Workers' Liberty

I do not agree with everything AWL say, but I do not want to dwell on the differences. AWL have been campaigning for a 2 state solution to the Israel / Palestinian crisis since the mid 1980s. Such a solution has not yet come about and it is a shame.

Those that campaign for a "one state" - destroy Israel solution are in what I hope to believe is a fantasy land. If it is not a fantasy and it comes to pass, then I fear it would be a genocidal solution irrespective of whether that is the intent of some of those campaigning for it. There is also part of the population in Israel who believe in a Greater Israel and would feel that giving up land for a Palestinian state would be a gross betrayal. That part of the Israeli population are in a distinct minority. I would guess that for the Palestinians a much larger proportion of them would be willing to accept a 2 state solution than was the case when AWL started arguing for it.

The election of Hamas spelled a disaster, not just for the prospects of an imminent peace, but also for the Palestinians. We now see, prima facie, different people ruling Gaza to those ruling the West Bank, even if in theory they should be the same people. With Hamas in charge, an organisation that flatly refuses to recognise Irael, there will be no peace. Hamas, no doubt in part, were elected because the Palestinians were fed up with the corruption of the PLO, but since they have gained power Hamas have done little to endear themselves to the population that elected them and their popularity has plummeted.A new election by the Palestinians that give a resounding "no" to Hamas and a yes to factions that are interested in a genuine peace will certainly be a step in the right direction.

Realistically, any peace agreement that is agreed will have the influence of the American government. George Bush's term in office is coming to an end but even he went further than any previous American incumbent President, stating categorically that he wanted to see a two-state solution and he added, "Swiss cheese isn't going to work when it comes to the territory of a state." By that, he clearly meant that the Palestinian State must be contiguous. He hoped that it would occur before his term in office ended. It would be great if that were possible, but as time moves on it increasingly looks like a pipe dream.

The situation will be made easier if a deal between Israel and the Palestinians can come about combined with a deal between Israel and the remaining Arab states that have so far still refused to recognise Israel. The increasing oil price has meant that the GCC countries, notably Saudi, have a lot more potential influence in the region. Saudi has its own well known problems, not least with extremists in its own country and a rule of law that does not fit in well with the way many of us understand the way an enlightened country should be run. Despite all of this, the Saudis will be key to a wider Israeli/Arab peace treaty. I suspect that they would back an agreed peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Irrespective of the fact that the Saudi Royal family do not fit in with our understanding in a democracy of how a country should be governed, it would be nice to see the Saudi Royal family, the rulers of other GCC countries and ideally Iraq turn up to Jerusalem and address the Knesset as part of a wider peace settlement.

What is occurring in Lebanon is, to say the least, unhelpful for peace. It is great shame that Hezbollah, a genocidal organisation, appears to have a more powerful and well organised militia than the Lebanese government. Posters appearing over Lebanon with a picture of the Syrian President show who is pulling some of Hezbollah's strings. It is widely accepted that Iran are also backing and influencing Hezbollah. Civil war is a real possibility and we must support the Lebanese government against Hezbollah.

A two sate solution with peace between Israel, the Palestinians and the wider Arab states does not therefore look like it is going to happen in the very near future, but I would hope that the sentiment for it is much higher on all sides than the time that AWL originally decided to support that position.

The 2 state solution is a sensible solution to the hostilities and AWL should continue campaigning for it.

"Ehud Olmert said Israel was "finished" if it forced the Palestinians into a struggle for equal rights.

If the two-state solution collapsed, he said, Israel would "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished". Israel's supporters abroad would quickly turn against such a state, he said."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/30/israel

It would appear the racist Prime Minister of Israel understands the situation much better than the "Marxist" AWL.

The Prime Minister of Israel, in the quote that you give shows that he supports a two-state solution. That means giving the Palestinians a state that they have been waiting for. The more interesting question is why would you be against a two-state solution? In your case it is probably that you want a state for Palestinian Arabs but not for the Israeli Jews - that state you want destroyed. Why is it bll j that you and your like treat the state of Israel different to that of others?

Mikey's anlysis of the situation is very interesting. Looked at from the point of view of some bourgeois diplomat sitting in the Foreign Office, or the State Department it balances the issues nicely, and assessses what might be a pleasant outcome. What is missing throughout, and what actually is missing from the AWL's analysis in terms of a solution is any mention of the working class!!!! For a socialist, let alone for a Marxist that would appear to be a significant omission!

