Workers' Liberty

No doubt, Sean intended his "discussion article" to provoke debate. Certainly, it does facilitate discussion when
comrades are honest and make their views clear. But the article, which includes only minimal and superficial reference to independent working-class politics and any idea of working-class agency, instead dishonestly zigzags between empathising with Israeli hawks and using figleaf, weasel words to avoid openly 'advocating' an Israeli strike against Iran in advance. He says we should "least of all" support Ahmedinejad, as if we were under any compulsion to pick sides and support Olmert a little bit more instead.

(Throughout Sean also takes for granted the idea that the Iranian regime is indeed developing nuclear weapons. This claim is highly tendentious - it is not the opinion of US intelligence - and Sean does not cite any evidence in support of this assertion. Sean clearly uses this only for the reason that if true it helps justify his broader argument in an article light on analysis of what is actually going on in the Middle East as opposed to on the British left. The same could be said for his over-simplified drawing of an equals sign between the Iranian regime and al-Qaedist suicide bombers. However, since my opposition to Sean's position is far from reliant on any illusions in the peaceful intentions of the Iranian regime, I shall ignore this for now).

Sean begins: "An attack on Iran will most likely lead to great carnage in the Middle East and beyond as supporters of Iran resort to suicide bombings in retaliation. There might well be large scale Iranian civilian "collateral" casualties. An attack would strengthen the Iranian regime and license a smash down on its critics, including working class critics, inside Iran. It would throw Iran back into the worst chaos". The only part of the article citing reasons why Sean would be critical of an Israeli bombing raid on Iran (we may assume that a ground invasion would be impossible) this paragraph is interesting in that its main argument is simply that an attack could well be counterproductive for Israel because of how Islamists would react. Note that the opening sentence tells us that the cause of the carnage would in fact be that "supporters of Iran" would retaliate! And Sean's focus is not the interests of the labour movement or the tasks of Marxists in the (potential) belligerent countries, but rather hoping for a balance in the world of geopolitics, military manoeuvre and weapons competition. The reference to Iranian workers is only in passing, even though sabre-rattling and sanctions against Iran, Ahmedinejad's "anti-Zionist" rhetoric and Israel's oppression of the Palestinians all serve to foster a generalised chauvinism in the region and create enormous obstacles to the development of an internationalist labour movement. Sean's view is crude and one-sided and he is far from condemning the Israeli government's effort to cling onto its status as the leading regional power by force: if he realises that such a bombing run would hamper the possibility of workers in the region "uniting to fight for a socialist Middle East", he certainly doesn't show it.

From then on Sean confuses what is "rational" in the interests of Israeli imperialism and great-power realpolitik with what is "rational" in the interests of humanity. As if gazing into his crystal ball Sean predicts that Israel "will not tolerate" and "will act to stop" Iran's nuclear proliferation; Israel "will bomb Iran, with or without the agreement of the USA and NATO"; Israel "will act" on its interests; "Israel will act to stop this Muslim fundamentalist regime". Yet here the word "will" almost seems to be used not to mean that these events are likely but rather as an expression of defiance - you may have doubts in its leaders' confidence, but Israel will stand up for itself! Sean asks us to see the situation from Israel's point of view - "In Israeli eyes the facts and alternatives here are stark" - but is clearly talking about the alternatives as seen in the IDF leadership, ignoring the question of how an attack would be viewed through the eyes of any class-conscious Israeli (or indeed Iranian) worker. He focuses on the tasks of the Israeli government and indeed nearer the end of the article he neatly concludes: "the harsh truth is that there is good reason for Israel to make a precipitate strike at Iranian nuclear capacity".

What an awful, awful thing to write. Good reason for "Israel" to do this: or do you mean that the Israeli military would be justified in attacking Iran? This just playing the game of speculating on manoeuvres the great powers might make with their armies and airforces to guarantee stability, while discounting out of hand as utopian any possibility of the working class acting independently in the regional crisis. Of course, as a "left" figleaf Sean writes that he would rather it was the Iranian workers than the Israeli bombers who got rid of Ahmedinejad, as if the two eventualities are in any sense comparable or would have any similar results. Sean does not want to "advocate" or "endorse" an attack: but this is just playing with words, and clearly given the tone of the piece and the fact that he is so keen to defend the rationale for an attack which is not yet on the cards the article can only be read as offering justification for Olmert et al. How can you say there is "good reason" to do something but not "endorse" it?

Indeed, Sean denounces those who would "condemn" the Israeli government for "refusing to stand idly by", an argument which - if you believed that Saddam Hussein could launch an offensive in 45 minutes - could equally have been used to justify the invasion of Iraq in opposition to those who would prefer to "appease" the Iraqi dictator. Much in the same vein of those on the far left who accuse Third World tyrants of being insufficiently ardent in their opposition to US imperialism, Sean is incensed by "idlers" who would sit on their hands rather than stand up to Ahmedinejad, by fair means or foul.

Sean asks "In the name of what alternative would we condemn Israel?" (having decided that the only choices on offer are (i) Israel attacks Iran or (ii) Iran attacks Israel) and goes on to score easy points against those who say that Israel has no right to exist or that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons. His conclusions do not automatically follow though - thinking that there is "good reason" for a pre-emptive bombing attack on Iran is not merely the logical corollary of the belief that, whatever its government's crimes and whatever its history, the Israeli nation has the right to self-determination and to have a state alongside Palestine if it so chooses. You do not have to be "kitsch left" to oppose an Israeli attack on Iran, nor do you have to be "kitsch left" to refer to Israel's hypocrisy in keeping its own nukes, which Sean avoids reference to. We can say these things whilst posing a positive alternative opposed to all "sides" in the stand off. Even if working-class forces are currently weak in the Middle East, Marxists cannot put off building this independent class camp for the sake of taking sides in some more 'immediate' conflict: doing so and fostering jingoistic illusions actually makes our main objective more difficult to realise.

Sean makes occasional, tokenistic references to 'the workers': these are abstract and separate from the general thrust of the article, and indeed Sean makes no effort to delve into the tasks of the working class in the region or how it might intervene in the crisis. Nor, for that matter, does he refer to the oppression of the Palestinian's or the utter hypocrisy of Israel, the region's sole nuclear power, posturing as "anti-nuclear".

Indeed, one among the "kitsch left reasons for criticising Israel" Sean throws up in his list is of a rather different character to the others: "Because for choice we would live in a world where the workers of Israel, Iran, Iraq were united in opposition to all their rulers, and strong enough to get rid of them and bring to the region an era of socialist and democratic peace and understanding." Sean clearly thinks this is just utopian, and portrays this approach in a carping and dismissive fashion. Of course, none of us think that there's going to be a worldwide socialist revolution in the next week, month or even before Iran is bombed. But that is our sole objective, and the way Marxists respond to more 'immediate' national disputes does indeed shape the possible future outcome: it is impossible to just mix and match between fighting for revolution and playing at imperialist geopolitics like Sean does. You can, however, oppose both regimes and their militarists.

