Lenin, Iraq and "troops out now"
By Sacha Ismail
In "The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed up", written in July 1916, Lenin wrote as follows:
The several demands of democracy, including [national] self-determination, are not an absolute, but only a small part of the general-democratic (now: general-socialist) world movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be rejected. It is possible that the republican movement in one country may be merely an instrument of the clerical or financial-monarchist intrigues of other countries; if so, we must not support this particular, concrete movement, but it would be ridiculous to delete the demand for a republic from the programme of international Social-Democracy on these grounds.
And:
"But we cannot be in favour of a war between great nations, in favour of the slaughter of twenty million people for the sake of the problematical liberation of a small nation with a population of perhaps ten or twenty millions!" Of course not! And it does not mean that we throw complete national equality out of our Programme... Let us assume that between two great monarchies there is a little monarchy whose kinglet is "bound" by blood and other ties to the monarchs of both neighbouring countries. Let us further assume that the declaration of a republic in the little country and the expulsion of its monarch would in practice lead to a war between the two neighbouring big countries for the restoration of that or another monarch in the little country. There is no doubt that all international Social-Democracy, as well as the really internationalist section of Social-Democracy in the little country, would be against substituting a republic for the monarchy in this case. The substitution of a republic for a monarchy is not an absolute, but one of the democratic demands, subordinate to the interests of democracy (and still more, of course, to those of the socialist proletariat) as a whole. A case like this would in all probability not give rise to the slightest disagreement among Social-Democrats in any country. But if any Social-Democrat were to propose on these grounds that the demand for a republic be deleted altogether from the programme of international Social-Democracy, he would certainly be regarded as quite mad. He would be told that after all one must not forget the elementary logical difference between the general and the particular.
Whether or not you think Lenin was right about his hypothetical case, the methodology is clear. So are its implications for the debate about "troops out now" with regards to Iraq.
It is one thing to deny the AWL majority’s assessment – that victory for the Islamist-sectarian "resistance" militias following immediate withdrawal by the occupying forces would mean the break up of Iraq, societal collapse and the destruction of the Iraqi labour movement. It is quite another thing to say, as some on the left do, that refusing to call for "troops out now" means that the AWL has abandoned the principles of opposition to imperialism and support for Iraqi self-determination. (And yet another to actually abandon these principles because of the character of the "resistance", as the pro-war "left" has.)
Lenin was a monarchist to exactly the same extent that the AWL is pro-imperialist: not at all.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
A very Strange Interpretation
Sacha this is a very strange interpretation of what Lenin says here. Surely a more appropriate interpretation would be that Marxists cannot make the PARTICULAR demand to defend the tiny Iraqi Labour Movement an overriding concern over the GENERAL interests of the working class internationally. It should not be a fetish that overrides the interests say of Iranian workers faced with a massive imperialist army at its doors, and a clearly looming invasion by that army. It cannot be a fetish which requires workers in the imperialist countries to cease struggling against their own imperialist bouregoisie, and its very real aggressive activities on the world stage. In fact the latter is to adopt the same position as that of the Stalinists who said to socialists don't actually oppose your own imperialism in this particular case because it will undermine the interests of the USSR. Very strange that the AWL should adopt the Stalinist method of Socialism in One Country, particularly to defend the interests of a tiny Labour Movement at the expense of the interests of much larger Labour Movements. One would think that your method here is not in fact based on the method Lenin proposes above to look objectively at the interests of the Labour Movement as a whole, but is instead to ignore the interests of the whole in favour of the particular because it is the "moral" thing to do.
Arthur Bough
Arthur, I find it difficult
Arthur, I find it difficult to know how to reply to this because I don't think I fully understand your line of argument. At best, it seems to me that elements of your argument would have grip *if* you were dealing with socialists who said that - because of the character of the Iraqi "resistance", the possibility of the break up of Iraq and the collapse of Iraqi society, and the consequent threat to the Iraqi labour movement - we should (however critically) support US/British imperialism. But you're not, because we don't.
Of course, you would presumably reply that, whether we like it or not, refusing to demand "Troops out now", *does* mean critical support. But this is simply nonsensical - a point which the Lenin analogy makes clear. The accusation that the AWL gives critical support to US/UK imperialism in Iraq only makes sense if you assume that the only way to oppose an imperialist occupation is by saying "Out now".
But, eg, did Marx ever say this about India? Marx wrote reams about British rule in India, highly sympathetic to the Indian national cause and supportive of Indian independence - but did he ever say "British troops out now" (or the equivalent)? Was he therefore a critical supporter of British rule in India? That argument has been made, but I think it's clearly wrong. What do you think?
Actually, Yes, and
Well, not Marx, but Engels certainly argued that socialists should demand that Britain got out of India straight away even though he recognised that such a move would cause a great deal of violence and destruction in India.
But, just answer this question. Suppose the British and US working class tomorrow launched a General Strike to force the removal of the Occupation forces. Where would that leave the AWL. On your current position you would have to oppose those General Strikes i.e you would have to oppose the huge British and US Labour Movements undertaking a political strike against imperialism, indeed you do oppose the call for such a withdrawal so we don't have to guess what your position would be. Why would you have to do so? Because your position is that such a demand is reactionary, that it is not in the interest of the tiny Iraqi working class which would be crushed by the "Resistance". In actual fact your position has zigged and zagged on this over the last year or so at first the argument was that if the troops left the "Resistance" (which you only defined as being the Sunnis and foreign fighters) would come to power, then at other times having realised that a large part of the "Resistance" is in fact not these forces but the Shia militia, you have then changed your argument to suit and argued that it would lead to Civil War - a Civil War in which your original "Resistance" would in fact get trounced.