Of course, in the best of all possible worlds some nice tidy two-state solution would be a significant improvement over the current situation, but the real world is far more complex than that. Mikey gives us some of the actual real world problems that such a solution poses, but skips over how these problems might be resolved, what consequiences they have for the Two State solution, let alone asks the question of if these problems were overcome, how they would be overcome, and what effect those solutions might have for whether socialists believed the outcome could be considered progressive, what consequecnes those solutions have for the Jewish and palestinian working class, and indee the working class internationally.

I have to say I was rather taken aback by the acceptance on face value of the good faith of George Bush in this matter. Bush has made vague statement in favour of a Two State solution knowing full well its not going to happen. He came out alongside with Blair at the time of the build up to the invasion of Iraq in order to offer some crumbs to the US's aliies in the region. The same thing happened prior to the first Gulf War. But the US's position is wholly duplicitous. It is building for a war against Iran, and has switched horses in Iraq building up the Sunni forces in the Sunni Triangle, whilst lending its support to the weak Iraqi bouregoisie and its political reperesentatives in SCIRI and DAWA for a Thermidorian class war against Sadr, and his plebeian supporters. It has supported Al Qaeda in Lebanon against the Shia Hezbollah, supported by Iran, it is supporting Fatah against the Iranian backed Hamas. Both the US and Israel know that as long as its opponents in the region can be divided and kept fighting each other, as long as the Palestian bouregoisie can be kept on the hook with the promise of their own bourgeois state those opponents will not pose a serious threat.

Of course Ohlmert in the same vein as Bush pronounces that he is in favour of Two States, but as much as Bush he knows it will not happen, and as long as the palestinians can be kept warring with each other both the US and Israel will have a straightforward answer. "Well we would, but not with Hamas, not until thre is some kind of demcocratic authority we can deal with."

But, of course the situation necessarily reproduces those condtions. The palestinians deprived of rights resist Israel, but the whole nationalistic basis of that oposition cuts them off from large swathes of the one force that could help them achieve basic democratic rights. The focus on the establishment of a separate state as the minimum goal emphasises that nationalism just as much as does the single Palestinian state position. It frames the discussion in terms of nationalism of national reformism rather than in class terms, logically it sets Palestinian worker against Jewish worker forcing each into the camp of their own bourgeoisie. So it is not surprising that witnessing that Israel can invade its territory with impunity large numbers of Palestinians ask the obvious question, "How viable, how indpendent would a Palestinian state be?" and so are driven in the direction not just of a two state solution but the single state solution. Hence the support for Hamas. Jewish workers on the other hand see repeated Palestinian suicide attacks, and ask the question "Wouldn't a separate state, especially one with Hamas in control, only give such people a more secure base, and the firepower of a State to aim at us?" The Greater israel and other religious fanatics in Israel might be a minority, but the fact that the West Bank has been turned into a Swiss Cheese is undeniable, and in the agreement for israel to withdraw from Gaza, Bush effectively gave the nod for that process to continue. It is unlikely that Israel will or could simply dismantle those settlements.

It is difficult to see even from the perspective of bouregois diplomacy how these problems could be resolved. Even did the huge problems not exist the only vehicles for the establishemnt of a Two State solution are the agreement of the Israeli and Palestinian bouregoisie, probably with some agreement form the surrounding Arab bouregois governments, and the agreement and support of the US. From a marxist perspective there is little progressive in such a solution that on the backs of, and over the heads of the working class of Palestine and Israel establishes another new bouregois class state, especially in the circumstances of what would be necessary for its establishment and fucntioning. But, if such a state were established it is naive to believe that the problems outlined above would simply vanish. Palestinians would continue to be aggrieved at the plight, with the continued existence of the wall, a financial dependence both on Israel and US imperialism and so on. In no real sense could such a state be considered to have achieved self-determination, it would be a vassal state. Large numbers of Palestinians would continue to blow themselvs up on Israeli territory as a result of these ocntinued grievances. Now Israel would blame a Palestinian State, hold its leaders to account, threaten action against it, just as Turkey does with Northern Iraq. In order to prevent such actions the Palestinian State would have to turn itself into a prison house for its own people, probably including a llarge military presence from US imperialism to keep order, and guarantee the peace. It would be a recruiting ground for islamic militants, and probably provide even more support for Hamas. For the workers of Palestine it would be a nightmare.