We are not armchair generals willing the Israeli government to stand up for themselves against the "Muslim fundamentalists" or hoping that the big Western imperialist powers will be able to maintain some sort of ersatz "safety" for the Israeli Jews by keeping Israel's rival regional powers weak until that bright, sunny future day when the workers storm the Knesset and take power. Not only do we refuse to put our confidence in the Israeli generals, but we must ardently denounce their aggressive and imperialist stance, the very mirror-image of the Iranian theocrats and one which puts working-class unity further down the agenda.

It must be a Shachtmanite disease: turning into an Israeli-Jewish chauvinist. It happened to plenty of WP-ISL members as they degenerated into right-wing social democrats and it's happened to Sean Matgamna and his majority tendency in the AWL. First time as tragedy, second time as farce. What a disappointment.

Get out while you can, Comrade Broder!

Excellent reply David. Sure, I may be partisan, but I think most impartial observers would also agree with USRed's "get out why you can" sentiment.

The arguments on imperialism, resistance and Marxist policy are well rehearsed, and outlined effectively by David. So, here is another angle.

David is spot on to pick up on the incredible cynicism that this statement reflects:

"Because for choice we would live in a world where the workers of Israel, Iran, Iraq were united in opposition to all their rulers, and strong enough to get rid of them and bring to the region an era of socialist and democratic peace and understanding."

The fact that a socialist revolution is not round the corner, should hardly be taken to mean that role of revolutionaries in the Middle East is not to do everything in our power - by advancing a revolutionary policy - to bring it about a socialist revolution in the event of an inter-regional war between these two powers.

Indeed, what is actually left when this basic and elementary aspect of communist methodology is discarded? Sean gives us an answer - insofar, as he offers no answer beyond a simple reformulation of the socialist goal that he had only moments earlier appeared to dismiss as utopianism:

"Socialists should not want that and can not support it. Our point of view is not that of Israeli or any other nationalism. We want Israeli, Palestinian, Iranian and other workers to unite and fight for a socialist Middle East."

From dismissing the socialist goal as utopian Sean is suddenly left with.... no policy beyond a restatement of the supposedly utopian goal. But of course the reason is obvious. Sean's argument is not meant for the immediate struggles of the masses of the Middle East. It is not meant to take as its starting point the resistance to zionism and US imperialism in the region, and mobilise a set of policies - a programme - that, if advanced by the masses on a sufficient scale can win a socialist federation of the Middle East.

Far from it. Sean's policy is designed for use in... imperialist Britain. As David points out, the whole line of argument is designed to escuse Israeli aggression and effectively give a left justification - not only for the Zionist project, but specifically for any attack by Israel on Iran.

It is outrageous and shameful.

It is worth listening carefully to what the Ahmadinejad regime says. Listen. Don't think you know already. Listen to what they say. Don't imagine they mean what you think they mean. Listen to what they actually say.


(1) "Israel is a filthy black germ..." http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1694.htm


(2) Jewish conspiracy behind 911 http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1674.htm


(3) Ahmadinejad boasts about operating 3000 centrifuges to enrich uranium - http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1604.htm


(4) Ahmadinejad argues for Israel to be moved to Canada or Alaska and he argues for a truth-seeking comission to find out what lay behind 911 and to find out whether the Holocaust really happened. http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1585.htm


(5) Ahmadinejad talks about the Holocaust as a "false idol" http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1573.htm


(6) Ahmadinejad: "death to Israel..." http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1222.htm


(7) Ahmadinejad and Chavez cuddle up against imperialism. Is anyone in AWL ready to join the cuddle? http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1213.htm


Plenty more here. http://www.memritv.org/search/en/results/0/0/0/0/2/0/0/0/0.htm?k=ahmadinejad&bAdvSearch=false


Take seriously what they say, not what you think they mean.

Sean's article is clearly intended to *provoke* discussion, to help the AWL and to an extent the rest of the left clarify our position(s) before a possible Israeli attack on Iran, but in my view there are some serious problems with the way it presents things. I'll come back to these. First, however, let's dispose of hysterical responses a la Luke C. Some quotations:

"We as socialists want Ahmedinejad to be sent to hell not by the Israeli and American armies and airforces, but by the Iranian working class and the oppressed nations in the Iranian state. We would like to see the Israeli ruling class go on the same trip as Ahmedinejad."

"Socialists should not want that [an Israeli attack on Iran] and can not support it. Our point of view is not that of Israeli or any other nationalism. We want Israeli, Palestinian, Iranian and other workers to unite and fight for a socialist Middle East."

Of course you, Luke, believe that Iran should have nuclear weapons, as a "semi-colony" (or "neo-colony" or whatever the term is) "defending" itself against US imperialism. So no surprise you object to rational discussion of the problem. Socialists who oppose Iran developing nuclear weapons should voice their disagreements in a calm and rational manner (as I intend to).

For more on Workers Power's support for Iran etc developing nuclear weapons, and why we should oppose this rubbish, see
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/7128

David Broder,

I read your long reply to Sean's article with interest. Have you considered the fact that nuclear weapons do not tend to differentiate between the working class and the ruling class in who they kill? David Hirsh is right when he suggests that people should look at what the Iranian leadership actually say and consider those words as opposed to reinterpreting the words and trying to pretend that they said he something else. It does not really matter whether the President of Iran said that Israel should be wiped off the map or erased from the pages of time, his intent was clear and as David Hirsh has shown via his links, Ahmadinejad has also called for "death to Israel..."

If we take the Iranian President at his word he has denied that he is trying to obtain a nuclear weapon. However, at the same time Associated Press reports that that he has also admitted that he has doubled the amount of centrifuges from 3,000 to 6,000. The Associated Press report goes on to state:

"A total of 3,000 centrifuges is the commonly accepted figure for a nuclear enrichment program that is past the experimental stage and can be used as a platform for a full industrial-scale program that could churn out enough enriched material for dozens of nuclear weapons. Iran says it plans to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment that will ultimately involve 54,000 centrifuges."

Iran is awash with oil. It has no need for nuclear power for domestic consumption at the moment. What if Ahmadinejad or a replacement President suddenly changes their mind and decide that with the nuclear capability they will have a bomb?

