24.10.2001
Neither Taliban nor imperialism
Ian Donovan replies to Bob Pitt?s defence of the Taliban
Bob Pitt?s recent article, replying to my critique of much of the Stalinist and ?orthodox? Trotskyist left?s inability to oppose the current USA-UK ?war against terrorism? without becoming more or less critical cheerleaders for the reactionary ?anti-imperialism? of the islamists, reflects much of the kind of capitulation to alien class ideologies that has crippled the left for decades. Incredibly, comrade Pitt - editor of the journal What Next? - considers that the very concept that any form of political movement that emerges in a backward country that claims to be opposed to imperialism, could ever conceivably be reactionary ?thoroughly dubious?, and thereby lays the theoretical basis for his de facto position that the ?anti-imperialist? war of any movement in a backward country, no matter what its programme and aims, is ?progressive?.
With this kind of outlook, it is hardly surprising that in the Kosova war of 1999, comrade Pitt was one of those who supported the ?victory? of the grotesquely chauvinist, anti-Albanian Milosevic tyranny against the overwhelming majority of Kosova?s people themselves. It will be recalled that Serb rule in Kosova resembled nothing as so much, in terms of the deprivation of all de facto citizenship rights of the majority ethnic group in a country in which they were the overwhelming majority, as the apartheid tyranny in South Africa, among the most obscene products of the colonialism comrade Pitt professes undying hatred of.
But it is easy for comrade Pitt to express hatred of an old-style colonialism that today hardly exists. For comrade Pitt, as with so many, the pretence that colonialism still ?really? dominates the world as it did in Trotsky?s day, serves to cover the fact that it is he and his like, who cheer for every vile reactionary ?third world? analogue of fascism from the comfort of their Labour Party branches, knowing full well it is unlikely they will ever face the consequences of the movements they cheer. The comrade hasn?t a clue of how to distinguish the oppressor from the oppressed, and more generally, his arse from his elbow.
Bob Pitt, as is characteristic of the biblicists, quotes Leon Trotsky?s polemic against the leaders of the Independent Labour Party?s ?plague on both your houses? position on Mussolini?s 1934 annexation and colonisation of Haile Selassie?s Abyssinia. Yet it is quite amusing that comrade Pitt seems unable to actually read and place in elementary context, the very passage that he quotes: ?If Mussolini triumphs, it means the strengthening of imperialism and the discouragement of the colonial peoples in Africa and elsewhere. A victory of the Negus, however, would mean a mighty blow not only at Italian imperialism but also against imperialism as a whole, and would lend a powerful impulsion to the rebellion of the oppressed people. One really must be completely blind not to see this.? (emphasis added)
One really must be ?completely blind? not to be able to see the difference between the context when this was written, and the modern day. Which ?colonial peoples? would be encouraged to revolt against their colonial overlords by a victory of the Taliban in the current war?
Would it be the Indians? Would they be encouraged to revolt against the rule of the British Raj, by such a victory? Oops, sorry, colonial India has been ruled by its own bourgeoisies, in modern day India, Pakistan, and latterly Bangladesh, for several decades. Would it be the Arab peoples of the Middle East, encouraged to rebel against the overlordship of the British and French? Hardly! They, too, have been ruled by their own bourgeoisies for many a year. Would it be the subjects of the European colonial empires in Africa, who would be encouraged to throw off their colonial masters by such a victory? Sorry, comrade Pitt, you are again several decades too late. Though France from time to time intervenes in Africa in pursuit of residual colonial interests, in general the days of overt national conquest and rule of entire peoples, of all classes from bourgeoisie to nascent proletariat, from the peasantry to even the decaying remnants of pre-capitalist classes, by the imperialist powers, by advanced capitalist occupiers, has long gone.
