redflag32
12-29-2007, 06:49 PM
I have robbed this from another forum so dont credit me with it, it gave no source either. Im not sure how relevent it is to people on here but maybe some people will see some relevence in our own struggle which has largely been led by nationalist middle class movements and leaders. Its the idea the IRSP comes up against when talking to non-republican socialists who dont agree with the idea that the anti-imperialist and social struggles should be fought side by side.
Third Campism
Proponents of Third Campism argue that in imperialist war socialists should support neither the imperialist side (first camp) nor the resistance to it led by bourgeois forces in the semi colonial country (the second camp - although the AWL reject the Leninist analysis of imperialist powers and semi colonial countries as a simple explanation this will do). Instead of taking these two sides the Third Campists support the "Third Camp" of the working class movement. Their slogans are usually along the lines of "No to war, no to Saddam/the theocracy etc".
In this they sound very radical and very socialist but their argument is actually one which damages the international working class movement and inevitably ends up with them consciously or unconsciously siding with imperialism.
Imperialism
In order to understand why it is first necessary to explain what imperialism and imperialist war are.
The Marxist understanding of imperialism is that it is a transitional stage. "Free trade" gives way to the power of monopolies, banks and cartels and the dominance of the export of goods in earlier capitalism gives way to the dominance of the export of capital i.e. instead of capitalism opening up parts of the world as new markets for its goods, it opens them up in order to exploit their workers at a greater rate than it does the workers in its own country.
It is a transitional phase of capitalism because it is a phase in which all the material prerequisites for the establishment of socialism have been met and production is increasingly socialised whilst the ownership of the means of production increasingly falls into fewer and fewer hands. Imperialism is the phase in capitalism where the capitalist class no longer plays a progressive role but holds back the development of the means of production and humanity; it is the epoch of capitalism in decline.
Imperialism has opened up the world's markets and as a result there is a struggle amongst imperialist powers to divide and re-divide the world in order to secure profits. The war on Iraq as a war for oil and control of the Middle East is testament to this as are the imperialists' attempts to stop the nationalisation of companies in Latin America and to marketise the public sector through neoliberal reforms in Europe.
So then, as we can all agree this means that the defeat of the imperialists in their wars has two positive consequences: firstly, it enables the people of a country to not have their resources and their labour super-exploited by imperialist countries and their companies and opens up the question of how the society will be run; secondly, and of greater consequence, as imperialism is a world system the defeat of imperialism in one of its wars gives confidence to those resisting imperialism in the whole world and shows that imperialist hegemony can be challenged and beaten.
Resistance and its class dynamics
A problem can arrive for socialists in dealing with this though because whilst the defeat of imperialism is progressive both nationally and internationally the resistance to imperialism is often led by forces hostile to the working class movement. No sensible person would claim that the Taleban, Moqtadr Al-Sadr or the ruling regime in Iran are friends of the working class. Yet in both Iraq and Afghanistan forces with a political-Islamist programme are not only in the forefront of the fight against US/UK imperialism but are beating it. Similarly if and when the imperialists decide to attack Iran the first line of defence in Iran will be the military who are under the command of the Iranian ruling class.
The argument of the Third Campists – to support neither side and instead focus on the building up of an independent working class movement – sounds nice but completely dodges the question faced on the ground in countries under imperialist occupation: how to resist. Socialist politics which can’t deal with an imperialist war is worthless.
The political independence of the working class does not mean its abstention from the national struggles. On the contrary revolutionaries, the most conscious part of the working class, must be "tribunes of the people" not ignoring the biggest problems faced by society but by coming to the forefront of the most important struggles it faces and showing that it is only through the socialist revolution that offers a solution through action as well as words. In the context of the anti imperialist struggle this means that the task of revolutionaries is to engage in the fight and come to its leadership.
Doing this means that the working class must make a united front with sections of the national bourgeoisie in this struggle. This doesn't mean that the working class is dropping its political independence but that it sees that imperialist occupation affects all classes in an occupied society. Abstaining from this national struggle or adopting a "shoot both ways" position would be suicidal for the working class. Cutting it off from the biggest question facing society by for example taking the perspective that the biggest question in Iraq is trade union struggles rather than the occupation not only limits the ability of working class militants to agitate amongst the working class (and the urban poor, petty-bourgeoisie etc) but also means that after the defeat of imperialism having not led the struggle it will be in a worse position to take power in society.
From resistance to revolution
Undoubtedly the abstention of the working class from the struggle against imperialist occupation damages the ability of that struggle to win excluding not only numbers of people who could be participating in armed resistance but also a class of people who through their economic position can cripple the workings of a puppet regime. Third Campists would of course argue that the working class not participating in resistance to imperialism led by theocratic and bourgeois forces is not a problem as workers do not share the same aims as these forces.