You may very well take what you believe to be a principled stand against any preemptive action by the State of Israel or anyone else, against Iranian nuclear facilities, but it is not just Israeli Jews who are concerned about the nuclear threat as Jaffa is walking distance to Tel Aviv and it has a decent sized Arab population. A nuclear bomb landing on Tel Aviv or anywhere else in Israel will not differentiate between working class and middle class, between Jew, Christian and Muslim.

Marxists may be against wars or foreign intervention that they see as "Imperialist" but they are certainly not pacifist. One wonders whether you are so blinded by the language of anti-Imperialism and discussions surrounding the working classes that you are forgetting that millions could die if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon. In the horrific event that does happen you can write an article discussing the failure of the working classes and where they went wrong. It will not bring the millions back to life.

Real lives are at stake and a nuclear armed Iran should be a bigger concern than whether or not Sean referred to the working classes frequently enough in his article.

Interesting that no one replied to the crux of my initial post; namely, that Sean had advanced absolutely no strategy whatsoever for the working classes of the Middle East, beyond the reformulation of the socialist goal, which he had only a few lines before suggested was the stuff of utopia.

Instead, what we get is a lot of moral stuff about how "real lives are at stake", that "millions could die" - statements that naturally carry with it the suggestion that the key task of the working class in the region is to do everything in its power to stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon? If so, what do you propose comrades - strikes, occupations, a mass movement across the Arab world around the slogan "No nuclear Iran"?

It would be interesting to see what response such a campaign won in the Middle East. Like I said - and there is nothing hysterial about it whatsoever - I expect such a campaign would not get a much of a hearing from the masses of the region. But - again, like I said - your policy is not meant for them, is it? Its meant for use in imperialist Britain.

So, why would such a campaign go down like a lead ballon? It might have something to do with the fact that the whole region suffers from Zionist aggression and US imperialism. Two bloody imperialist wars have been fought by the Americans their in the last ten years, and the prospect of further wars has not been ruled out. Add to this Palestine, Lebanon, etc. And, not to mention the fact, that it is the United States who -

* Have been involved in more conflicts than any other state in the post-war period
* Spend more on arms than the next sixteen states - indeed, the rest of the imperialist world - put together
* Enforce trade sanctions that mean millions are made destitute, suffer famine and starvation
* Has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over

So - this being the case - are we, Marxists living and fighting in the imperialist world, really in a position to deny those states which are formally independent but kept economically subordinate - yes, the "semi-colonies" - the right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary against these powers? To do so, really would be "such rubbish".

Cheers,

Luke

The problem with Workers Power's view of the world - even if they were correct about Iran being a semi-colony - is that class vanishes. They don't actually care about the working class of Iran, they care about the "anti-imperialist" vanguard in Tehran. They say nothing about the Iranian clerical-fascism (mainly because they see the Ahmadinejad regime as a legitimate "anti-imperialist" brother-in-arms), they give not one thought to what it would actually mean for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

A nuclear armed Iran would be their dream come true - Iran would really be able to show it to the "Zionists" then. Luke has latched himself on to David's critique (a hysterical poshlost) and is attempting to groom the 'anti-imperialism' out. In fact, David is a million miles away from Luke's position because, and for all the sane reasons, he is against all nuclear weapons.

'Marxists' like Luke and his comrades in Workers Power fall down flat in the face of the really tough questions. They shy away from even asking such questions for fear of disrupting their tough, macho, self-secure and rather smug view of themselves as the fighting vanguard. "What if Israel bombs Iran?" is one such question. Such an attack is almost certain - whether or not Iran openly declares nuclear weapons capability, they are openly refining Uranium - because Israel sees itself threatened (they are "right to do so" in the sense that this is palpably the case: the declared intention of Ahmedinejad is to wipe Israel out). In his very first paragraph Sean spells out the consequences of such an attack. These consequences alone explain why socialists would oppose an attack.

Sean then lays a trap for the likes of Luke, a trap that Luke is only too willing to leap feet first into. When Sean writes "in the name of what would we condemn Israel?", this is not the rabid exclamation of a pro-war Israeli chauvinist but a question designed for the kitsch-left. Read the alternatives he sets out and see which one Luke and Workers Power fits in to.

Luke, a campaign for women's and LGBT equality liberation would also be unlikely, currently, to win a mass response across the Middle East - except a negative one. Does that mean that socialists should reject it?

Sacha

China in the 20s really was a semi-colony - bits of territory under foreign occupation, widespread foreign spheres of influence, important state functions controlled by foreign imperialists, ports not under its control, no central government able to operate effectively. In other words, it was not fully political independent; elements at least of its independence were purely formal. Thus Trotsky wrote of Japan seeking to transform it from a semi-colonial country into a colonial one (ie under full Japanese occupation and control).

Today - Iran? India? Semi-colonies? Of whom? This is just laughable.

In his polemics against Marxists who thought that the internationalisation of capital meant that national self-determination was obsolete (Luxemburg, Bukharin, Pyatakov), Lenin distinguished clearly between lack of political independence and economic dependence. The former can be ended by a victorious national liberation struggle; the latter can only be abolished as part of the overthrow of the world market framework through workers' revolution. Political independence is a worthwhile, though limited goal, a democratic demand; "economic independence" is a reactionary utopia. (The same argument is made in a different form in Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism.)

Luke, you use the same argument as Bukharin etc used against Lenin, only turned inside out!

In place of Lenin's rational conception, WP etc substitute the idea that any state that is subordinate within the world market is a semi-colony (of no one in particular?) So, Luke, does this only apply to 'developing world' states, or to eg Canada or Spain too? Or in the past, how about Czarist Russia, which was dominated by foreign capital, but was clearly a major imperialist power? Or Portugal, tied economically to the British empire, but with a huge empire of its own?

Clearly political independence has major economic consequences; independent bourgeois states are able to develop their economies where previously they were prevented from doing so by their imperialist oppressors. But to argue that a state is only formally independent because its economy is dominated by foreign capital is to substitute a populist conception of nations and imperialism for a Marxist one.

Sacha

David and Luke are quite right.
What Matgamna and all his hangers on leave out of the equation is oppression. Iran is an oppressed nation, Israel is an oppressor one.
Matgamna obviously knows this which is why he supports the oppressor nation against the oppressed. He supports the US/UK in Iraq. He supports the Israelis in Palestine. He supports the Israelis in Iran.
In every conflict Matgamna is consistently on the side of the oppressors.
Lenin was absolutely unambiguous (and he wasn't one known for his ambiguity) that in a war, socialists support the oppressed nation against the oppressor.
There are literally hundreds of quotes about it. I won't tire you with them. Seeing as you obviously don't care.
As for the issue of semi-colonies you provide no evidence other than your assertion. Given who's side you're on, that's enough reason not to believe you.

