06.12.2001
CPGB school
Opposing reaction and war
How should Marxists relate to muslims and how should we regard islamic states? Should socialists support fundamentalist movements which claim to be struggling against imperialism? What is war and do we always oppose it? These basic questions have been raised again and again by the September 11 attacks on the US and the revenge operation against Afghanistan. On December 2 the CPGB held a day school to discuss these questions in depth.
The morning session, 'The Socialist Alliance and the anti-war movement', was opened by the CPGB's Marcus Larsen, who discussed three issues: imperialism and its aims in the war; the politics of Afghanistan; and the anti-war movement in Britain.
He began his analysis of the war aims of imperialism by outlining the historical context of the September 11 terror attacks and the larger-scale carnage it triggered. We are living in a unipolar world in which the US needs to continually reassert the dominance of its social and economic system and its own hegemony. The organised working class has temporarily collapsed as an alternative, as has secular nationalism in the Middle East; whether disappearing or, as in the case of Gadafi, becoming more religious due to pressure from below. There is a political vacuum and in muslim countries fundamentalists have attempted to fill it.
The immediate US response to the atrocity was confused. There was a popular demand for revenge, which the US government exploited to launch its 'war against terrorism', under which not just bin Laden and the Taliban, but any 'rogue state' will be targeted. As the Taliban crumbled, imperialism was clearly divided over its attitude towards Afghanistan, as shown by the confusion about whether the British troops that had been prepared to enter the country should do so. Blair wants to deal with the 'causes of terrorism' by addressing social grievances and attempting to impose settlements from the top, including in Afghanistan. But US foreign policy under Bush and the Republicans has been isolationist, which manifests itself in call for the US to 'get bin Laden and then get out'. This policy could well be extended to, for example, Iraq and Somalia.
Turning to the politics of Afghanistan, comrade Larsen sketched the recent history of the country, and stressed the importance of combating the myth that it has always been dominated by political backwardness. In the 1970s it was a modernising society. The 1978 revolution, which, he said, took the initial form of a coup, received support in the urban centres, but not in the countryside, leading to civil war. The Soviet invasion in December 1979 rescued the PDPA government, but in a counterrevolutionary way - it condemned the revolution to defeat in the long term and 98 PDPA leaders from the party's revolutionary wing were executed.
Imperialism funded and trained the counterrevolutionary mujahedin in order to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet Union's Vietnam. Once they succeeded, imperialism lost all interest in the country and Afghanistan became embroiled in a bitter and bloody war between rival warlord groups. The Taliban were greeted as a stabilising force and were not opposed by the west.
Turning to the anti-war movement, comrade Larsen noted the leadership of the revolutionary left - an excellent thing. After the October 13 demonstration the initiative passed from CND to the Socialist Workers Party, who took the initiative to set up the Stop the War Coalition - supposedly a broad alliance, "although not broad enough to include the CPGB and the Alliance for Workers' Liberty".
The formal leadership of revolutionaries is one thing, but it is not enough. The inadequacies of the Stop the War Coalition are even more obvious now that the US and the UK claim to be near to solving the Afghanistan problem; in contrast the anti-war movement has never had programmatic answers. That is why the Socialist Alliance should be our prime focus - not only within the anti-war movement, but in attempting to change the whole culture of the British left, said comrade Larsen.
The SWP always keeps its front organisations separate, and is currently sidelining the SA and concentrating on the anti-war movement. The SWP also tails spontaneity and pacifism. Our responsibility is to bring politics into the anti-war movement, which can best be done by building up the Socialist Alliance into a mass revolutionary party.
Comrade Mike Marqusee expounded what he called a socialist critique of war. He said such a critique is different from pacifism: it is an ethical and humanist response that says war can only rarely be justified because it invariably involves suffering and tragedy, for working people most of all. The ending of war and violence has always been an aim of socialists: Marx continued and developed the anti-war tradition.
Speaking from personal experience of the situation in the United States, comrade Marqusee described the spread of militarism there. Support for the war is almost total, including among sections of what passes for the US left. The liberal elite has disappeared from sight, and the US labour movement, which had been undergoing a modest revival, has withdrawn from any participation in anti-capitalist and environmentalist activity and offers support to the government.
Comrade Marqusee stated that the Socialist Alliance has not been inactive in the anti-war campaign, and defended the minimalism of the anti-war coalition. He said the most important thing is to stop the war, and this requires a broad alliance with non-socialists as well as socialists of all types. But he disagreed with the SWP's characterisation of islamic fundamentalism as progressive or anti-imperialistic, and insisted on the importance of distinguishing clearly between fundamentalists of any religion and the sort of religious people we should have solidarity with, such as muslims who may be scapegoated today in Britain.
The November 18 march was stewarded by young muslims intent on showing there are ways of being islamic that are not fundamentalist: they decided on a policy of asking anyone expressing anti-semitic or pro-Taliban views not to do so. Comrade Marqusee was pleased by the incorporation of such muslims into the anti-war movement, including by having the fast-breaking ceremony and islamic prayers during the Trafalgar Square rally. He said these religious believers share our view that human life cannot be measured in terms of money - an idea abandoned by bourgeois liberals.