This is precisely what Lenin was arguing socialists should not do in the quotes you have given which I am very familiar with i.e. you should not place the interests of the PARTICULAR (in this case the tiny Iraqi Labour Movement in Lenin's Quote the Republican Movement of the small country) over the GENERAL (in this case the demand that the huge Labour Movement internationally in particular in Britain and the US should oppose the policy of its own imperialist bourgeoisie in exercising its writ over foreign countries.
You have made yourselves border guards around Iraq, in the same way that the Stalinists became around the USSR. Just as the Stalinists argued against the European Labour Movement struggling against its own bourgeoisie during WWII because it might have helped the Nazis defeat the USSR, so you want to refrain from calling for the removal of US forces because it might lead to the victory of the clerical-fascists. Your position starts not from the Marxist perspective of what is in the interests of the working class as a whole, but begins just as Glotzer did in relation to Israel with the perspective of moral outrage - "this is terrible something must be done." And because your position begins with the perspective that the working class is too weak to impose a solution - as Glotzer did with Israel - your positoin instead looks to some alien class force to prove the solution - for Glotzer Zionism for the AWL in Iraq the Occupation with the working class in Iraq and internationally left to fight simply for Economistic demands, whilst leaving the resolution of the political situation to the bouregoisie, and imperialism.
Arthur Bough
General strike
Arthur, you write: " Suppose the British and US working class tomorrow launched a General Strike to force the removal of the Occupation forces." But this is pretty much just asking "Suppose we lived in a completely different world..." isn't it?
I will leave aside the broader issues which any general strike, about anything, would raise - which ultimately (if it's a real general strike and not just a brief protest) are about class power.
If the labour movement was focused and animated on the issue of the occupation of Iraq to the extent that it was prepared to organise an all-out general strike against the government ('until the troops are withdrawn'?) - around this and not more immediate domestic concerns, well, sure, I think that would be pretty marvellous. (I assume also that this has occurred through some process other than that the Stop the War Coalition had achieved such influence, indeed hegemony, that it is able to lead the general strike, which would be less so).
Surely we *would* be concerned if this marvellous, militant workers' struggle wasn't expressing any more interest in Iraq and the Iraqi people than just 'bring our boys home'. Surely you can even imagine a version of this scenario in which the underlying sentiment is entirely nationalistic, and we most certainly would be critical. But even if it wasn't - wouldn't it be a pretty half-way internationalism if it expressed complete indifference, as you do, Arthur, whether or not the immediate result of its own militant action was catastrophic for the people of Iraq? Wouldn't we be looking for every way conceivable to make *links* between our militant strike and the Iraqi labour movement - and wouldn't we think - you know, as people trying to build an international socialist movement - that actually those links were more important than whether or not the government immediately conceded the demand - ie, put the troops on planes and boats tomorrow, otherwise we're staying out...?
(And wouldn't we think, if the movement really was this militant, that other things were posed - I mean other things than Iraq - by this extraordinary development in the class struggle... like, for instance, never mind the troops in Iraq, what about the troops in Britain...?)
Clive,
1. This does not deal with the fact that Lenin's quote actually makes the opposite argument to that which Sacha was claiming for it.
2. Yes if a General Strike were to erupt tomorrow it would mean a different world to that we are in, but such thought experiments are a common means to test arguments aren't they? The test of your position is what would your position be if? You may remember that the Thornettites argued their opposition to Galtieri right up to the moment the shooting started, at which point they said everything was now different!
3. Yes, of course in the situation of a General Strike socialists would be arguing for other things such as greater support for Iraqi workers and so on, but are you saying that your support for such a genral Strike against an imperialist power would be conditional upon workers doing that??
4. Far from me having no concern for Iraqi workers, unlike you I do not consider that we should wait until such a General Strike to raise those kinds of political demands. I do not think that here and now we should confine our Programme for workers in this country, internationally or in Iraq to what amounts to little more than routine Trade Unionism. But as Sacha's apposite quote from Lenin demonstrates the approach to such situations cannot be determined in the last instance by a snetimental moralising over the fate of the tiny Iraqi working class, but can only be determined by what is in the interest of the working class as a whole.
5. Do you deny that if the US working class were to mobilise on the basis of demanding a withdrawal of troops that this would if successful be a tremendous victory for the working class against its main enemy, or do you agree with Martin that given the weakness of the working class, we should instead welcome the increasing power of imperialism to act with impunity wherever it likes provided it does so "surgically", that such acts of agression are "good"?
6. Your answrer in so far as you give one that can be seen clearly seems to suggest, well if the working class did organise such a General Strike we would support it. Is that correct? If so then two questions arise. If you would support it, then presumably you think that such a development would also be "good". In which case why not argue for such action. Oh you can't because your position is that the consequence of such action is reactionary. Oh so its reactionary now, but not if it actually happens. I'm surprsied you'd follow the example of the Thornettites in that method of politics. And, if you'd support such action were it to arise, but won't actually campaign for it, what type of politics do we normally call that. From memory Lenin refers to it as tailism, a variety of opportunism.
Arthur Bough
General Strikes
I think that your comment about General Strikes being about class power is actually wrong. As Trotsky points out there have been many General Strikes for the achievement of partial aims that do not require the question of which class rules to be central. Such a question may arise through the logic of the strike, but there is no absolute necessity for it to do so.
Arthur Bough
Fuller Response
As I realise that you dislike detailed debate on your discussion forum I have given a fuller response on my blog here Return of the Idiot Imperialists
Arthur Bough
To Quote a Football Chant
"Oh they've all gone quiet over there."
Arthur Bough