No, Bill, I provided plenty of evidence. I explained why 1920s China was a semi-colony. Apply these criteria to Iran. In what sense is it a semi-colony or oppressed nation? In fact it is an oppressor of nations, and an aspiring regional imperialist power! The evidence for this is enormous... However, since in your scissors-and-pritstick world there are only two categories of nations, the big powers and the semi-colonies, I can see why you think otherwise.

We support the Palestinians against the Israelis, but on the following basis:

"Insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights the oppressor, we are always, in every case, and more strongly than anyone else, in favour, for we are the staunchest and the most consistent enemies of oppression. But insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for its own bourgeois nationalism, we stand against. We fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation, and do not in any way condone strivings for privileges on the part of the oppressed nation."
- Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination

Sacha

Luke C

I am very sorry that I worry about "moral stuff" like real lives being at stake and millions of people that could die. Maybe I should drop all morals and join your party? Quite frankly, your post is as ridiculous as the party that you support.

bill j

Can you show me where in the complete works of Lenin, he says that a so called oppressed nation can wipe a so called oppressor nation off the face of the earth with a nuclear bomb?

I think if Iran had nuclear weapons it would launch them on Israel. If I did the USA would obliterate it.
Do the Iranian ruling class have a death wish, do they all really think that if they are martyred the would go to heaven and get an endless supply of virgins. Sean thinks so, but I think they leave such feeling for the bombers, not themselves.

Not sure where to start!

Well, why not, with the original point I made, which not one AWL member has replied to. Namely, that there is no political strategy advanced in the original document - indeed, the AWL do not advance a strategy based on the immediate tasks of the Arab masses. At one point, Sean dismisses as utopian arguing for workers unity and a socialist federation of the Middle East, but only to then basically re-formulate this as the beginning and end of the AWL strategy.

At other points you suggest the key task is to build a campaign around opposition to Iranian nukes, but do not say this explicitly. At other points, you content yourself with banging on about the "very good reasons" Israel has to bomb Iran. No where do you outline an explicit strategy - a set of policies, arguments and steps that the working class can take in Iran and acros the Middle East to resist imperialism and capitalism, fight for socialism and so on. In short, you are completely silent on programme. The result? A council of despair, nothing can really be done beyond outlining how bad the Iranian regime is, and the "very good reasons" Israel has to attack it.

At other points you content yourself with slandering those you criticise.

So, let's consider one such slander:

"The problem with Workers Power's view of the world - even if they were correct about Iran being a semi-colony - is that class vanishes. They don't actually care about the working class of Iran, they care about the "anti-imperialist" vanguard in Tehran."

What rubbish! Far from "not caring about the working class" our strategy in Iran begins with the immediate tasks of the working class in its struggles. These are (1) democratic tasks: the fight against the theocratic regime; (2) economic tasks: the fight against their neoliberal attacks, etc; they are (3) social : liberation of women, etc; but they also (3) ANTI-IMPERIALIST tasks: including the fight against pro-imperialist, CIA sponsored trade unions and - in the event of a Zionist or American attack - yes, the defence of Iran against this aggression.

So, on the question of morality, I only reject the bourgeois - and at times pacifist, but at other times egging on Israel (a strange combination) - morality that you have advanced: i.e. one based on the arguments of the imperialists, given a pseudo-left wing gloss, and combined with crop logic.

We have a morality. It is based on the programme and principles outlined. In fact, the difference between our moralities is a political one. I think an attack on Iran by Israel would be IMMORAL. You think it would be impossible to condemn it because they have "good reasons". A wildy different morality then.

As for Sacha's points.

(1) On semi-colonies:

You're argument is based on a misunderstanding. Of course, the term semi-colony is a political-economic characterisation, as is the term imperialist for that matter. The meeting of the G8 is a political meeting, the division and redivision of the world involves power, not just "economics". Politics is, as Lenin said, "concentrated economics" because social, class conflicts are refracted into the political field in the form of the struggle for state power. Hence, the imperialist wars on Iraq and Afganistan. Hence, the sancions - again a politcal act involving states - against Iran. At the same time the fact this political-economic (to be more precise) subordination exists, while states are formally independent, means that they are not colonies in the classical sense, but semi-colonies.

(2) On LGBT

Well, I can tell you why a campaign for Gay and Lesbian rights across the Middle East would be a difficult and hard struggle: the strength of patriarchal values, social and economic backwardness, and reactionary ideology. I can also tell you why a campaign around the slogan "No nuclear Iran" would be a difficult and hard struggle: it would be fighting alongside the Zionists and imperialists in a region where the great mass of people suffer from their terrible and vicious oppression.

Sorry if I missed any points.

Cheers

David Avery truckerD suggests that Iran would not really use it on Israel because it would be equivalent to a death wish. David Hirsh above has already commented that people should pay attention to what the Iranians actually say.

The Ayatollah Khomeini who ruled Iran for much of the 1980s said:

"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Even the supposedly moderate Iranian President - Rafsanjani is quoted to have said:

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession . . . application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world."

These quotes have become quite famous. They were used by the neoconservative author and commentator Norman Podhoretz and he was accused of using fake quotes. He then backed up his sources and his critics on the quotes went quiet:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/podhoretz/1340

Luke C could well do with learning that Iranians are not Arabs. I suppose he does not feel it necessary to concern himself with such matters. What he does not realise is that by referring to the Iranian population as "Arab masses" he exposes himself as a complete fool.

He comments that an attack on Iran by Israel would be "IMMORAL" (Yes, I noted the capital letters) presumably irrespective of whether or not Iran were pointing nukes at Israel. He does not make a comment the other way round. An attack by Iran on Israel would be perfectly justified in the eyes of Luke C. It would be one in the eye for imperialism. A few million deaths? Who cares? Only sentimental bourgeois moralists. He has exactly the same morals as those Trotskyists who welcomed Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge victory in 1975 - a "liberation" was the term used. A fine liberation that led to 1/4-1/3 of the population being massacred. "A wildy [sic] different morality" indeed.

Iran might be an aspiring imperialist power. A corner shop might be an aspiring Tescos. You might be an aspiring pop star. Matgamna might be an aspiring Marxist.
But none of them are whatever their aspirations.
So let's start with what is, not what we might wish.
Iran's GDP is $206 bn, or $3,000 per capita. The USA's GDP is $13 trillion.
Israel's GDP is $232 bn, or $33,000 per capita. It has reaped the rewards of its client state status and serves as the US' little Ulster, as Truman's secretary of state, Marshall put it, in the middle east.
You don't even deny it is an oppressor nation.
Yet you have the temerity to quote Lenin in your support, who wrote -
"Insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights the oppressor, we are always, in every case, and more strongly than anyone else, in favour, for we are the staunchest and the most consistent enemies of oppression."