Of course, comrade Pitt is not stupid, and does not believe that his hoped-for victory of islamists would encourage an uprising of the peoples of former colonies against their non-existent colonial masters in the cause of a self-determination which was achieved decades earlier. What is implicit in his mis-citation of Trotsky is that the victory of the Taliban would propel the masses of the ex-colonial, underdeveloped world towards some sort of struggle against the imperialist world system itself: ie, towards its overthrow.
But this belief is actually a version of the Menshevik theory of ?two-stage revolution?: since it is not possible to overthrow imperialism as a system without the overthrow of the very ruling classes, bourgeois or in the case of Afghanistan, pre-capitalist and arguably pre-feudal, that comrade Pitt advocates that the oppressed masses should support in struggle ?against imperialism?. One can only conclude from this kind of strange reasoning that either comrade Pitt believes that his hoped-for victory of these ruling classes in such a war would lead directly to the overthrow of these very same ruling classes by the proletariat. Or else that comrade Pitt believes that the likes of the Taliban and other such reactionary elements are themselves capable of playing some kind of world-revolutionary role. In response to either of these propositions, the only response appropriate is ?You cannot be serious? a la McEnroe.
In reality, the outright victory of the islamic fundamentalists in the current war would almost certainly lead to the overthrow of the brittle military regime in Pakistan, and its replacement by a fully fledged islamist regime. It is also highly likely that similar movements would come to power in some or all of the former Central Asian republics of the ex-USSR. Many secular Arab states, including both the pro-western ones like Jordan and Egypt, as well as even the ?radical? ones, such as Syria and Iraq, would inevitably face a massively increased fundamentalist threat, and could be overthrown. The fundamentalist, but hollow, corrupt and pro-western regime in Saudi Arabia could quite likely be replaced by a more militant and aggressive form of fundamentalism.
India itself could be plunged into a full scale communal war, as its huge moslem minority could be propelled towards radicalised islamism by such a fundamentalist surge, and at the same time provoke an equally severe hindu-reactionary backlash. This in particular, would pose the danger of a nuclear-armed fundamentalist regime in Pakistan confronting a nuclear-armed, fearful and more and more hysterical hindu chauvinist regime in India - a frightening prospect, that could quite conceivably lead to tens of millions of Indians and Pakistanis being wiped out in a regional nuclear holocaust.
Comrade Pitt may well consider, from half a world away, that the risk of such a prospect is a price worth paying for the ?defeat? of imperialism according to his scenario, but frankly anyone seriously seeking to put forward an internationalist perspective of revolutionary struggle in the Middle East and Asia can only view such a prospect with horror.
The whole point of the Comintern?s unconditional demand for national (state) independence for colonial peoples was to remove the national question from the agenda, and in the process prove to the masses that they would have to overthrow their own indigenous oppressors to achieve liberation. This is diametrically opposed to the policy of comrade Pitt, who again, from the safety of his comfortable European home and his Labour Party branch, lectures the masses who groan under the grotesque tyranny of the islamists that they have to support their oppressors? ?anti-imperialist? crusades long after the imperialist bourgeoisie abandoned colonialism as a method of rule, or else, presumably, be branded as traitors to the ?anti-imperialist? cause and, again presumably, worthy of the treatment such oppressors regularly dish out to those they consider traitors.
In reality, once actual state independence was achieved against these empires: ie, decades ago, the question of the political and class natures of the indigenous regimes that ruled them became just as immediate, burning a question of working class politics in the backward countries as it is in the advanced countries. Any war waged by the regime of a backward country is a continuation of its politics by other means. In the case of the Taliban regime, its war against imperialism is a continuation of the politics of islamic fundamentalism by military means. Any support for its wars amounts to a disguised form of support for its politics. And support for the politics of such extreme reaction is as suicidal for workers and the oppressed in countries such as Afghanistan as it is for workers in the advanced countries. Yes, one really has to be blind not to see this.
