Zionism thread continued
David
to me. It's the whole thing and I have NOT yet replied, but I did a
little on the 'other' Zionism thread. I will give a more serious
response later today, I hope, on this question, here--DW]
On Jan 4, 11:42 am, David <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 10:46 am, macphineas <macphine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First, let me note I'm clipping all that extraneous text. It's very
> detracting to follow the thread otherwise.
It gets automatically hidden by google, if the response is written
below, and not in between, the previous post.
> Well there is this problem of what an Israeli "is". I do not consider
> them a nationality. There is an Israeli citizenship but that's it. Who
> is and who isn't an Israeli. If I move there, because I come from
> Jewish family, I'm automatically an "Israeli". So there is this big
> problem.
You would automatically qualify for citizenship, but that doesn't
automatically make you a member of that nation. Bngelis can tell you
all about that...
The nation I refer to are the sabras, those who have lived there for a
at least a couple of generations and speak only Hebrew, or perhaps
some English with an Israeli accent. Over the course of the last 60
years, a nation has been formed. You and I may not like it, but I
think it undeniable. Obviously, they still promote immigration on a
loose Jewish basis, hoping that an ideological attachment to Zionism
will bind the immigrants to the Israeli long enough for them to
assimilate. The German and Polish Jews that settled there a century
ago are no longer German or Polish Jews; they're dead and their
descendants are Israeli Jews. And within Israel proper, Jews
constitute the majority population.
> Secondly, I concern myself less with the oppressor 'nationality' than
> the oppressed one. My starting point...something I think you need to
> declare...or at least discuss, Mac, is this. This was Lenin's and the
> Comintern's position. We are "most concerned" I think the quote is,
> with the oppressed nationality, not the oppressors one. But your
> points are sill valid. I did not that it was important to *break*
> Zionist unanimity by splitting off a sector of the Jewish working
> class from their allegiance to Israel. By definition and history, this
> is only likely with a small minority of Jews, but it could be enough.
Of course my first concern is Palestinian oppression--we're arguing,
if you haven't noticed, over how to end it. Realistically, that
involves winning over a layer of the Jewish proletariat, and hopefully
a majority, from Zionism to socialism, and thus to the democratic
demands of the Palestinians.
> But back to the national question. We start from Palestinian self-
> determination. I consider Jews in Palestine to be future residents and
> citizens in such a future Palestine. They may choose to speak English
> or Hebrew but that is a function of any truly democratic movement to
> "be democratic" means to recognize minority language and groups
> rights. Otherwise it is NOT democratic and thus a failure.
Agreed--but I see this as utopian under a bourgeois regime. Because
of the demographic weight and support they have from US imperialism,
Israeli Jews will not quietly give up their state; they must be won to
socialism first. A precondition for this would be a large
Palestinian socialist movement that was willing to extend its hand to
the Jewish workers.
> > Revolutionary unity is the key, not supporting 3rd world nationalism.
> So you digress from the Comintern's position which was very supportive
> of "3rd world nationalism" in the documents of the Second Congress,
> the Congress of the People's of the East and general unconditional
> support for every anti-colonial struggle. Mac you need to parse this
> out a bit with your above statement.
A LOT of water has flowed under the bridge since then, when the world
was literally divided up into colonies of a few European countries,
plus the US. Decolonization, in almost all cases coming after long
colonial uprisings, has pretty starkly show the limits of 3rd world
nationalism, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. All
those states that once depended upon the USSR for military and
economic aid have born forced to knuckle under the weight of US
imperialism; they gained formal political independence, but their
economic dependence on their imperialist masters hasn't changed.
Supporting nominally anti-imperialist movements without a clear
perspective and program for revolution is a trap, one that the
Stalinists and Pabloites, and later Healy, unhappily fell into 40
years ago (as well as during WWII). I see no reason to repeat that
mistake.
> We can return to this. I'm for 100% democratic rights of any Jewish
> Palestinian. But to 'be Israeli' means a lot more than speaking
> Hebrew...
So what does it mean, to you?
> It is true we are a settler state, but on that included the genocidal
> extermination of 95% of all indigenous peoples. As Marx noted, the
> American "nation" was "under development" as he wrote, with the Civil
> War being the final act of that development. He clearly had no idea
> about the genocide against the native peoples but there are few native
> people's to demand "we want it back". The objective reality of
> 300,000,000 Americans vs that of 3 million (maybe) native Americans is
> problematic within traditional Leninist norms.
