the entire development of social science since the end of the last century and reverts to naïve rationalistic speculation, which ignores the existence and the development of definite social relationships. With one stroke of the pen he wipes out all that the human mind, in its attempt to understand social phenomena, has achieved at the price of centuries of searching!”
Lenin in:
A Characterisation of Economic Romanticism
Arthur Bough