Comrade Pitt tries to lay hold of the Labour Party of Pakistan (LPP) in order to bolster his case, in regard to their observations about the refusal of the islamic-influenced Pakistani masses to condemn the terrorist massacre at the World Trade Centre on September 11. He thereby also incorporates the LPP into his apologia for the Scargillites? and SWP?s refusal to condemn this atrocity, and thereby alibis this ?mass anti-imperialism? as reflective of an ?utter hatred of American imperialism? among the Pakistani masses. His implication is clear. This sentiment has in some ways a leftist or socialistic, or at least a progressive content.
Sorry, but no, actually. There has been little change in the mass consciousness of these sections of Pakistani society since the days of the 1980s. Then billions of dollars of ?aid? and American weapons were flooding through Pakistan into Afghanistan to fund the mojahedin ?holy warriors? in the counterrevolutionary war to destroy the secular and left-nationalist regime of the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan; it was ?backed? in a treacherous manner by the Stalinist USSR.
There was little ?hatred of American imperialism? among the fundamentalist-influenced sections of the masses in Pakistan in those days. The reason was simple. US imperialism was funding the fundamentalists? counterrevolutionary war against the PDPA. The ?hatred of American imperialism? Bob is cheering for today is little different from the ?hatred? that the islamic fanatics expressed for the secular PDPA, for the fact that in the west, as was true under the PDPA, women are relatively liberated, and the law of the sharia does not run in general.
There is a fundamental difference between this kind of reactionary ?anti-imperialism?, which really amounts to an ideology of extremist bigotry, and the kind of progressive hostility to the exploitative world economic-political system that is imperialism as even marginally class-conscious elements understand it. The fact that comrade Pitt does not see the difference between these two very different political outlooks show that frankly he has great difficulty in understanding what real class consciousness actually is.
Comrade Pitt descends into ranting with his contention that anyone who refuses to back the Taliban regime in its ?anti-imperialist? struggle is motivated by ?racist arrogance?, and his bizarre romanticisation of the Taliban as being some kind of ?noble savages?. This is the only way I can comprehend his baiting of those allegedly ?civilised Marxists? such as myself who refuse to cheer for the muslim world?s analogue of European fascism as being progressive.
One wonders whether he similarly romanticises the ?savage? torture, castration and public impaling of the last PDPA president of Afghanistan, Najibullah, by the Taliban, an act reminiscent of the actions of (for example) the arch-fascist Romanian Iron Guard. Here we, of course, find the real Pakistan LPP on our side. Not his. One wonders how comrade Pitt would characterise the LPP?s written statements that ?Religious fundamentalists are the new kind of fascists and must be opposed in every aspect. The LPP believe in no compromise or alliance with these religious fanatics on any issue?. The LPP has incidentally organised demonstrations around a series of demands that explicitly oppose equally the imperialists and the fundamentalists.
And one wonders what comrade Pitt thinks of the statement put out in the midst of the USA-UK bombing by the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) which baldly declares that the ?Taliban should be overthrown by the uprising of the Afghan nation?. RAWA goes on to observe, correctly, that: ?In the time of the Taliban?s medievalist domination, no Afghan and no honourable and mindful muslim will be deceived by the ?nationalistic? gestures of Taliban who invite the Afghan people and even the whole muslim world for jihad against America. Any person, group or government that supports the Taliban, no matter under what pretext, is the enemy of the Afghan people? (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan statement).
Even within the context of a world-view that is obviously and understandably coloured by both bourgeois democratic illusions and the consciousness of a wider oppression of ?third-world? peoples by the worldwide imperialist system (which cannot simply be equated with the old-style national oppression of colonialism, and cannot be uprooted without the worldwide overthrow of capitalism), these comrades understand perfectly well from their own bitter experience that the ?anti-imperialist? jihad of the Taliban and their like is pure poison to the oppressed people of Afghanistan.
They also have an accurate understanding of the imperialists? ?alternative?: ?Now the ?Northern Alliance? groups lie in ambush like hungry wolves so they, while riding the guns of the US, can assault and swarm into Kabul and in proportion to the depth and width of their ?conquests?, besides committing vandalism like the years before, gain ground in order to bargain for position in the second ?emirate?, and as a consequence again spoil the aspiration of the people for the establishment of a stable and democratic government acceptable to all? (ibid).