Could the workers of Palestine and Israel bring about a Two State solution? Would that resolve the above problems? In theory they could, but only under certain conditions. First of all it would requie a willingness on the part of both groups of workers to struggle for such a solution, but a primary condition for that is some unity between them, a unity which unfortunately, does not exist, and which the call for a Two States solution here and now cannot develop, not only because all of the background to that call including in its variant raised by the AWL is for that solution to be a bouregois solution, an agreement reached not between workers, but between bourgeois governments over the heads of workers. A precondiiton is that joint Jewish/Palestinian organisations be built that can begin to break down communal and nationalist divisions between those workers, overcome the fears and prejudices of each and thereby begin to cut the ground from beneath the communalists on both sides. But again the Two States solution as a maximalist demand cuts against that, because it emphasises not a common class interest, but a national interest. At best it would rest on the basis of some bouregois individualist notion of self-interest, not on any shared class interest. No doubt on that basis there will be Jewish individuals who will argue for God's sake give them a state so they will stop attacking us, but that kind of motivation based on individual self interest will quickly turn into its opposite when the attacks continue.

Moreover, a question arises about exactly what this would imply. If Jewish workers found sufficient common cause with Palestinian workers to demand that the Israeli state provide a separate Palestinian state, that it met all the aspirations of the Palestinians in that regard what does it tell us about the change in conscioussness within the Jewish workingc lass that would have to have occurred for that to happen? What is the process by which the change in conscioussness comes about. The proponents of Two States never say, but then they never see a place for the working class in this process to begin with. If that change in conscioussness arose could it not only arise on the back of some considerable sense of solidaity and unity developed between the Palestinian and Jewish working class? But, even were such a change to come about what would be the means by which this demand was implemented, forced on the ruling class? What would such a change in conscioussness and class relations mean in tems of the attitude of the Palestinian and Israeli bourgeoisie, would they not recoil at such a development in the same way that Trotsky describes in Permanent Revolution? Wouldn't such a development imply a growing over from the demand for a separate state, to a developing class war, as the bouregoisie determined its main enemy to be such a unified working class? That is what placing the centrality of the working class at the heart of the Two States demand implies. That is why those like the AWL that have sunk back into bouregois liberalism on the National Question do not posit the working class as central to this process, but instead frame their discussion around the movement of pieces on the chess board by the bourgeois diplomats and politicians.

If unity is to be built between Palestinian and Jewish workers for the demand for Two States it can only arise if common ground is found between them to fight for intemediate demands as opposed to the maximalist demand of a separate state. The fact is that Palestinians and Jews live in a single Israeli State. They have done so since 1967. But it is a state where the Palestinians lack any democratic rights. A starting point for building the kind of workers unity that would be required for the workers to impose a Two States soluton on their respective bouregoisies is that unity be built around a fight for those basic democratic rights for all Palestinians. Until a separate state is formed Palestinians should have the right as any other citizen to elect represntatives to the Parliament of the State they are in. They should have all the other basic demcoratic rights that the citizen of any other bouregois democracy enjoys. That should be the basic Minimum Programme of a fight for consistent demcoracy that Palestinian and Jewish workers are mobilised around. They should build common workers organisations to organise the fight for such demands, so undercutting communalism. Only on that basis can the workers build the necessary strength and unity, develop the encessary class cosnscioussness to be able to impose their solution on the bourgeoisie, and for a Marxist that is the only basis that the progressiveness of a demand can be assessed. But, my guess is that were such unity of purpose to be developed, were such a change of class conscioussness to arise the question of Two States would become secondary. The primary concern would become the struggle for power, not for the estblishemnt of a new bouregois state, but for the establishment of a workers state.

I would like to thank Arthur for his comments. I mentioned that I did not want to dwell on the differences that I have with AWL. He suggests that my "significant omission" is that I do not mention "the working class." This, for Arthur, is such a severe omission that it is deserved of four exclamation marks. His own analysis, as he is fully prepared to admit, is a "Marxist" one. It would be safe to assume that my own analysis is not a Marxist one and a key difference that I have with AWL is that I am not a Marxist.