And Jews make up a majority of Israel proper; I believe we agree that
any democratic (and thus socialist) movement there would defend their
rights as well.
> > Does that necessitate that Trotskyists should make Indian self-
> > determination, and their right to all North American lands, or do
> > Americans, despite being an oppressor nation, still maintain some
> > national rights? If you don't defend the Jewish workers, how can you
> > defend the Palestinian ones?
> First, to a large degree: in fact there is a lot of self-determination
> for Indians in the U.S. (more in Canada, I might add). But we first
> have to examine what are *their* demands and what are *their*
> solutions?
David, you should know as well as I, that when the Injuns get uppity,
they get shot. AIM, for instance. And you should know that the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, in tandem with the Bureau of Indian
Education, are still the ultimate authorities on the reservations.
The only "self-determination" Indians have in this country is whether
they want to allow in a developer to build a combination resort,
casino and outlet mall, or maybe to auction off mineral or oil
rights. And many reservations don't even have that luxury, being too
far from major population centers and lacking in natural resources.
Canada has recently been making a big deal about "first nations." But
this just means a few tribes get a cut of the natural resources, and
"metis" becomes a recognized nationality in the prairies. It didn't
stop the Alberta government from developing the tar sands, just like
it didn't stop the flooding of northern Ontario and Quebec for the big
hydro projects in the 60's.
> Secondly, I do defend Jewish workers, and in this way. The Fourth
> International sees the Jewish presence in Palestine as a result of the
> colonial settler status of British Imperialism and Zionism, with the
> latter supporting the former from the get go. 95% of all Jews in
> Palestine are settlers or decedent of a Zionist *political* project
> designed to exclude the indigenous population from their land, their
> nation, the existence. There is not getting around this as Marxists we
> need to show the origin of Palestinian nationalism and what caused it,
> the origin and presence of Zionism. With out this, Mac, there really
> is no discussion.
And you and I are the products of a political settler project aimed at
exterminating the native population of the Americas. But neither of
us would advocate removal of non-Indians or simply giving the Americas
back to the various Indian tribes that inhabited it before European
colonization. Instead, a revolutionary advocates full democratic
rights for the oppressed nationality, which can't be done here for the
Indians (the US state being created in opposition to their rights)
just as it can't be done within Israel, set up as it is as a Jewish
state. But without support from within the Israeli Jewish working
class, there is no hope for such a program.
> Thirdly, Israel as a Zionist settler state is an odd ball...the
> excluded peoples were driven into exile, not exterminated. Nor were
> they kept for exploitation for the most part. So defending "Jewish
> workers" meaning them affording the equal rights with their
> Palestinian class brothers, with their Palestinian people as a whole.
> This is where the Constituent Assembly comes in. The CA is a
> "bourgeois" radical expression of national liberation. It solves all
> sorts of problems, not the least of which is the Jewish one. By
> affording one person, one vote, you assure *Palestinian majority
> rule*. This is the essence of any state replacing the Jewish-
> exclusive state now in its place. If Jews are given the vote, the
> right to speak any language they want, recognize Arab majority rule,
> then they have no complaints. "Jews" are not a nationality. At best it
> is, depending where, including Palestine, an ethnic sub group. So
> 'rights', *within the democratic frame work of a Free Palestine* are
> thus based on MAJORITY rule, at a minimum.
> For a CA to be effective you have to have the rights to organize, free
> speech, elections etc. But it means the *dismantling* of the exclusive
> nature of the Settler State, by one form or other. As communists we
> support this unconditionally but realize that, as point 8 of the
> postulates of Permanent Revolution states:
> "The dictatorship of the proletariat which has risen to power as the
> leader of the democratic revolution is inevitably and, very quickly
> confronted with tasks, the fulfillment of which is bound up with deep
> inroads into the rights of bourgeois property. The democratic
> revolution grows over directly into the socialist revolution and
> thereby becomes a permanent revolution."
> --file:///marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/pr10.htm
> We would be pushing this even if we were not the ones to lead the
> Democratic Revolution, I would think.