Unlike smug cheerleaders for islamist reaction like comrade Pitt, these comrades who have experienced this kind of ?anti-imperialism? first-hand have no hesitation in telling the truth to the masses, irrespective of any mass infatuation with this ?anti-imperialist? reaction. Despite all the imperfections and illusions these groupings undoubtedly manifest, they have more in common with comrade Trotsky?s injunction to ?tell the truth to the masses, no matter how bitter it may be? than comrade Pitt?s miserable perspective.
For comrade Pitt, like so many opportunists, has not got the courage of his own ostensible convictions. After fulminating at the ?racist arrogance? of those who refuse to support the fundamentalists? reactionary jihad, comrade Pitt then goes on to add: ?Does this mean that socialists should attempt to organise an anti-war movement around slogans such as ?victory to the Taliban?, or even ?defend Afghanistan, defeat US imperialism?. No it does not?.
The best contribution that Marxists in Britain can make to the defeat of imperialism is to build a mass movement against our own government?s participation in the assault on Afghanistan. This means working with trade unionists, Labour Party members, CND supporters, greens and others, few of whom will agree with a defencist position in relation to the Taliban forces fighting against the US. The most appropriate slogan for such a movement is ?stop the war?.?
So here we have the quintessential expression of opportunist hypocrisy. Marxists who refuse to endorse the Stalinists? and Trotsky-epigones? ludicrous and reactionary defence of the Taliban are accused of ?racist arrogance?. Pacifists, ordinary trade unionists, anti-war Labour Party members and others who likewise refuse to defend the Taliban are to be buttered up and accommodated, and their illusions pandered to, in the cynical belief that the mass anti-war movement will ?objectively? aid the Taliban anyway, so explicit statements of support for the Taliban are not necessary.
And meanwhile comrade Pitt, who has just elaborated an ?anti-war? strategy worthy of some 1970s Brezhnevite hack, imagining that the anti-war movement is ?really? a tool of our (in this case, the Taliban?s) side, despite the beliefs of its participants, then accuses those who seek to build a revolutionary anti-war movement opposed to the Taliban, of sectarianism, of seeking to build some imaginary and chimerical ?pure? anti-war movement separate from the existing movement.
Comrade Pitt is deluding himself again. Unlike those who deviously have to hide their ?Taliban defencism? from the ?trade unionists, Labour Party members, CND supporters, greens and others, few of whom will agree with a defencist position in relation to the Taliban forces fighting against the US?, communists who have a revolutionary attitude of opposition to both the imperialists and the fundamentalist/terrorist reactionaries, are able to openly proclaim our views within the framework of the existing anti-war movement.
In particular, we are able to simply say to such people, ?on the question of ?defence? of the Taliban, you, and not the opportunist (and sectarian) Taliban supporters, are right. Of course, you are wrong insofar as you are pacifists, reformists, etc, and we will continue to fight for the anti-war movement to adopt a revolutionary defeatist, anti-pacifist position to both imperialism and its reactionary enemies. We will unite with you in campaigning against the war, even though we have not managed to convince you that we are correct. But we will not give up seeking to convince you and the movement as a whole of the need to adopt a revolutionary position?. This is all perfectly straightforward and transparent, unlike comrade Pitt?s perspective of deliberately not fighting to win the anti-war movement to the pro-Taliban position that he professes to believe in.
As Oscar Wilde once said, ?hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue?. Comrade Pitt acknowledges the reality that his position on the ?defence? of the Taliban regime is repulsive and irrational by simply refusing to fight for it. Let comrade Pitt argue that our counterposed perspective is ?sectarian propagandism? if he likes. Anyone who examines the practical role that our comrades have been playing can see that his criticisms are frivolous, where they are not cynical and simply hypocritical.
Ian Donovan