Letters

Social pacifism?

In Paul Greenaway’s recent article on the US and Iraq (‘US bullies the world’ Weekly Worker November 20), the author commits several dangerous errors. In his attempt to rally against “dogmatic Trotskyism”, the author rejects dialectical materialism and ends up placing himself in the bourgeois pacifist camp.

Greenaway writes: “Nor, as dogmatic Trotskyists insist, is Iraq a ‘semi-colony’ - which therefore should be supported in any confrontation with the metropolitan imperialist powers. Iraq is developing monopoly capital internally and has proto-imperialist designs of its own.”

Besides the obvious confusion contained in this little paragraph, the author consciously rejects materialism, and bases his analysis of Iraq on subjective and idealist methods.

First things first: is Iraq “developing monopoly capital internally”? I would like to know where Greenaway gets his information. To develop monopoly capital internally, Iraq would require imperialist investment and/or the hard currency needed to develop productive forces. Seven years of imperialist embargo have seen that this cannot occur. The embargo today is as tight as it was in 1991. There is not a split in the imperialist camp over investment in Iraq, like there is around Cuba. Iraq is, therefore, unable to develop its internal economy. So, to speak of Iraq “developing monopoly capital internally” is not based in reality.

Second, and more important to the author’s argument, Iraq “has proto-imperialist designs of its own”. What exactly does this mean? Yes, every two-bit dictator worth their salt has grandiose schemes about ruling the world. But it’s not a question of what’s in Saddam Hussein’s head. Rather, it’s a question of what Hussein is capable of doing. So, is Hussein capable of implementing his “proto-imperialist designs”? The answer is obviously no.

Greenaway rejects materialism in an attempt to justify his counterposition to the Marxist position of defence of semi-colonies. He clearly points to his true method: “We should make clear our view that Saddam Hussein is a vicious dictator, renowned for his brutal repression of the Iraqi masses. There is nothing remotely progressive about the Ba’ath regime. Its fake ‘anti-imperialist’ rhetoric should be treated with contempt by real anti-imperialists and revolutionaries - as should those left groups in the past, and even in the present, who attempted to paint the Iraqi regime ‘red’.” And: “This fundamental misunderstanding of the real nature of Iraq led some leftists to proclaim, ‘Victory to Iraq!’ during the Gulf War. They nonsensically claimed that ‘victory breeds revolution’ - when all historical evidence thus far points to exactly the opposite. Revolutionary defeatism, not revolutionary defencism, was the only correct and principled position for revolutionaries to take - whatever country they operated in.”

To begin with, Marxists do not equate military support with political support. Calling for ‘Victory to Iraq’ is not the same as ‘Victory to Hussein’. While what Greenaway writes about Hussein and the Ba’athists is absolutely true, his conclusions are quite different. Marxists do not buy into the ‘anti-imperialist’ rhetoric of nationalist demagogues like Hussein, any more than they would take their money.

But Greenaway, in an attempt to polemicise against those so-called ‘Trotskyist’ organisations that did accept money and support from the Arab nationalists, throws out the baby with the bath water (the ‘baby’ being Marxist method).

Greenaway’s comments about the “nonsensical claim” that “victory breeds revolution” is not the point. The point, as Lenin and Zinoviev pointed out in Socialism and War, is the destabilisation of imperialist domination. The author uses a revision of the Leninist understanding of imperialism - “proto-imperialism” - based on idealism, to justify his social-pacifism.

Trotsky, in his 1936 article ‘On Dictators and the Heights of Oslo’ (Writings 1935-36 New York 1977) explains this method as well: “Maxton [of the British ILP] and the others opine that the Italo-Ethiopian war is ‘a conflict between two rival dictators’. To these politicians it appears that this fact relieves the proletariat of the duty of making a choice between two dictators. They thus define the character of the war by the political form of the state, in the course of which they themselves regard this political form in a quite superficial and purely descriptive manner, without taking into consideration the social foundations of both ‘dictatorships’ ... Should a dictator place himself at the head of the next uprising of the Indian people in order to smash the British yoke - would Maxton then refuse this dictator his support? Yes or no? If not, why does he refuse his support to the Ethiopian ‘dictator’ who is attempting to cast off the Italian yoke? If Mussolini triumphs, it means the reinforcement of fascism, the strengthening of imperialism, and the discouragement of the colonial peoples in Africa and elsewhere. The victory of the Negus, however, would mean a mighty blow not only at Italian imperialism but at imperialism as a whole, and would lend a powerful impulsion to the rebellious forces of the oppressed peoples. One must really be completely blind not to see this.”

The victory of imperialism in the Gulf War meant the reinforcement and strengthening of imperialism in the Middle East, and the discouragement of the peoples of the region, most notably the Palestinians. However, the victory of Iraq would have lent a “powerful impulsion” to the struggles in Palestine (the intifada) against Zionist occupation.

One must really be completely blind not to see this.

Martin Schreader
Detroit, USA

Driving seat

J Reilly of Red Action accuses the Weekly Worker of being “vague” and “ambiguous” in its statements on Ireland (Letters, November 27).