Olmert knows what he's talking about. In comparing the Israeli state to Apartheid South Africa, he is being unusally candid. He supports a two state solution as he sees it as a means to guarantee the existence of Apartheid Israel.
Socialists should oppose all religious states, they are inherently undemocratic and oppressive. Olmert knows that. That's why he wants one.

bill j's latest post really is quite pathetic. One wonders whether he can actually read properly. In his earlier post, he linked to an article in the Guardian where Olmert was reported to have said, as the headline fairly paraphrases it, "Israel risks apartheid-like struggle if two-state solution fails." bill j incorrectly reads that as saying Olmert compared "the Israeli state to Apartheid South Africa" which is clearly something he did not do. Moreover, bill j completely inverts what Olmert said by claiming that Olmert "supports a two state solution as he sees it as a means to guarantee the existence of Apartheid Israel." One need only read the headline in the Guardian article to see that bill j has inverted the truth. Finally, bill j claims that Olmert wants a religious state. For bill j's information Olmert is a secularist and he has no desire to have some kind of theocracy. bill j may do a little bit better if he learned how to read.

Olmert isn't ambiguous. He compares Israel to Apartheid South Africa;

""We don't have unlimited time," he says. "More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against `occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state. "
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

In fact he's so convinced about the Apartheid nature of Israel that he points out he's said it more than once;

""If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz Wednesday"

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html

Olmert at least has the virtue of being honest. Mikeymikey hasn't even got that.

And just to add it would appear that I am not the only one who can't read;

"Gerald Steinberg, chairman of the political science department at Israel's Bar-Ilan University, said Olmert's comments reflected a long-held belief. "The logic is precisely the same as the logic pursued by all Israeli governments since 1967: the realisation that you can't have a Jewish, democratic state and still control the lives of millions of Palestinians," he said."

The Guardian add;

"The Israeli government is usually bitterly resentful of any comparison to the apartheid regime but Olmert's remarks looked like an effort to galvanise support from a sceptical Israeli public for a return to peace negotiations with the Palestinians in the days after the Annapolis conference.

Israel has a 20% Arab minority who are citizens and can vote, although they are frequently discriminated against and are described by some as a "demographic threat". Within a few years the number of Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian territories is expected to equal, and then exceed, the number of Jews in Israel and the settlements. Some Palestinians argue that they should campaign for a so-called one-state solution: equal voting and citizenship rights within a larger country that includes Israel and the occupied territories and in which Palestinians will soon have a majority."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/30/israel

etc.

Funnily enough Condaleeza Rice has an alternative comparison for Israel - with the Jim Crow racist Southern states of the USA;

"In private conversations - and as she said in Annapolis - Rice tends to compare the Israeli occupation in the territories to the racial segregation that used to be the norm in the American South. The Israel Defense Forces checkpoints where Palestinians are detained remind her of the buses she rode as a child in Alabama, which had separate seats for blacks and whites. "
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/939202.html

Throughout the links that bill j has provided, Olmert has argued in favour of getting out of the occupied territories. From the first link provided which relates to an Olmert interview in 2003 he spoke of unilateral action which is exactly what Sharon did by pulling the Jews out of Gaza kicking and screaming. The occupation of the West Bank must also end and a Palestinian state set up. In order for this to happen realistically, and this may be what Arthur Bough calls a "bourgeois diplomat" solution, a Palestinian leadership who can be negotiated with must come in power. Given the decline in popularity for Hamas amongst the Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza, this may become a possibility if the Palestinians have a new election. Israel being a democracy also has elections and under Likud it may be difficult. The Kadima party was set up by Sharon so that he could not be pushed around the Likud hardliners. Kadima can do the deal. The bigger question is can, or will, the Palestinians elect someone strong enough to do the deal who can keep the Palestinian one staters, who may prefer the use of the gun and suicide bombs to that of diplomacy, in check? It is a tough call, but with respect to Arthur Bough, I feel it is more likely than the Marxist solution he proposes.

Olmert wants a two state solution as it is the best means of defending Israeli apartheid - his definition. Mikeymikey, claims that only he can read, and that everyone else who has read Olmert's statement, including Olmert himself, various university professors and professional journalists cannot.