However the abstention of the working class from the struggle against imperialism also weakens the working class in its struggle for emancipation. It would be undialectical and plain wrong to conclude that if the working class fights against imperialist occupation alongside those with bourgeois programs (and sometimes not even that) means that the working class are fighting for the victory and the implementation of these programs.
This is because of the inevitable contradictions within the national bourgeoisie of a country, sections of which will be bribed by the imperialist powers and sections of which will shy away from a struggle against imperialism in which the working class involve themselves heavily in and seek to take the leadership of. In participating in the resistance to imperialism the working class not only poses the question of how society should be run in places where the imperialists are defeated (where it can fight for workers control, soviets etc) but also poses a broader threat to capitalism, as the 1922 congress of the Communist International put it: "the objective tasks of the colonial revolution go beyond the bounds of bourgeois democracy because a decisive victory for this revolution is incompatible with the rule of world imperialism” i.e. there is no space outside imperialism and only the overthrow of capitalism worldwide can secure against it.
This stance does not hinder the political independence of the working class as the Third Campists might claim, it enriches it. Again, the 1922 congress of the Communist International is clear on this: “The refusal of Communists in the colonies to take part in the fight against imperialist tyranny, on the pretext of their supposed ‘defence’ of independent class interests, is the worst kind of opportunism and can only discredit the proletarian revolution”
There is no Third Camp
As we've seen the refusal of the working class to take the lead in the struggle against imperialism, whatever its current leadership might be weakens both the struggle to overthrow the imperialist occupation of a country and the capitalist system. You'd be forgiven for wondering what the point of such a theory is.
In the final analysis the Third Campist position only serves to defend imperialism. Their arguments on the question would make it seem as if the chief question in Iraq is that of the trade union occupation in Iraq rather than the imperialist occupation. Worse still they have argued that the occupation of Iraq has opened up a "breathing space" for the working class to organise in, in other words they think that imperialism has played a progressive role in Iraq. The utter weakness of their stance on imperialism can be further seen in the fact that they are having a faction fight over whether to call for the immediate withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, a position they currently don't have - you'd expect this from the Liberal Democrats but from an organisation claiming to be socialist?!?
The defeat of the USA in Vietnam was undoubtedly a progressive thing for the world working class movement and all those struggling against imperialism worldwide. The mere mention of the word still decades later stings the US's ruling class. Yet the resistance in Vietnam was led by Stalinists who killed revolutionaries and were certainly no friends of the working class. Would any right-minded socialist say that the victory over America in Vietnam was a bad thing because the leadership had reactionary politics? No. What is the difference between the resistance and the resistance in Iraq, Afghanistan and the one that will emerge in Iran? The truth is that the Third Campists are pandering to the racism involved in the war on terrorism, they cannot abide the idea that the working class should support a Muslim-led resistance.
You can see that Third Campism provides a socialist sounding echo of the imperialists on the front cover of November 1st's Weekly Worker which has bullet points stating that "Iran is developing nuclear weapons", "Iran sponsor[s] 'terrorism'", "Iran is not a peace-loving state", "Iran is an anti-Semitic state” and “Iran is an undemocratic and repressive country”. Are these really the key arguments that communists should be putting forward to the movement and the working class? Weekly Worker has gone from having contents mirroring Heat magazine to front pages mirroring the Sun.
The fight against imperialism in Britain and in Iran
The regime in Iran, despite inevitable disagreements, will resist imperialist attack in whatever form it comes. In a situation where Iran is under attack from the imperialists socialists should argue for the victory of Iran clearly and unapologetically breaking with those who think that there is any justification of imperialist war on the grounds that the imperialist countries have more democratic rights than Iran and can provide a space for progress in Iran.
This does not mean being uncritical of the regime but, as Karl Liebnecht said for the working class of imperialist countries at war "the main enemy is at home". The main struggle in Iran will be against imperialism any attempt to side-step that in the style of Weekly Worker can only serve the imperialists.
The situation will of course be different for workers in Iran. The dynamics of the struggle against imperialism will mean that inevitably it will come into conflict with sections the regime, who fear socialist revolution even more than they fear imperialist occupation. Nevertheless the struggle against imperialist occupation will be the main issue and it is only by the working class showing that in such a situation it is first and foremost an opponent of imperialism, that it is the hardest fighter against it and that it can change society to one without imperialist domination that it can weaken those opposed to its participation in an anti imperialist united front, break the hold of the bourgeois leadership of the resistance and provide a basis for the establishment of a socialist society.
