01.12.2011
Zig-zagging social imperialists
What determines the Alliance for Workers' Liberty line is its support for 'democratic imperialism', writes socialist blogger Arthur Bough
When the ‘Arab spring’ blossomed in February, I warned about Marxists being carried along on a euphoric wave of bourgeois-democratic sentiment.[1] These revolutions were similar to the revolutions of 1848, which ended badly for workers, and gave Marx and Engels pause in recommending to workers that they should line up as cannon fodder for the bourgeoisie.
In our lifetimes we have seen similar events that also ended badly for workers. In 1979, a wave of euphoria for the uprising against the shah of Iran swept through the left, which failed to warn of the danger that was presented by other bourgeois forces, particularly the mullahs. The left adopted the attitude of ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend’, rather than adopting the position, developed by Marx and Engels, and later by Lenin and Trotsky, that the working class should focus on defending its own interests, developing its own independent organisations and maintaining a strict separation from the bourgeoisie. As Engels and Lenin, in particular, made clear, our aim is not bourgeois democracy, but socialism. We defend bourgeois-democratic freedoms not as an end in themselves, but only in so far as they facilitate the independent organisation and struggle of the workers.
Trotsky says in the Transitional programme: “Of course, this does not mean that the Fourth International rejects democratic slogans as a means of mobilising the masses against fascism. On the contrary, such slogans at certain moments can play a serious role. But the formulae of democracy (freedom of press, the right to unionise, etc) mean for us only incidental or episodic slogans in the independent movement of the proletariat and not a democratic noose fastened to the neck of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie’s agents (Spain!). As soon as the movement assumes something of a mass character, the democratic slogans will be intertwined with the transitional ones; factory committees, it may be supposed, will appear before the old routinists rush from their chancelleries to organise trade unions; soviets will cover Germany before a new constituent assembly will gather in Weimar. The same applies to Italy and the rest of the totalitarian and semi-totalitarian countries.”[2]
In the 1980s, as a member of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty’s predecessor organisation, the Workers Socialist League, I wrote many documents and spoke at conferences supporting the majority position over the Falklands war, against the Thornett group, on these issues. It has remained, for me, one of the redeeming features of the AWL that it did not fall into the trap, like much of the left, of what they call “idiot anti-imperialism” - acting as cheerleaders for any movement that portrayed itself as ‘anti-imperialist’, no matter how reactionary that movement was. In the debate over the Falklands war, the position of the majority was to oppose vigorously Thatcher’s war, whilst, at the same time, refusing to support Argentina, so long as the war remained one only of general Leopoldo Galtieri’s invasion of the Falklands.
The AWL, since that time, have moved ever further from that position, towards a policy of supporting ‘democratic imperialism’ whenever it is in conflict with some authoritarian regime. In Russia the AWL supported Yeltsin, who acted as imperialism’s stooge. In Kosovo, it refused to oppose the imperialist war against Serbia, and supported the reactionary movement of the Kosova Liberation Army. In Iraq, although opposing the imperialist invasion, it refused to call for opposition to the occupation. The AWL then asked why Marxists would oppose Israel bombing Iran! It has given uncritical support to the demands for self-determination for Tibet, a movement headed by reactionary feudal-clerical elements, and again backed by imperialism. In Libya, in contrast to its visceral hostility to the ‘insurgency’ in Iraq, on the basis that its “clerical fascist” nature could provide no real freedom for Iraqis, the AWL gave uncritical support to the ‘rebels’ - an unhealthy broth of reactionary elements, from the clerical-fascist jihadists, who make up the backbone of the street fighters, to the former regime elements, who make up the ‘bourgeois-democratic’ front elements of the Transitional National Council, with its close links to imperialism.
This is a far cry from the AWL’s professed adherence to the idea of a supposed independent ‘third camp’ of the working class, standing in opposition to the opposing camps of the bourgeoisie. When the minority in the AWL, led by David Broder, did propose the idea of building such an independent working class position in Iraq, opposing the occupation, to try to place the Iraqi workers at the head of such a movement, they were vilified! The AWL has travelled the same road as all its third camp predecessors - what Trotsky described as “a petty bourgeois sanctuary”[3] - such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, becoming apologists for ‘democratic imperialism’. It has led them to supporting even those reactionary forces that are imperialism’s direct allies.