Enough said. Written. And read.

I always thought that the post modernist assertion that words have no meanings only interpretations was cobblers. Then I encountered Mikeymikey and Arthur Bough.

Olmer doesn't want a two state solution - claims Arthur Bough. So when Olmert says;

"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz Wednesday"

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html"

Then he's actually arguing for the collapse of the two state solution in order that Israel may face a South African style struggle for equal voting rights so that Israel is finished.

Gotcha.

Mikeymikey claims that Olmert is making no comparison between Israel and apartheid - when Olmert directly insisted that he was and pointed out he had made the same comparison repeatedly - and on record in an interview five years before.

Words do have meanings. Although evidently not for Arthur Bough and Mikeymikey.

I really cannot be bothered to respond any more to bill j. I have already established that he cannot read properly and I am pleased to note that on this point Arthur Bough agrees with me. My suggestion to him is that before attempting to comprehend what Olmert has said, he starts with something a littler simpler. As a suggestion, he may find a responsible adult to assist him with the following excellent book: Martha Weston, Jack and Jill and Big Dog Bill: A Phonics Reader (Random House, 2002)

This thread started off with the subject, "Israel at sixty: We still stand for two states" and Arthur extends the discussion. In one post he sees fit to mention Lenin, Trotsky, the Stalinist Stages theory, US imperialism, the Soviet invasion of Poland, the Kuomintang of Chiang Kai Shek, South Africa, Iraq, Kosova, Tibet, Monaco, Lichtenstein and the North of Ireland Catholics. Forgive me for saying this, but it is difficult for me to know where to begin.

In relation to Arthur's comments, I have previously noted that a substantial disagreement I have with the AWL is that I am not a Marxist. This can be extended to correctly say that I am also not a follower of Leninism. There is good reason for this. My first discussions with Marxist-Leninists were as a student and these discussions were often with supporters of Socialist Organiser, the forerunner of the AWL. At the National Union of Students conferences I regularly heard Trotskyist students chanting a song that repeated the line "Hang the Tories from the lampposts when the red revolution comes" numerous times. As I was not a Tory student and as I believed that they did not really mean it, I did not take the words in this song seriously. However, the more I read about what Lenin was truly like and what really did happen in the Russian Revolution, I have realised that I was mistaken in dismissing this song. Followers of Lenin really do not have a problem murdering people en masse.

Richard Pipes, in his book,The Russian Revolution (Vintage Books, 1991) shows in a substantial amount of detail how ruthless Lenin was and the terror that he inflicted upon his opponents. The Second Congress of Soviets passed a policy of abolishing the death penalty for front-line deserters. Lenin was not there but was livid that such a policy was passed. "How can you make a revolution without executions?" he asked and he subsequently told the Bolsheviks to ignore the decision of the congress. Lenin also did not care whether those that he threw in prison were or were not guilty. By December 1917, Trotsky could proclaim, "There is nothing immoral in the proletariat finishing off the dying class. This is right.... Our enemies will face not prison but the guillotine." By February 1918 Lenin was demanding "on the spot" executions without trial of what it would appear anyone he did not like including "enemy agents, speculators, burglars, hooligans [and] counterrevolutionary agitators."

Dzerzhinskii made sure that this terror was carried out in accordance with Lenin's instructions. He had no qualms in arranging for those he deemed "bourgeois" or "counterrevolutionaries" to suffer the fate of a firing squad. Lenin saw no need for law courts, such systems were part of a "bourgeois" system, far better was dictatorship of the proletariat and "rule unrestricted by any law." People's Courts and Revolutionary Tribunals were set up that were simply kangaroo courts run by judges who did not understand law and could simply sentence people to death. But even this was not enough terror for Lenin, so he relied upon the Cheka to install real terror and carry out summary executions. "Counterrevolutionaries" could be "mercilessly liquidated on the spot."

By August 1918, Lenin sent an instruction to "introduce at once mass terror, execute and deport hundreds of prostitutes, drunken soldiers, ex-officers, etc." The use of the word "etc" was a license to kill just about anyone, random killings to intimidate the population. By September 1918 it was made clear that there must be no "slackness" in carrying out such terror, "class enemies" could be thrown into concentration camps and others could immediately executed. Zinoviev went so far as to make the following chilling statement: "We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia's inhabitants. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated." One person in ten of the population being murdered may be acceptable for Arthur Bough, but it is not for me.