If Israel bombs Iran it is oppressing it - if socialists support the oppressed nation, then socialists support Iran. It really couldn't be clearer.
Yet the AWL support Israel.
That couldn't be clearer either.

Bill is spot on. But, Bill, is Magamna an aspiring Marxist? Or an aspiring ex-Marxist? A tricky one ;-).

As for the "Mr Morals" reply - is that the best you can do? I notice once again you haven't responded to any of the substantial political, theoretical arguments. Oh well, here's my response to your non-arguments.

Well done for spotting my "Arab" slip - I feel really silly now. But if you want to play the How-many-ethnic-and-cultural-communities-you-can-name-in-West-and-Central-Asia-Game the smart money would still be on me, given that I have done political work in Pakistan (not a country well known for its ethnic homogeneity).

And, no, I wouldn't - and didn't - argue that a nuclear armed Iran should use such weapons against Israel. This is just another slander, as is the Khmer Rouge comment. Yes, we want to destroy Israel: through a workers revolution in Israel, Palestine and the Middle East. You want to support Israel, and continually justify its oppression of the Palestine, aggression against states like Iran as "rational", something that has "good reasons" to do.

A - grotesque - bourgeois morality, yes.

Luke

Luke,
Do you not recognise that a nuclear weapons capable Iran would transform the politics of the region (for the worse)? Could you explain how it would improve the prospects for "a workers revolution"? Will you please explain why the nature of the Iranian regime has no bearing on any of your 'revolutionary' calculations?
TomU

bill j writes

"If Israel bombs Iran it is oppressing it - if socialists support the oppressed nation, then socialists support Iran. It really couldn't be clearer."

How about the following statement:

If Iran bombs Israel it is oppressing it - if socialists support the oppressed nation, then socialists support Israel. It really couldn't be clearer.

Given Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and given there are people, including some on this thread, who are proud to admit they "want to destroy Israel" then by bill j's logic socialists must support Israel.

Luke C who does not know the difference between Arabs and Iranians has decided to come back. One would have thought that he would be too embarrassed to after displaying such ignorance. What is absolutely clear is that Luke C supports Iran, a country that oppresses woman by forcing them to dress in a particular way, that hangs homosexuals for being homosexual and the list goes on. (I do not know much about Luke's party but maybe it is one like the Militant who believe homosexuals will disappear after the revolution anyway). He also claims that my comment about Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge was a slander. If Luke understood the history of Trotskyism he would note that Trotskyists in general in April 1975 referred to the Khmer Rouge as liberators. Even the leading Trotskyist theorist Ernest Mandel referred to Pol Pot's Kampuchea as a wokers state.

Moreover, Luke C goes on to say, "You want to support Israel, and continually justify its oppression of the Palestine." As well as not making any grammatical sense, what he is implying about me is, of course, nonsense.

"MikeyMikey" what a ridiculous way to debate. Totally dishonest and sacha if you're gonna pick up anyone on this thread for debating in a uncomradely way I think you've found your man. I won't go over the political points again as no-one has answered them!

I'm a member of Permanent Revolution, but your caricature of Workers Power is pathetic to be honest.

Leaving aside your bizarre and apolitical definition of an oppressor nation you say the following:

1) You say people are proud that they want to destroy Israel. But the poster in question clearly said they would be proud to destroy Israel as an imperialist client state and replace it with a workers state. Something I take it you'd support as well.

2) Stop banging on about a poster making a slip about Iranians being Arabs. Fair enough to correct someone on that but the way you're doing it just makes you look like a snob. As does your point about something not making "grammatical sense".

3) What a pathetic dig saying that Workers Power might support the ideas that homosexuals might disappear.

What is clear from the above is that Luke and Bill have outlined political points and the AWL majority have responded with dishonest slurs and apolitical posts.

Sacha you can hardly complain at people doing this to the AWL when your comrades write posts like the above. How about someone actually responds with a political post?

I must repudiate the suggestion that I (or indeed anyone else who disagrees with Sean) should "get out while I can". I have absolutely no intention of running away.

Central to the malaise of the left is the idea that people who disagree should be in separate, competing monolithic sects, with each individual group allowing no internal debate (cf the bureaucratic regime of the Socialist Workers' Party, or the anarchist idea that if you disagree with a majority 'consensus' you should just go off and do whatever you like instead).

For any group to have a healthy culture and rational politics it must have free and full debate and a frank and honest exchange of views (although there is no inherent value in disagreement and heterogeneity as such).

Indeed, on this page comrades will have noticed that I referred to Sean's piece as "awful", and Tom U described my reply as a "hysterical poshlost". Of course, while these superficially 'aggressive' epithets do not in themselves substitute for political ideas, there is no reason why we should pretend to agree, shut ourselves up or run away from having the debate.

In terms of the substantive politics of the debate, many of those who have commented are posing the question as "who do you support, Iran or Israel?" Missing is any reference to the working classes in the belligerent countries, either in terms of what impact an Israeli attack would have on Iranian workers, what Israeli workers should do to mobilise against an attack or how Iranian workers can fight their government or help fight for self-determination for Kurds, Azeris etc. Sean's piece includes an abstract, propagandist idea of "the answer is socialism", but it's not connected to the immediate conflict or any specific demands or activity. All the posts so far simply tie in the fate of the working class in each country with that of their rulers.

Furthermore I do not accept the oppressor/oppressed nation schema used here. You might talk about what Lenin said about Indians fighting the British or the Moroccans fighting the French for self-determination, but that bears no comparison to Iran's relationship to the USA, never mind to Israel. The fact that Iran is much poorer than Israel and operates under various IMF rules - endorsed by Ahmedinejad - does not mean that it is a semi-colony (of which state is it a semi-colony? And what would be your alternative plan for Iran? Economic independence from the rest of the world? What measures should it take to assert its 'self-determination'?). That is not to say, of course, that the primary motivation for Israeli/US/UK sabre-rattling against Iran is not to keep it down, halt the gains it has made since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop it acquiring regional dominance. Ahmedinejad and Olmert etc. are rivals, nukes or no nukes.

In a war between two powers vying for regional dominance there is no question of taking sides. We do not support a slave holder with 100 slaves fighting one with 200 for a fairer share of the spoils, never mind the other way round. The working class in all countries involved must fight against the war, against nuclear proliferation on both sides, against their own rulers and for the self-determination of the nations oppressed by their own governments.

The organisation that runs this web site is known as the Alliance for Workers' Liberty. Whoever came up with the name understood the required use of grammar in plural possessive adjectives, that when used in this context, the word "Workers'" should contain an apostrophe after the "s". Workers Power clearly decided to jettison the apostrophe. Either they decided that apostrophes were superfluous to the revolution or they are just plain stupid.