Varying positions
A comparative analysis of the AWL’s varying position in a number of instances demonstrates the point. The organisation argued it was not correct to raise the demand for troops out of Iraq, because it would mean the coming to power of the clerical fascists. Yet, in Afghanistan, it was equally clear that, if the USSR left, there would be a devastating civil war, and one group or another of clerical fascists would come to power. Nevertheless, the AWL still called for Soviet “troops out”. In Kosova, as it has done in Libya, it argued that Marxists could not stand by whilst civilians were massacred. So, it refused to oppose the imperialist war against Serbia. Yet when Georgia unleashed a similar devastating attack on South Ossetia, massacring thousands of civilians, the AWL opposed the Russian intervention to prevent those atrocities. The key difference was that the AWL places the USSR and Russia in the camp of non-bourgeois-democratic regimes, which are, therefore, to be opposed. Serbia was also in that camp. But, Georgia, despite itself being far from a model of bourgeois democracy - its president, Mikheil Saakashvili, is even frowned upon by western politicians - is in the camp of ‘democratic imperialism’.
This social imperialism characterises the whole AWL approach, not any concern to be on the side of an independent working class or even moral revulsion at civilian massacres. In justifying its position of refusing to oppose the imperialist war against Libya, the AWL misquoted Trotsky in relation to the Balkan wars: “An individual, a group, a party, or a class that ‘objectively’ picks its nose while it watches men drunk with blood massacring defenceless people is condemned by history to rot and become worm-eaten while it is still alive.”[4]
Even on its own, it is possible to interpret this quote differently. Instead of justifying the intervention of imperialism, a Marxist would interpret it as meaning that it was necessary to speak out against such atrocities, to rouse the international labour movement to come to the aid of those being massacred, etc. That would be the implication of an independent, working class, revolutionary internationalism. If workers were attacked by a rapacious employer, such as at Grunwicks, Marxists would call on other workers to support them. They would not advise workers to place their faith in the impartial intervention of the capitalist state, if it recommended they trust in some industrial tribunal. But, it is necessary to understand the context of Trotsky’s statement. He was opposing the approach the AWL takes. He was speaking out against the use of such atrocities, by opportunists, to cherry-pick which interventions they will oppose and which they will not. The rest of the quote from Trotsky, that the AWL missed out, makes that clear: “On the other hand, a party or the class that rises up against every abominable action wherever it has occurred, as vigorously and unhesitatingly as a living organism reacts to protect its eyes when they are threatened with external injury - such a party or class is sound of heart. Protest against the outrages in the Balkans cleanses the social atmosphere in our own country, heightens the level of moral awareness among our own people … Therefore an uncompromising protest against atrocities serves not only the purpose of moral self-defence on the personal and party level, but also the purpose of politically safeguarding the people against adventurism concealed under the flag of ‘liberation’.”[5]
Trotsky opposed the kind of opportunist policy of the AWL, which is manifest in its repeated, undeclared popular fronts with ‘democratic imperialism’ and its allies. In his response to the Palestinian Trotskyists, who wanted to abandon the position of ‘The main enemy is at home’, in regard to ‘democratic imperialism’, as World War II approached, he made this quite clear: “That policy which attempts to place upon the proletariat the unsolvable task of warding off all dangers engendered by the bourgeoisie and its policy of war is vain, false, mortally dangerous. ‘But fascism might be victorious!’; ‘But the USSR is menaced!’; ‘But Hitler’s invasion would signify the slaughter of workers!’; and so on, without end. Of course, the dangers are many, very many. It is impossible not only to ward them all off, but even to foresee all of them … The workers will be able to profit to the full from this monstrous chaos only if they occupy themselves not with acting as supervisors of the historical process but by engaging in the class struggle. Only the growth of their international offensive will put an end not alone to episodic ‘dangers’, but also to their main source: the class society.”[6]
Cheerleader
The AWL is reduced to commentating on the historical process, and its vision extends no further than the achievement of bourgeois-democratic goals. Losing faith in the working class to achieve even that, it is reduced to being a cheerleader for ‘democratic imperialism’, in so far as it is seen to be acting to implement what the AWL, mimicking Stalinist stagist theory, sees as the next stage to be achieved. What is ironic is that it ended up, in Libya, more clearly than anywhere else, acting as cheerleader for those very clerical-fascist forces that elsewhere it would have vilified. The AWL has been at the forefront in denouncing those, like the SWP, who have used the same arguments - now employed by the AWL in regard to Libya - to support clerical-fascist forces in Iran, in Gaza, in Iraq and in Lebanon!