The Red Army could proclaim:

"Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies by the scores of hundreds, let them be thousands, let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin ... let there be floods of blood of the bourgeoisie - more blood, as much as possible."

Who cared who they killed for as Krylenko put it, "We must execute not only the guilty. Execution of the innocent will impress the masses even more." It was not just arbitrary killing because in 1918-1919 the Cheka were also guilty of looting, extortion and, naturally, rape.

Indiscriminate and merciless terror. One wonders whether all this is taught at the AWL summer school?

nuts

Amid the various points I think a few things stand out clearly.

Arthur is right I think that the two state solution is unworkable as it will only realistically come about as an imposition from the ruling class. Any Palestinian 'state' would have its borders decided by Israel, 'borders' which would be/are rigorously policed to prevent free movement of Palestinians but to allow Israeli army incursions and would in effect become bantustans.

Bill I think makes a good point that the Israeli prime minister himself recognises the parallel with South Africa. Of course we don't always believe what a prime minister says for the sake of it but his candour here is no doubt aimed at critics who don't even want the pretence of a semi-independent Palestinian state-let and sometimes we have to use our class enemies' words against them!

Link here

Of courser I dare say I risk being abused as an idiot anti-imperialist or kitsch or something but I think it’s entirely fair to extend support to Palestinians engaged in self-defence, for class struggle within Israel/Palestine, for links where possible between the Israeli Jewish and Palestinian Arab populations and other ethnic groups such as the sizeable Ethiopian population (some of whom are Jewish) over basic class struggle demands, for democracy, for trade union rights, against the war. Of course there will be within these united fronts those who support two state solutions but as socialists I think we should be for united class struggle against the bourgeois, forging in that struggle class unity and solidarity. If Jewish or Arab workers wanted some kind of autonomy in a workers’ state then that is clearly a matter for them. But our immediate duty of solidarity is against the current inequality and national oppression imposed by the Israeli bourgeois as gendarmes for imperialism.

As immediate and practical solidarity I think we should be for demonstrations and direct action against the Israeli state’s aggressive military occupation and for the overthrow of the Israeli apartheid regime.

By the way as an aside, Richard Pipes, book,”The Russian Revolution” is a work of fiction, quite well written at times, though I found the style quite disfigured by a fanatical hatred. As history it is appalling. If you really want to know about the Russian revolution I’d suggest reading Revolution and Counterrevolution: Class Struggle in a Moscow Metal Factory by Kevin Murphy (reviewed by me in next issue of Permanent Revolution) or The Bolsheviks in Power: The First Year of Soviet Rule in Petrograd reviewed in this issue of Permanent Revolution online soon

Jason makes a very strong accusation against the source that I used for information and quotes that I provided in my previous post to this thread. He claims that my source is "a work of fiction." Richard Pipes has taken the trouble to provide endnotes detailing the sources for the claims and quotes that I provide above. I should be interested to know exactly which ones Jason considers to be fiction and why. Checking one further source: Ronald W Clark, Lenin: The Man Behind the Mask(London: Faber and Faber, 1989) we can see on page 377:

"There can be no doubt about his [Lenin's] knowledge and encouragement of the killings which took place by the thousand from the summer of 1918 onwards .... it is beyond doubt that by the first years of the twentieth century, Lenin had come to regard murder as a usable weapon in the revolutionary's armoury."

On page 379 Clark continues:

"After failing to dissuade Lenin from carrying out one particular measure... [Steinberg, Commissar of Justice] exclaimed in exasperation: 'Then why do we bother with a Commissariat of Justice? Let's call it frankly the Commissariat for Social Extermination, and be done with it,' At this, Steinberg had written, 'Lenin's face suddenly brightened and he replied: "Well put ... that's exactly what it should be ... but we can't say that."'"

Unless Jason can provide evidence to the contrary, it seems that Lenin was indeed a mass murderer.