I have not noticed anything vague about the CPGB’s opposition to the “imperialist-sponsored peace process”. The Weekly Worker has made it clear that the ending of the revolutionary situation and its replacement by a new stability based on a re-articulated imperialist settlement would represent a setback for all those who want to see the positive destruction of the UK state.

But comrade Reilly does not see things in this clear light. For him it is not imperialism (US as well as British), but Sinn Fein/IRA who are in the driving seat. The republican movement’s “totally unarmed strategy” has - through the force of its logic or sheer will power presumably - forced the state almost unconditionally to the negotiation table. Comrade Reilly does not say what kind of deal he thinks will emerge, but it is certainly unlikely to be based on the revolutionary unity of Ireland.

Comrade Reilly really should seriously analyse the current balance of forces. The state remains in control of all areas of the Six Counties, has a vastly superior array of weaponry and manpower, and continues to hold scores of Irish prisoners of war. The ruling class is still united in its approach to the Irish question in general and the ‘peace process’ in particular, while the catholic/nationalist population is divided.

This is not to say that the participation in negotiations by revolutionary forces is under all circumstances unprincipled. Like the taking up of arms, diplomacy is a legitimate tactic. However, diplomacy can never positively succeed unless it is backed up with armed power and mass support. With the present orientation - surely comrade Reilly will not deny it - that possibility is receding.

In one sense he is right to say that the current ‘peace process’ results from an “initiative of the oppressed”. For 30 years the republican masses in Northern Ireland withstood the might of the British state. Although undefeated, the IRA was fully aware that its military strategy could not bring about a united Ireland. The imperialist New World Order underlined that in no uncertain terms. Perhaps SF/IRA had thought of doing a Cuba or Vietnam before the USSR collapsed as a rival to imperialism. But the new circumstances have forced them to follow in the footsteps of the ANC, PLO and Sandinistas.

Comrade Reilly refers to the “authentic republican principle” that he feels obliged to defend. Unlike him communists view only one form of struggle as “authentic”: the struggle that aids the cause of human liberation through world communism. Inasmuch as Irish republican struggles aim to defeat the state, communists support them unconditionally. But we do not support them as an end in itself. To the degree that the IRA, the Continuity Army Council or anyone else is conducting an anti-state struggle - peaceably or through force of arms - they have our unconditional backing. That has always been the principled communist position.

I do not think it is right to infer from articles in the Weekly Worker that the CPGB now views SF/IRA as “merely the glove puppet of the British state”. The republican movement has its own independent aims in opposition to those of British imperialism. But militants, whether in Ireland or Britain, who think that those aims will be achieved through this US-sponsored ‘peace process’ are labouring under a sad illusion.

The history of Irish republicanism is littered with violence against dissidents who have opposed the ending of armed resistance to British rule. Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith fought Britain before fighting their former comrades. Does comrade Reilly accept that death threats against the CAC have been made by the IRA? If you believe that progress can only be made through negotiations, then you start to view potential disrupters as your enemy. And, yes, in this context action taken to crush the dissenters objectively places you in the imperialist camp, as it did Collins and Griffith.

By the way, comrade Reilly also objects to the Weekly Worker posing the reforged Communist Party of Great Britain in opposition to “the curse of the sects”: “When was the CPGB deemed to be something other than a sect?” he asks. When it was formed in 1920 we had only 2,000 members - but those members were the vanguard of the working class. However, our Party was worldwide. The CPGB was an integral part of the Communist International. It was no sect.

While others call for all militants simply to join their own group, today we call for revolutionaries - including those in Red Action - to unite to create what does not yet exist - the reforged Communist Party of Great Britain - and a reforged International.

Ted Jaszynski
North London

Waiting for lefty

Last Wednesday’s student demonstration was characterised by the chants of the Socialist Worker Student Society - with what must now be the patented ‘Cutback - fight back’ and the cringey ‘Education is a right’. The demonstration did tend towards the farcical when the SWP decided to employ its tactic of being really annoying, in the hope that the Labour government will implement socialist policies.

The SWP cleverly attempted to block Oxford Street. How this tactic helps the defence of free education or the building of ‘the revolutionary party’ is as clear as mud to this SWP member. ‘Stop the traffic, stop the fees - it’s bloody simple,’ as comrade Tony Cliff likes to say. No it’s not: it is a crass attempt at being spontaneous.

The spirit of Swampy is not one that will successfully defeat the plans. The major disruption caused by Australian students in their struggle against tuition fees is the path that needs to be followed, though whether mass occupations nationwide are possible now is not certain, especially as the campaign is fundamentally weakened by sectarianism.

The SWP, AWL and SP are operating front organisations within the colleges, all of which have the sole aim of increasing the membership of their ‘parent’ group. What is needed is a united front between these organisations.

At the end of the rally, there was an address by Jeremy Corbyn MP, who raised hopes of a backbench revolt by the ‘old’ Labour MPs. We are all holding our breath waiting for lefty.

Tony Butler
Bristol