Libya is the clearest example of this, but it is not the first time the AWL has adopted a similar position. In Iraq, it began by emphasising its belief that the ‘insurgents’ were essentially Sunni jihadists. In reality, it was clear that the most effective opposition was coming from Shia militias, being armed and financed by Iran. Yet, the AWL downplayed that, describing a Shia leader like ayatollah Ali al-Sistani as some sort of constitutionalist figure. This seemed like merely a repetition of the mistakes the AWL’s predecessor had made over Iran in 1979, but it was different. The reason it downplayed the reactionary and sectarian nature of the Shia clerical fascists was that they were the allies of the occupation, against the Sunni sectarians and remnants of the regime of Saddam. Similarly, the AWL backed the imperialist-supported Fatah against the Iranian-backed Hamas.
In Libya, this development becomes easier to see. In pursuing this position, the AWL has repudiated many of the arguments previously used against the SWP and other “idiot anti-imperialists”. In the past it correctly pointed out that the latter’s argument - that former colonies have not really achieved independence, because they continue to be economically subordinate - is facile. In a capitalist global economy, it is inevitable that some economies will be stronger than others. Apart from some exceptional cases, this does not mean that these countries are not politically independent, and for workers there, the main enemy is their own bourgeoisie, not imperialism. The solution for workers in these instances is not some vacuous ‘anti-imperialist’ struggle, but socialist revolution. What the “idiot anti-imperialist” argument does is to give cover for a popular front of the workers in these countries with their own ruling class, against some nebulous external enemy.
But, in the case of Libya, the AWL abandoned this position and adopted the position of those very “idiot anti-imperialists”. In a comment on its website, Paul Hampton writes: “Libyans did not have ‘ownership of their own future’ under Gaddafi. What they had was the complete absence of liberty and the miserable prospect of more repression. They were not even ‘independent’ of the western powers since Gaddafi was brought back into the fold by Tony Blair. Nor was Libya free of the multinational corporations - look at the energy firms and the arms dealers who were knee-deep in contracts with his regime.”[7]
The other “idiot anti-imperialist” argument the AWL has correctly attacked is the idea that support for reactionary, clerical-fascist forces was justified because these forces were the natural expression of a people that had suffered years of repression. This position was abandoned too. Sean Matgamna argued, in a post on the AWL website: “Is the NTC led by unsavoury elements? Yes. Are Islamists involved in the revolution? Yes. But what do you expect? If you wanted to wait indefinitely for a revolution that was spontaneously socialist, in a country with no freedom of speech, no kind of independent labour movement, no civil society - you’d be waiting a long time.”[8]
So, no doubt, given the AWL’s support for these forces, we can expect to see it on future demonstrations with placards proclaiming ‘We are all Hezbollah’!
It may be that the AWL’s hopes for the establishment of bourgeois democracy in Libya will be fulfilled. But, for Marxists, the whole purpose of our science is that it provides us with a method for determining our actions, not merely hope that things will turn out the way we desire - Trotsky criticised this rejection of the importance of method by the ‘third campists’.[9]
If a stable bourgeois democracy is established in Libya, I shall be delighted. But Marxists should analyse the facts on the basis of historical materialism, and on that basis it has to be concluded that not only are the conditions in Libya not propitious for the workers, but they are not propitious for bourgeois democracy either. Given events in Egypt and Tunisia, both of which are far more suited to bourgeois democracy than Libya, Marxists should have been very circumspect in simply becoming cheerleaders for reactionary bourgeois forces in Libya, and should have focussed on defending and building the small working class forces, and thereby protecting it as best as could be from the dangers it is likely to face.
Notes
1. http://boffyblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/egypt-what-is-to-be-done-part-1.html.
2. www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text2.htm#fc.
3. www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/30-pbmoral.htm.
4. www.workersliberty.org/node/16323.
5. Pathfinder Press The war correspondence of Leon Trotsky New York 1980, p293.
6. www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol05/no07/bulletin.htm.
7. www.workersliberty.org/blogs/paulhampton/2011/10/27/another-disgraceful-article-milne-libya.
8. This comment was posted under Matgamna’s well known pseudonym, ‘Dalcassian’, on November 2, but, mysteriously, was removed from the AWL website shortly afterwards. Equally mysteriously, exactly the same comment - this time signed by a certain ‘edwardm’ - has been posted in response to a different article (see www.workersliberty.org/story/2011/10/27/seamus-milne-and-jonathan-steele-libya-and-tunisia).