Arthur Bough does not dismiss my source but says that he would have liked to have been on the side of Lenin and Trotsky. Maybe Arthur has fantasies about murdering people wholesale himself. His only defence that he puts forward is a counterfactual: He admits that Stalin would not have got into power if it were not for Lenin and I assume he accepts that Stalin went on to murder by the million, but his counterfactual is that it may have been worse without Lenin. With such counterfactuals one can claim anything. I would guess that some may claim that Hitler was a good thing as it may have been worse with someone else.

I didn't challenge your source because I haven't read it. Nor do I doubt that a lot of people died in the Civil War that followed the revolution, but that's what happens in Wars. We might not like it, but that is not counter factual its factual. What is also factual is that in the revolution itself there was very little violence. The violence began when the old ruling classes realised that the Bolshevik regime was not going to collapse, and so began to try to undermine it. What is factual is that Winston Churchill who was not shy at killing a few people in order to look after the interests of his class bragged about personally raising 14 armies to try to overtrun the Bolsheviks. You don't raise 14 armies if your intention is just to go and have a peaceful chat!!!!

In every area where the Whites and their imperialist backers regained control there was horrendous violence against the people and reintroduction of all the horrors of Tsarism and landlordism. So let's not get carried away with this bourgeois moralism and sentimentalism. History is not made in people's studies, by people having cosy chats.

And what you say is counterfactual has a sound basis. Frightened by the demands of the workers and peasants for basic rights and conditions - which if they had had any sense the Conciliators would have granted - Kerensky did a deal with Kornilov to launch a military coup. Kornilov took Kerensky at his word, and decided he didn't need Kerensky and could take pwoer for himself. It was only the Bolsheviks that prevented that. Japan had already attacked Russia as part of its imperilaist ambitions in 1905. IN 1932 Japan invaded Manchuria again with its eye on the USSR, and its resources. Britain attempted to secure the Baku oilfields for itself, Germany grabbed Russian territory at Brest-Litovsk, and would absent the revolution have probably grabbed much more, Poland took a slice for itself.

It is not a leap of faith to consider what would have happened had the revolution not occurred the outlines of what would have happened are fairly clear. It would have meant a dismemberment of the country, huge conflicts over the rights of the national minorities, the installation at least of a military government, and probably of some proto-fascist, Black Hundredis reactionary regime, and huge amounts of bloodshed.

No I do not have fantasies about mass murder, but I do have nightmares about workers not being prepared for the violent actions of the bouregoisie.

Arthur Bough

of a resurgent world wide capitalism. He saw the Russian revolution as a conspiracy. Archive material now avaible as well as any unbiased readung of what was available at the time leads me to think that revolutions are not conspitacies of a few fanatics. The version of Pipes I read had no footnotes as it happens- a most surprising omission. But I think it was a popularisation. The Murphy and Rabinowith books are scrupulously sourced. Are there legitimate questions about response to civil war? Of course. But to present the Russian revolution as a conspiracy of evil fanatic and the masses as inanimate playthings is fiction indeed.

On Israel I am for the overthrow of the apartheid state, of the state that discrimnates against Arabs and of its ruling class. Not the 'destruction of Israel.'

I must apologise to Arthur for having "bourgeois" morals that tell me there is something wrong about targeted killing of "prostitutes,drunken soldiers, ex-officers, etc." Arthur also informs me that he has "nightmares about workers not being prepared for the violent actions of the bouregoisie [sic]."

Let us be clear about it, when discussing How to Organise Competition? in 1917, Lenin said a "commandment of socialism" is that "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." One wonders why, given this is the case, that socialists complain about the rate of unemployment benefit. Under their system they will not get any. But it is even worse that this for as Lenin went on to say: "one out of every ten idlers will be shot on the spot." This is a clear example of the indiscriminate murder and terror that Lenin was quite happy to install on the Russian population.

Lenin had no interest in democracy for as he said "Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position."

Lenin wanted "ruthless extermination" of the enemies of the proletariat. As he said elsewhere, Lenin wanted a "War to the death against the rich and their hangers-on, the bourgeois intellectuals; war on the rogues, the idlers and the rowdies!"

I do hope my "bourgeois moralism and sentimentalism" is not too much for Arthur, but exterminating someone just because they are an intellectual or a little rowdy does seem taking things a bit far. Is this why Leninists complain about ASBO's, they want the rowdies simply shot instead?