Letters

“Trot” Lenin

Royston Bull (Letters, June 3), in his inimitable Stalinist manner, claims to be able to ‘quote’ me saying that the Nato war against Serbia is “progressive”. Yet, when you examine the article concerned, one discovers that the remarks Bull makes so much of were not made by me, but rather by a source I quoted, the “Trot scribbler”, one Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (Weekly Worker May 13).

I simply quoted Lenin to back up the view that classical revolutionary communism did not regard every struggle that claims to be ‘against imperialism’ as progressive. And I suggested that the drive of Milosevic to expel from Kosova the overwhelming majority of its population, in pursuit of the reactionary nationalist aim of establishing undisputed Serbian control, was unworthy of support.

Comrade Bull claims that by making this point I am advocating support for imperialism. Why then does he not quote the clear statement in my article that the Nato forces should be defeated, and should be relieved of their weapons as they leave by the forces fighting for the liberation of the Kosovar Albanians?

Why does Bull lie, quoting little fragments of writers out of context? Of course this is par for the course for Stalinism, whose techniques have even included touching up photographs to remove ‘inconvenient’ people from the historical record. In any case, it is revealing that Bull considers it “ludicrously inappropriate” that Milosevic’s war aims in Kosova can be deemed as reactionary anti-imperialism.

Let us remind ourselves of the facts. Serb nationalists claim the ‘right’ to rule Kosova, irrespective of the fact that the population of Kosova is more than 90% non-Serb. Their stated reasons for this claim are that a series of battles took place in the 14th century and the ‘sacred’ sites of these battles are allegedly central to the Serbian national identity. This is the banner under which outright fascists like Vojislav Seselj, a deputy premier in Milosevic’s government, not to mention of course Milosevic himself, have whipped up Serbian chauvinism against the Albanian population of Kosova.

My article was actually a polemic against those rather stupid dogmatic Trotskyists who have jumped to the defence of the Serbian nationalists’ ‘right’ to occupy Kosova, irrespective of the views of the bulk of the population, because of the latter’s entirely understandable, desperate appeals for help to the imperialists.

Ian Donovan
London

No objection

I obviously don’t agree with the CPGB on the slogan for an independent Kosova or on arming the KLA. It is true that the KLA will get arms from where they can, but I am opposed to the left calling for Nato to arm them.

Of course everyone has the right to defend themselves from attack by ethnic cleansers, but we should not endorse the struggle of the KLA for a greater Albania. However, if the slogan of self-determination for Kosova can be posed without seeming to give support to this project I have no objection in principle. In Serbia it might be useful, but only in the context of arguing for a socialist federation. In Kosova it would be seen simply as an endorsement of the KLA and a greater Albania.

As to building a mass anti-war movement in the Nato countries, I think we agree the main demands are ‘Stop the bombing - Nato out’. I do not support defencism within Yugoslavia. The main enemy is at home in Belgrade too. However, Serbia is obviously not imperialist in the Leninist sense. Yugoslav socialists must fight imperialism but workers should give no support to the government or call for a united front with them against Nato.

I have no objection to pointing out the anti-working class nature of Milosevic or to crimes against the Kosovar Albanians. Indeed this is a necessary part of building a mass anti-war movement. But all the nationalist movements are guilty - not only the Serbs.

Imperialism is a more powerful enemy of the world’s proletariat than a tinpot dictator like Milosevic. Nato is a danger worldwide; Milosevic only in the Balkans - along with the other nationalists, including the KLA.

My central point is that we must make propaganda for socialism and not endorse nationalist illusions in independence, even where these illusions arise from oppression. If we don’t argue for workers’ power, who will?

Sandy McBurney
Glasgow

Nato allies

Apparently what Phil Kent has in mind (Weekly Worker May 27) is a “campaign for the working class to champion the right of the Kosovars to fight to defend their homes …”

People take the right to defend their homes, so Kent is really calling on us to campaign for Nato to further arm the KLA, its military ally and voluntary director of Nato bombing.

He correctly notes that Nato has very different agendas which are “shaped by the pressure of public opinion”, so he can imagine the government being ready to abolish Nato, in favour of an alliance that is more united and dangerous. The implication in this speculative future is that Kent would prefer Nato to remain, and in its present condition, so that it can be shaped by the pressure of public opinion to ‘Arm the KLA’.

Dave Norman
London

Subordinated?

Like many other comrades, I attended the June 5 demonstration in London against the Balkans war.

In the course of discussions during the day with a variety of leftists, a recurring theme emerged as an argument against Kosova’s independence. I was told by comrades from the Socialist Workers Party, the Spartacist League, as well mainstream Labourites, that the right to self-determination is not “an absolute”. Under certain circumstances, it had to be “subordinated”. But subordinated to what, comrades?

It is clear from Lenin’s writings that he was talking about the subordination of this democratic demand to the revolutionary struggle of the working class. In effect, what our comrades on the left are advocating is the subordination of Kosova’s democratic right to secede to the reactionary war aims of the Milosevic regime! What a wretched position.

Ian Mahoney
London

Dogmatic

Peter Manson (Letters Weekly Worker June 3) questions my combination of bourgeois democracy with soviet democracy in the context of the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This perspective is not my invention, but is instead integral to Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution. The class content of democratic demands is bourgeois democratic, but historically the bourgeoisie have not carried them out. It is up to the proletariat in alliance with the peasantry to realise bourgeois democratic demands.

Consequently I would beg to differ that I uphold Menshevik stageism. The Mensheviks ignored the peasantry and made the liberal bourgeoisie hegemonic in the bourgeois revolution. To the Bolsheviks, in the period before the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the peasantry were considered to represent the democratic content of the bourgeois revolution. They did not want socialist relations of production, but it was possible for the Bolsheviks to develop economic and political relations with the peasantry on the basis of implementing the Socialist Revolutionary Party’s land reform programme and establishing the Constituent Assembly.

The bourgeois democratic content of the SRs’ land reform programme was implemented on the basis of soviet power. The Soviet government nationalised the land to distribute it equally. This process did not represent socialisation, and instead class differentiation occurred. Thus capitalist farming was the result of land reform, and collectivisation represented only a very small amount of agricultural production.

Initially Lenin considered the establishment of the Constituent Assembly as central to the proletariat and peasant alliance. He maintained that even if the SRs got a majority of seats the soviets would still accept this result because they wanted to ensure the continuation of the proletariat and peasant alliance:

“And even if the peasants continue to follow the Socialist Revolutionaries, even if they give this party a majority in the Constituent Assembly, we shall still say - what of it? Experience is the best teacher and it will show who is right. Let the peasants solve this problem from one end and we shall solve it from the other. Experience will oblige us to draw together in the general stream of revolutionary creative work, in the elaboration of new state forms. We must allow complete freedom to the creative faculties of the masses” (VI Lenin CW Vol 26, p261).

When Lenin’s attitude changed and he began to agitate for the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly he only mentions the need to oppose the counterrevolutionary role of the SRs, and this means he is silent about the promise made to realise the aspirations of the peasantry. In this context Lenin’s emphasis upon the split in the SRs between Left and Right, which occurred after the elections, is a pretext to dissolve the Constituent Assembly. Lenin does not call for new elections to the Constituent Assembly in order to show the significance of the SR split, and instead it was dissolved because it was now considered an agency of counterrevolution.

The Bolsheviks’ dogmatic betrayal of the peasantry could have changed the balance of class forces against soviet power. Only the ultra-rightwing nature of the reactionary forces in the civil war meant the majority of the peasants were on the side of the soviets.

Phil Sharpe
Nottingham