A victory against imperialist occupation led by any force would be a progressive thing. To advocate a politics which not only diminishes the chances of that but also hands over the leadership of that struggle to bourgeois forces, as the Third Campists do, isn't a position worthy of genuine socialists and internationalists.
Third Campism
Proponents of Third Campism argue that in imperialist war socialists should support neither the imperialist side (first camp) nor the resistance to it led by bourgeois forces in the semi colonial country (the second camp - although the AWL reject the Leninist analysis of imperialist powers and semi colonial countries as a simple explanation this will do). Instead of taking these two sides the Third Campists support the "Third Camp" of the working class movement. Their slogans are usually along the lines of "No to war, no to Saddam/the theocracy etc".
In this they sound very radical and very socialist but their argument is actually one which damages the international working class movement and inevitably ends up with them consciously or unconsciously siding with imperialism.
Imperialism
In order to understand why it is first necessary to explain what imperialism and imperialist war are.
The Marxist understanding of imperialism is that it is a transitional stage. "Free trade" gives way to the power of monopolies, banks and cartels and the dominance of the export of goods in earlier capitalism gives way to the dominance of the export of capital i.e. instead of capitalism opening up parts of the world as new markets for its goods, it opens them up in order to exploit their workers at a greater rate than it does the workers in its own country.
It is a transitional phase of capitalism because it is a phase in which all the material prerequisites for the establishment of socialism have been met and production is increasingly socialised whilst the ownership of the means of production increasingly falls into fewer and fewer hands. Imperialism is the phase in capitalism where the capitalist class no longer plays a progressive role but holds back the development of the means of production and humanity; it is the epoch of capitalism in decline.
Imperialism has opened up the world's markets and as a result there is a struggle amongst imperialist powers to divide and re-divide the world in order to secure profits. The war on Iraq as a war for oil and control of the Middle East is testament to this as are the imperialists' attempts to stop the nationalisation of companies in Latin America and to marketise the public sector through neoliberal reforms in Europe.
So then, as we can all agree this means that the defeat of the imperialists in their wars has two positive consequences: firstly, it enables the people of a country to not have their resources and their labour super-exploited by imperialist countries and their companies and opens up the question of how the society will be run; secondly, and of greater consequence, as imperialism is a world system the defeat of imperialism in one of its wars gives confidence to those resisting imperialism in the whole world and shows that imperialist hegemony can be challenged and beaten.
Resistance and its class dynamics
A problem can arrive for socialists in dealing with this though because whilst the defeat of imperialism is progressive both nationally and internationally the resistance to imperialism is often led by forces hostile to the working class movement. No sensible person would claim that the Taleban, Moqtadr Al-Sadr or the ruling regime in Iran are friends of the working class. Yet in both Iraq and Afghanistan forces with a political-Islamist programme are not only in the forefront of the fight against US/UK imperialism but are beating it. Similarly if and when the imperialists decide to attack Iran the first line of defence in Iran will be the military who are under the command of the Iranian ruling class.
The argument of the Third Campists – to support neither side and instead focus on the building up of an independent working class movement – sounds nice but completely dodges the question faced on the ground in countries under imperialist occupation: how to resist. Socialist politics which can’t deal with an imperialist war is worthless.
The political independence of the working class does not mean its abstention from the national struggles. On the contrary revolutionaries, the most conscious part of the working class, must be "tribunes of the people" not ignoring the biggest problems faced by society but by coming to the forefront of the most important struggles it faces and showing that it is only through the socialist revolution that offers a solution through action as well as words. In the context of the anti imperialist struggle this means that the task of revolutionaries is to engage in the fight and come to its leadership.
Doing this means that the working class must make a united front with sections of the national bourgeoisie in this struggle. This doesn't mean that the working class is dropping its political independence but that it sees that imperialist occupation affects all classes in an occupied society. Abstaining from this national struggle or adopting a "shoot both ways" position would be suicidal for the working class. Cutting it off from the biggest question facing society by for example taking the perspective that the biggest question in Iraq is trade union struggles rather than the occupation not only limits the ability of working class militants to agitate amongst the working class (and the urban poor, petty-bourgeoisie etc) but also means that after the defeat of imperialism having not led the struggle it will be in a worse position to take power in society.
From resistance to revolution
Undoubtedly the abstention of the working class from the struggle against imperialist occupation damages the ability of that struggle to win excluding not only numbers of people who could be participating in armed resistance but also a class of people who through their economic position can cripple the workings of a puppet regime. Third Campists would of course argue that the working class not participating in resistance to imperialism led by theocratic and bourgeois forces is not a problem as workers do not share the same aims as these forces.