Pondering which it was, I decided to browse the website of the League for the Fifth International, the international organisation to which Workers Power belongs. A couple of clicks later and I landed on an article about Iran, America and Israel. This was not just any old article, rather, it was deemed to be a "Statement of the REVOLUTION International Council, June 2008." As it had such a grand and pompous sounding provenance, I thought it best to read it. The title of the statement is "Growing threats against Iran: Fight back the war plans of the US an [sic] Israel!" Yes, it is true, there is a spelling error in the title. Giving them the benefit of any doubt, I contemplated that it might be a simple typing error and sloppy pre-publication editing and as such I struggled on with the rest of the revolutionary statement. The statement contains so many grammatical errors, "their" instead of "there", "this" instead of "these" and the list goes on, that it should be an embarrassment to the authors.

Sadly, I still did not feel that I had enough evidence to come to a conclusion as to whether those who run Workers Power are just plain stupid or not. REVOLUTION is a youth organisation and the possibility exists that the members of its International Council do know how to spell but are actively and purposely misleading the youth that read their statements in order that these youth will fail their GCSE English exam and be unemployable. These unemployable youth will therefore be able to donate all their time to standing outside supermarkets trying to sell newspapers and recruiting others to the revolutionary cause. Whilst this seemed to be a remote possibility, I had to accept that if it were true it would be a cunning plan indeed. More work would be required to be able to have any confidence in the conclusion that I drew.

I was not enamoured by the idea but I realised that it was necessary for me to read at least one more article. The one I selected was entitled "Why the price rise" that appeared in the summer 2008 issue of Workers Power. This article is ostensibly an effort to explain the reason for the recent rise in the price of oil. In practice the article is complete garbage - the author hasn't a clue about what drives market prices.

By this stage, I realised that I could not face reading any more articles from Workers Power or its international affiliates. It was simply too painful. In any event, by now I was happy with the conclusion I had drawn: Workers Power and the League for the Fifth International are run by complete idiots.

David,

In terms of “running away” I agree with you to a certain extent - the left will not build mass parties of the working class if people continue splitting. This fractious nonsense is a product of the forlorn search for some sort of sect ‘purity’. Tied up with the framework of bureaucratic centralism, it produces the mess we see on the left today. So, agreed, we are against frivolous splits. But this is not a frivolous issue - it is a matter of fundamental principle. It is clear that you must finally take political responsibility and openly fight. I have criticised you in the past both in the pub and on paper for not doing this sufficiently - for not forming an open faction/tendency with principled internationalist politics - particularly on the question of Iraq. But now the true logic of the AWL’s social imperialism has become apparent, you and whatever comrades you have around you must do this. Now or never.

In that limited sense I agree with what Luke and Bill are saying (stuff about colony/semi-colony schemas, smashing “Israel”, nukes etc aside). They are right that there can be no room in any Marxist organisation worth its salt for Sean’s unashamedly pro-imperialist, frothy-mouthed apologia. Indeed, if the AWL *as a collective* do not distance itself from this sort of shite, it is on a trajectory out of the workers’ movement and should be treated as such. Tom, Mikkey and Sacha appear too ashamed to even discuss the question properly and have simply expended effort to *divert* the discussion onto apsects of WP’s politics they percieve of as easy meat.
This is just cowardly, comrades. Sacha spoke of “serious problems” with the Matgamna article - then shut his mouth about them. If, as you write Sacha, Matgamna was innocently trying to “*provoke* discussion”, well let’s hear some, er, discussion from you of the arguments of *the leading member of your group*. To summarise these for you, they consisted of:
1. There is good reason for Israel to bomb Iran.
2. It is inevitable that it actually will.
3. When it does, there should be no question of condemning its actions.
As Mark Fischer and James Turley point out in the latest Weekly Weekly, if accepted, this would logically lead to the AWL taking a lead in attempting to defuse and demobilise any protests against an Israeli attack if and when it came.
So, David has made his position clear - although he seems shy of drawing out its full logic. Quite right, don’t walk away from the fight comrade. But in that sense, it should be you or Matgamna. Either this wretch and any section of the organisation that support him are expelled from the AWL or that organisation must be judged to have fundamentally changed, and you should split, taking as many with you as you can.

Communist Greetings
Ben

Someone earlier on in this debate proposed that we should take into account what Iran's leadership says when judging what their likely motives and intentions are. While we should undoubtedly listen to what capitalist regimes say and do, their public pronouncements are often clouded with deception, playing to the gallery and barrel thumping.

When we take a look at Iran's actions - for example in third-part oil deals with what it calls the "zionist entity" http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1611 - we can see actions far more grounded in reality.

As much as the Mullah's may genuinely despise Jews, Israel, and Israelis, as the case shows above they are not averse to discarding their propaganda for real-world material gains for them and their regime.

Thats how I think Socialists should see Iran - as an up and coming regional capitalist power, with a lot of ambition in the middle east; and not as a suicidal nuthouse prepared to throw away decades of work on the basis of a nuclear strike on Israel which would lead Iran to be "wiped off the face of the map" as part of a nuclear retaliation from Israel and/or the US.

The reality is Irans nukes (if it is indeed building nukes, which the US intelligence services most recent report denies) are part of a strategy of the mullahs to enhance their status as a regional power. Having nukes effectively rules out any Israeli or US assault on their country, or at least very strongly deters it in a way it was not for Saddams regime.

This is particularly important given Iran's moves to creating the first oil bourse in Euros, a move which if followed by the rest of the oil producing world would cause dramatic damage to the US Dollar - a Dollar who'se prime source of strength is it's monopoly as a currency for which to buy oil with.

When you take a wider look at the US as a superpower what you can see is that it's economic strength is vastly depleted - its in massive debt to China, and many many other countries. The one thing it does have left is a massively powerful military, and its in that context that Iran's capitalist class would be (from their class interests) quite astute to obtain nuclear weapons.

So it's quite clear to Socialists that Iran as a capitalist power has ambitions in the region, and its mobilisations are not due to some millenarian jihadism but based on real-world capitalist concerns.

We should oppose the power block Iran aligns itself with (Russia and China) and its capitalist regime. But why should we have any sympathy with the opposing power block of Israel and the US, who wants to overthrow the Iranian regime and replace it with a pliant one for their own interests?

OK AndyB - that makes sense. But are you sure? Are you absolutely sure? Are you so sure that you are prepared to gamble the Jews on it?

I know it always sounds a bit mad to compare someone to Hitler, but I'll do it anyway.

Hitler said he wanted to kill the Jews and nobody took him seriously.