During the discussion following the two openings, Martin Thomas of the AWL referred to three historical stages of imperialism. Firstly the epoch of classical colonial imperialism analysed by Lenin and other Marxist writers. Then the period from the World War II until the collapse of the USSR, when two rival superpowers competed for world domination. During this period the USA supported the break-up of the old colonial empires but tried to prevent the development of national liberation movements that would become aligned with the Soviet bloc. Thirdly, the modern period, described as the imperialism of free trade. He said opposing imperialism is no longer so straightforward - in the colonial era anti-imperialist struggle had been a simple question: unite to force the imperialists out of their colonies.
The school was attended by two supporters of the Economic and Philosophic Review - former followers of Gerry Healy and for a while supporters of Arthur Scargill's 'proletarian' regime in the Socialist Labour Party. They treated us to fulsome praise of the September 11 attacks: anyone condemning them is automatically "siding with imperialism", it seems.
As comrade Larsen pointed out in his reply, this position is not only immoral: it is also irrational. The suicide hijackers supported a reactionary, anti-working class programme, and were in no way part of some undifferentiated 'anti-imperialism'. He did not share the complete opposition to war expressed by comrade Mike Marqusee: class society is riddled with war, he said, and we are in favour of class war and would defend necessary violence in that context.
In his reply to the debate comrade Marqusee defended the position he shares with the SWP, that the aims of the anti-war coalition should be limited to stopping the war, with no add-ons. He said it is necessary to distinguish between our aims as socialists and the formal aims of the movement. To achieve our ends, the worst thing to do is attempt to impose them on the broad movement: to do so risks isolating the left vanguard from the broader masses. He also disagreed with comrade Larsen on the question of violence, saying he would not be prepared to use any means in the class struggle. Means do impact on ends, concluded the comrade.
In the afternoon session comrade Mehdi Kia of the Organisation of Revolutionary Workers of Iran opened the debate on islamic fundamentalism, focusing on Iran. He said that in deciding whether we can work with islamic groups, we have to have the same checklist approach as with other potential allies: it is people's relationship with humanity rather than with god that determines our attitude. However, in the cases of islamic fundamentalists taking state power, the result is always anti-democratic and anti-class struggle, he said.
The comrade went on to analyse the roots of the phenomenon. Fundamentalism springs from a combination of economic crisis at the periphery of global capitalism and a crisis of economic hegemony inside the country. It results from an ideological vacuum caused by the defeat of secular nationalist movements and the discrediting of bureaucratic socialist concepts of non-capitalist roads of development. It mobilises not the working class, but the sections excluded by the capitalist system: shanty town dwellers, pre-capitalist middle layers squeezed out by capitalism, and intellectuals such as clergy marginalised by the advance of secularism. The comrade described how states taken over by islamic fundamentalism are inherently unstable, undemocratic and expansionist, and undermine the democratic and cultural potential of society.
Comrade Kia made the point that there exists in Iran the beginnings of a mass movement fighting for the secularisation of the islamic state. However, sections of this movement actually support the bombing of Afghanistan - linking the slogan 'Down with America' with the hated islamic regime and reasoning that if the US is opposing islamic fundamentalism it should be supported. This exposes the folly of left support for the Taliban: far from resulting in a challenge to imperialism, it tends to play into its hands. The left must offer a democratic and progressive alternative. Tailing fundamentalism is the worst mistake socialists can make, said comrade Kia.
This simple and crucial point, which so many on the British left seem unable to grasp, was taken up by Clive Bradley of the AWL, the next speaker. He described the growth of fundamentalism in Egypt, and its implacable hostility to the left. Anyone who imagines the left can be allies with these groups clearly has no idea of the reality, said the comrade. Although the left is weak and fundamentalism strong in many muslim countries, socialists must find ways of putting forward independent working class politics. The islamicists have a fully fleshed out and 'moral' world view, and the left must offer a socialist morality and socialist world view. A powerful workers' movement needs to be built, and our task is to offer solidarity.
Comrade John Bridge drew attention to the parallels between modern-day islamic fundamentalism and the European fascist movements of the 1920s and 30s. Both emerged from a period of defeat of the working class, and both used anti-imperialist rhetoric that fooled some on the left into believing they may have a progressive element. Comrade Bridge was dismayed by the failure of the left to learn from its mistakes. He agreed that our job is to provide solidarity with socialist and progressive movements around the world, but the best way of doing that is by fighting for revolution in our own country.
The two EPSR comrades described the attacks on islamicism they had just heard as "a tirade to justify and cover up the fake left's sly alliance with imperialism". Like others on the left, for them the world is a simple place and anyone who is against the US can be claimed as an ally. Thus the murderous attacks on the World Trade Center were described as "a spontaneous fightback by the third world against imperialism". Replying, comrade Bradley said it was an insult to the millions in Africa, Asia, etc to imagine they all cheer the actions of fanatics led by a billionaire, who 'spontaneously' hijacked planes and crashed them into the twin towers. Apparently there are no differing class interests in the "third world".
Terry Liddle of the Green Socialist Network agreed with other speakers that fundamentalists could never be allies of the left. He went further, saying that it is also an error to say that religion is a personal matter. He said Marxist is humanistic but also scientific, and has the job of combating religion and superstition everywhere. This ruled out the acceptance of believers in revolutionary parties. Comrade Bridge disagreed, saying what matters most is what people do. Religious people could be fully accepted as party members, as long as they accepted the programme and agreed to abide by its rules: ie, as long as they acted like communists.
Summing up, he said anti-imperialism is about fighting on behalf of the progressive classes in society. Not about aligning ourselves with reaction.
Mary Godwin