However the abstention of the working class from the struggle against imperialism also weakens the working class in its struggle for emancipation. It would be undialectical and plain wrong to conclude that if the working class fights against imperialist occupation alongside those with bourgeois programs (and sometimes not even that) means that the working class are fighting for the victory and the implementation of these programs.
This is because of the inevitable contradictions within the national bourgeoisie of a country, sections of which will be bribed by the imperialist powers and sections of which will shy away from a struggle against imperialism in which the working class involve themselves heavily in and seek to take the leadership of. In participating in the resistance to imperialism the working class not only poses the question of how society should be run in places where the imperialists are defeated (where it can fight for workers control, soviets etc) but also poses a broader threat to capitalism, as the 1922 congress of the Communist International put it: "the objective tasks of the colonial revolution go beyond the bounds of bourgeois democracy because a decisive victory for this revolution is incompatible with the rule of world imperialism” i.e. there is no space outside imperialism and only the overthrow of capitalism worldwide can secure against it.
This stance does not hinder the political independence of the working class as the Third Campists might claim, it enriches it. Again, the 1922 congress of the Communist International is clear on this: “The refusal of Communists in the colonies to take part in the fight against imperialist tyranny, on the pretext of their supposed ‘defence’ of independent class interests, is the worst kind of opportunism and can only discredit the proletarian revolution”
There is no Third Camp
As we've seen the refusal of the working class to take the lead in the struggle against imperialism, whatever its current leadership might be weakens both the struggle to overthrow the imperialist occupation of a country and the capitalist system. You'd be forgiven for wondering what the point of such a theory is.
In the final analysis the Third Campist position only serves to defend imperialism. Their arguments on the question would make it seem as if the chief question in Iraq is that of the trade union occupation in Iraq rather than the imperialist occupation. Worse still they have argued that the occupation of Iraq has opened up a "breathing space" for the working class to organise in, in other words they think that imperialism has played a progressive role in Iraq. The utter weakness of their stance on imperialism can be further seen in the fact that they are having a faction fight over whether to call for the immediate withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, a position they currently don't have - you'd expect this from the Liberal Democrats but from an organisation claiming to be socialist?!?
The defeat of the USA in Vietnam was undoubtedly a progressive thing for the world working class movement and all those struggling against imperialism worldwide. The mere mention of the word still decades later stings the US's ruling class. Yet the resistance in Vietnam was led by Stalinists who killed revolutionaries and were certainly no friends of the working class. Would any right-minded socialist say that the victory over America in Vietnam was a bad thing because the leadership had reactionary politics? No. What is the difference between the resistance and the resistance in Iraq, Afghanistan and the one that will emerge in Iran? The truth is that the Third Campists are pandering to the racism involved in the war on terrorism, they cannot abide the idea that the working class should support a Muslim-led resistance.
You can see that Third Campism provides a socialist sounding echo of the imperialists on the front cover of November 1st's Weekly Worker which has bullet points stating that "Iran is developing nuclear weapons", "Iran sponsor[s] 'terrorism'", "Iran is not a peace-loving state", "Iran is an anti-Semitic state” and “Iran is an undemocratic and repressive country”. Are these really the key arguments that communists should be putting forward to the movement and the working class? Weekly Worker has gone from having contents mirroring Heat magazine to front pages mirroring the Sun.
The fight against imperialism in Britain and in Iran
The regime in Iran, despite inevitable disagreements, will resist imperialist attack in whatever form it comes. In a situation where Iran is under attack from the imperialists socialists should argue for the victory of Iran clearly and unapologetically breaking with those who think that there is any justification of imperialist war on the grounds that the imperialist countries have more democratic rights than Iran and can provide a space for progress in Iran.
This does not mean being uncritical of the regime but, as Karl Liebnecht said for the working class of imperialist countries at war "the main enemy is at home". The main struggle in Iran will be against imperialism any attempt to side-step that in the style of Weekly Worker can only serve the imperialists.
The situation will of course be different for workers in Iran. The dynamics of the struggle against imperialism will mean that inevitably it will come into conflict with sections the regime, who fear socialist revolution even more than they fear imperialist occupation. Nevertheless the struggle against imperialist occupation will be the main issue and it is only by the working class showing that in such a situation it is first and foremost an opponent of imperialism, that it is the hardest fighter against it and that it can change society to one without imperialist domination that it can weaken those opposed to its participation in an anti imperialist united front, break the hold of the bourgeois leadership of the resistance and provide a basis for the establishment of a socialist society.
A victory against imperialist occupation led by any force would be a progressive thing. To advocate a politics which not only diminishes the chances of that but also hands over the leadership of that struggle to bourgeois forces, as the Third Campists do, isn't a position worthy of genuine socialists and internationalists.