They were right not to take him seriously because he was a ridiculous little man with a comedy moustache - a clerk who was trying to sit on the shoulders of his boss and stick his heels in.

The anti-Stalinist left took fascism seriously and it took Nazism seriously - but it failed to take antisemitism seriously and it certainly failed to take Hitler's promise to kill the Jews of Europe seriously. It was too ridiculous. It was against the interests of capital. It was against any kind of conception of German national interest.

But he did it anyway and the adventure ended in the total defeat of Germany.

So why wouldn't Jews take Ahmadinejad seriously?

At least, how can we be sure that he's not serious or that he's not really in control?

You're going to have to do better to persuade most Jews than quote Norman Finkelstein. Pahleese.

AndyB is proposing some kind of revolutionary defeatism. Down with America and Israel but also down with China, Russia and Iran whilst being for the workers. This is theory. In practice we are light years away from any international revolution but not necessarily so far away from military intervention in Iran.

The left have continually made errors. No more so than in the Second World War. The Troyskyist position at the time was to oppose to Hitler and the fascists but also to oppose America and Britain and their imperialist war. A principled position they argued. Irving Howe put it in Labor Action in December 1941 that World War II was "a war between two great imperialist camps ... to decide ... which ...shall dominate the world." It is "a war of finance capital ... a war for stocks and bonds and profits ... a war conceived and bred by world capitalism." The trade unions that supported President Roosevelt's decision to enter the war were slated by Labor Action for supporting this "capitalist" war. Whilst this was going on the Nazis were marching through Europe murdering millions.

Realistically, in that period the workers were in no position to defeat Nazism, the best bet in doing so was the Allied powers. Had the Trotskyist left taking this on board and not seen Nazism as just an extended form of imperialism, their position may have had more credibility.

Reading Howe's words from 1941 makes me sick. It makes me sick to see AndyB and others use the same argument about Iran in 2008. A war about capitalism, a war about oil they chant. If we are lucky they may say oppose Israel and Iran but in practice it seems to me more about championing for Israel to be destroyed. Criticism of Iran is comparatively mute and if there is any at all, and if there is any, it is far less vocal than the criticisms of Israel and America. There are those who believe that Israel should be destroyed, they are on this thread and proud of it. If someone wants a country to be destroyed and believes that it has no right to exist then logic would follow that they also believe that it has no right to defend itself. This is a disgusting position to hold.

Socialists should consider which side presents the greatest harm to the working class and the world. Israel may not be perfect but it has trade unions, workers can go on strike, opposition to the government is tolerated and the list goes on. Israel is not arguing for another country to be wiped off the face of the earth, it wants the right to exist in secure and peaceful borders and to defend itself against aggression. Iran on the other hand does exactly what for the workers? There is no need for me in this post to discuss the life for ordinary Iranians in their own country, that is easily available to see. As Azar Nafisi commented in her excellent book, Reading Lolita in Tehran, Iranians cannot even read the novels of Jane Austen. The Iranian state and regime is a far greater threat to the world that either Israel or America.

AndyB dismisses the words of the Iranian President and tries to suggest that he does not really mean what he says. That would be a big gamble. I am glad that he thinks so. I do not think the Israeli working class are prepared to just dismiss the words of Ahmadinejad so lightly.

In reply to Tom U: "Exhibit 1: The front page of the 'Weekly Worker' published Thursday 31st July. The headline reads: "AWL's Sean Matgamna: excusing an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran". Nowhere in the whole of the article does Sean speculate let alone make excuses for such an attack."

Sean's article reads: "The harsh truth is that there is good reason for Israel to make a precipitate strike at Iranian nuclear capacity." Is that not an excuse?

He hedges: "Socialists should not want that and can not support it. Our point of view is not that of Israeli or any other nationalism. We want Israeli, Palestinian, Iranian and other workers to unite and fight for a socialist Middle East."

But then it is clear that this non-support does not lead to any practical conclusions, let alone any independent working class standpoint, so it's window dressing. "We do not advocate an Israeli attack on Iran, nor will we endorse it or take political responsibility for it. But if the Israeli airforce attempts to stop Iran developing the capacity to wipe it out with a nuclear bomb, in the name of what alternative would we condemn Israel?" Is this not speculation as to future events and your course of action, or lack of?

And before you start I hate the Iranian regime and think it should be criticised and removed.

My contribution to the discussion is here.

Sacha Ismail

David its not a quote from Norman Finkelstein, its an article posted on his website (from an Israeli journalist) detailing how behind the rhetoric both Israel and Iran's ruling class are willing to subvert their own respective blockades for their own respective economic interests.

David asks if I'm "absolutely sure". Ultimately none of us can be absolutely sure, were not the Iranian regime. But if everyone on this thread is so sure about the Iranians intentions then they shouldn't be discussing it on an internet site.

They should be presenting themselves to the CIA, as I'm sure the intelligence agency of the worlds largest capitalist power will be interested to hear how its extensive NIE detailing Iran's nuclear programme ended in 2003 is so badly flawed.

Simply put if the US intelligence service says Iran is not building nuclear weapons why is the Left saying it is?

The US would have an interest in saying Iran is building nukes when it was not. It has no interest whatsoever in saying Iran isn't building nukes and covering up evidence to suggest the contrary.

The fact is during the 80s and early 90s Iraq had plenty of WMD that if used, could have inflicted massive civilian casualties on Israel.

Saddam often made the same threats to Israel as Ahmadinejad. Yet he never used his WMD on Israel - why? Not because he liked Israel but because he knew that using those weapons on Israel would lead to the end of his regime, probably with a mushroom cloud.

Thats exactly what would happen to Iran if it carried out a nuclear assualt, and I'm yet to hear a convincing explanation as to why Iran's political establishment would throw everything away in a war they would inevitably lose.

(The comparisons with Nazi Germany don't hold up - Iran is not a world superpower)

And Mikey, Israel has never threatened to wipe a country of the map? Well its leaders may not be so brazen, and they've never been genocidal but Israel's actions over the past 40 years in relation to the Palestinians have been based around denying them a national identity, and even today to consigning them to a state that would not have the same sovereignty as Israel.

So I think it's accurate to say they dont want the country of Palestine to appear on a map.

As for Israels desire to live in safe and peaceful borders - if you think thats what the occupation is about then take another look at all those settlements dotted across the west bank, and tell me what security role they have.

And name me one Israeli political leader who supports the internationally accepted definition of Palestines territories - the entirety of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Israel is fighting for the "right" to annex huge swathes of the West Bank that are particularly significant for them, not for security.

All the right to strike, form opposition parties etc are present within Israel itself - NOT in the occupied territories. Take a look at the recent violence meted against peaceful protesters demonstrating against the Israeli wall cutting through the west bank. Those bourgeois democratic freedoms do not apply to the occupied territories.

Thanks for your reply comrade, but this is painful.

Tom, you say: "3) Lawrence, you also need to learn to make sense of what is written on the page. The 'Weekly Worker' makes it sound as if Sean is making excuses for a "nuclear attack" ie. using nuclear weapons against Iran. He does no such thing and to suggest he does is an outright lie."

This is directly after 2): "Israel does have "good reason" for a strike if they think it's a matter of self-preservation. Iran has "good reason" for developing nuclear weapons for their own purposes. We do not encourage or support either of these developments." Which is of course an excuse for an Israeli nuclear strike and for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

I don't make up reasons or excuses for either. I don't support either regime or their putrid politics.

I don't think any government has the right or reason to embroil the peoples of those regions in nuclear brinkmanship or worse. If we make excuses for them doing so we only become complicit in their hegemony.

For the life of me I can't see anything here shouting 'independent working class politics' only working class mutism. And to that end it doesn't matter whether you have a possessive apostrophe in your title or not.

(The comparisons with Nazi Germany don't hold up - Iran is not a world superpower)

Oh Silly me. Well that's OK then.

AWL submits: '(2) Israel does have "good reason" for a strike if they think it's a matter of self-preservation. Iran has "good reason" for developing nuclear weapons for their own purposes. We do not encourage or support either of these developments.'

The quotation marks around 'good reason' wrongly imply an equivalence between Israel and Iran. Israel has good reason for a pre-emptive strike. It does not have 'good reason'. Iran has only 'good reason'.

A more accurate formulation would read,

"Israel does have good reason for a strike if they think its a matter of self-preservation. Iran's 'good reasons' for developing nuclear weapons include a murderous antisemitsm. Although Israel and Iran are not equivalents we do not support either of these developments."

"The harsh truth is that there is good reason for Israel to make a precipitate strike at Iranian nuclear capacity."

This is a statement of support only very partially negated by the follwoing statement of Matgamna's
"Socialists should not want that and can not support it."

If there's a very good reason for something and this is a harsh truth then saying I don't want it or support it is scant good to those who lives who are being curretly threatened by the real prospect of carnage from Israeli fighter planes.

Disgraceful.

Yet even though some in the AWL have siught to distance themselves they actually spend more time apologising for the comment and branding everyone who disagrees with Matgamna as liars and Sun style journalists.

Perhaps time for a serious rethink of anyone in the AWL who rightly feels a great disquiet over this issue.

To get back to David' post from one week ago...

David, you wrote: "Central to the malaise of the left is the idea that people who disagree should be in separate, competing monolithic sects, with each individual group allowing no internal debate ...
For any group to have a healthy culture and rational politics it must have free and full debate and a frank and honest exchange of views (although there is no inherent value in disagreement and heterogeneity as such)"

I can generally agree with you (even though I think the concept of the monolithic mini-sect is more a result of the weakness of the revolutionary left than its central cause) in rejecting the adolescent parodies of Leninism where six people sit down to form a group and three call themselves the "Politburo".

But you write yourself that there is "no inherent value" in open debates. I agree: these debates are only an instrument for hammering out the revolutionary program. While you're absolutely right to fight against Matgamna's flight towards bourgeois liberalism, I'm not convinced you have much or really any possibility of winning and turning the AWL into anything like a revolutionary organization.

It's impressive that AWL members can publicly criticize an article the group's leader in such a sharp way - but is that any compensation for the scandal of the article itself? What USRed was referring to, I believe, was Shachtman's conversion to an anti-communist agitator of the American bourgeoisie. I mean, surely this "pluralism" must have limits. Would you have stuck with Shachtman, David, while he was calling for nuclear strikes against Vietnam? Will you stay in the AWL, David, if Israel attacks Iran and Matgamna defends it openly?
___________
"The uppermost part be forced down and the lowermost part forced up, the apparent 'order' must be transformed into chaos, and the apparent chaos transformed into a new order." - Rosa Luxemburg
___________
http://www.onesolutionrevolution.org

Jason, what is there to apologise for? You said quoting Sean
"The harsh truth is that there is good reason for Israel to make a precipitate strike at Iranian nuclear capacity."nit

This is a statement of support only very partially negated by the follwoing statement of Matgamna's
"Socialists should not want that and can not support it."
Cannot support it not probably shouldn't or maybe not but cannot. That seems a fairly full negation to me.
So summary 'a statement of support' for something we 'cannot support' is a oxymoron and unless you have some well thumbed healyite tract on the dialectic or are going to present some freudian reading of subconscious motivation you're interpretation is wrong.I hope from reading some of you're other posts that you would not feel the temptation to subscribe to either brand of mysticism.

Lets be clear Sean says that there is serious probability that Israel may attack Iran to stop it developing nuclear waepons. Part of its rationale would be self defense through pre emptive action. That we are against such an attack but also against Iran having nuclear weapons. How is the left likely to respond and are the stock answers adequate. He thinks not and feels there is opportunity to address these inadequacies before hand.

Not you may feel his language to be provocative and some of his summaries of kitsch left positions caricatures but you and others have proved his point by your recitations from scripture about imperialism, colonies abstract calls for working class unity and with some a defensist attitude toward the Iranian state.

The apparent futility of attempting to address the reality of a globalised world in the 21st century with cdes in other groups and getting them to leave behind the comfort blanket of Lenin's Imperialism does generate a degree of frustration inside the AWL which Sean's tone reflects.

BUt the idea that he should be expelled for expressing himself in this way or that the AWL should be ostracised or driven out of the Labour movement is laughable.

That it may all be in aid of an ultra left bidding war for the affections of Cde Broder makes it doubly so.

If I say there's a good reason for something even though I don't support it then that is lending credibility to it. It is a aprtial negation- it's saying there's good reason for it but I don't support it. The rest of your post is some kind of strange slur based on sloppy characterisations. You can try bringing Lenin into it if you must but my point is that when Iran- that is Iranian workers and peasant farmers- are being threatened with a very real possibility of attack then to say that this is justified in any way or that it should not be opposed is wrong. Wrong because blowing up Iranian workers is wrong. Wrong because exposing people to decades if not centuries of nuclear fallout is wrong. Wrong because it would set back the cause of the Iranian workers' movement.

This too from Sean Matgamna also is only a partial condemnation- "We do not advocate an Israeli attack on Iran, nor will we endorse it or take political responsibility for it. But if the Israeli airforce attempts to stop Iran developing the capacity to wipe it out with a nuclear bomb, in the name of what alternative would we condemn Israel?"

It's saying we don't call for them to attack but if they do why would we condmn it? Actually the answe rbe