It's very easy to read a Stalinist two-stageist theory into this
quote, or even outright reformism; the democratic revolution
automatically becomes the socialist one. But the history of the late
20th century was of decolonization without socialist revolution. Only
in Cuba and Vietnam has decolonization led to an overthrow of
capitalism, and in both those states that is looking increasingly
inviable.
A CA is a fine demand, if one keeps in mind that it is transitional
and would necessarily be overthrown by workers' councils. You have to
be clear not to support it as an end in itself. And again, while I
agree that Jews are not and never were a nationality, there does exist
a Hebrew-speaking and largely Jewish Israeli nation. But the only way
they achieve self-determination, as opposed to the barracks state they
live in, is by granting the Palestinians actual self-determination
across the whole of historic Palestine.
> > The biggest problem with the SRD-bngelis solution is that it simply
> > inverts the oppression; oppressor nation would become oppressed
> > (unlike S. Africa) because a Palestinian bourgeoisie would emerge and
> > make the working class Sabras the lowest wrung on the ladder of wage-
> > slavery.
> I think you have to distinguish between Gelis and SRD. SRD's position
> has been somewhat more mobile. He "poised" the question of what
> happens if Jews become oppressed by virtue of, say, an attacking Arab
> army or my scenario, a Hamas lead take over. We generally don't pre-
> condition our support for any struggle of national liberation by
> telling the oppressed how to fight their battles and then withholding
> support based on that. We have our strategy of dual-power, building
> workers militias and working across religious and ethnic lines when
> possible. That's our approach. I'm looking at it from our approach,
> what do WE think is the best way to proceed, if were were part of, or
> leading the Palestinian struggle for self-determination? Our approach
> IS a democratic solution and, it's not that far from the original PLO
> Charter of 1964 (albeit that document was somewhat confusing in
> certain areas).
But you have to be very careful who and what you support, and how.
Blows against imperialism are critically supportable, regardless of
who throws them, but reactionary nationalist movements
exist, and Trotskyists need to fight to keep workers away from them.
Hamas, and at this point the PLO, are among them; the support that the
USec among others gave to Khomeini's movement should serve as a clear
warning. Likewise with Hizbollah. If the Trotskyist dual-power
program of permanent revolution is to succeed, that means direct
confrontation with these groups at some point.
> I believe that offering "democracy" and full rights wthin that to a
> *unified* democratic secular Palestinian state is the best way to win
> Jews away from their allegiance to Zionism.
Agreed.
> On S. Africa...the logic of your position Mac would be to defend and
> offer some special "national' rights to white S. Africans or white SA
> workers. The non-working class majority of white S. Africans didn't
> really occur until the late 1960s early 1970s. Prior to that the
> majority of Afrikanners were working class of various strata. In the
> 1940s when Trotskyists were fully active, the overwhelming majority of
> S. African whites were working class. But we never, ever, put forward
> 'special national rights' for THEM. We recognized that they had a
> choice to make or be rolled over. We never ever advocated their
> expulsion or their oppression but the "removal of their rights over
> Blacks and Colored peopel" which they had and WAS in fact the basic
> expression of 'white national rights' there. This is no different than
> Israel which is far worse, in many respects, but unlike S. Africa
> which kept the native population to exploit, the Zionists removed them
> entirely from the state in which Israel ruled over. It is a huge
> logistical issue, and, yes, they have bomb. But then so did the S.
> African apartheid regime.
I don't know what you mean by special "national rights;" I would have
supported the rights of both Afrikaners and white Anglophones to have
their languages recognized, and full citizenship in a democratic South
Africa, as a transitional demand. But the agitational emphasis would
have been amongst black workers, since they made up the majority. The
whites, both Afrikaner and Anglo, got their rights recognized, along
with the larger indigenous groups; and yet none of this has changed
the fundamental class status or level of exploitation of black workers
in South Africa. The SA regime did try to do what the Zionists did,
with their "homeland" concept, but in practice it never worked out,
because they never had enough whites to come and be workers and fill
the void left by those stuck in the "homelands". As I've said about
Palestinians vis-a-vis Israel, I would have advocated the removal of
all legal distinctions made between blacks and whites in SA, as do
you; the problem comes when you start to ally or at least support
forces that don't defend their democratic rights. This is a much
bigger issue in Israel/Palestine, where Israelis make up a much larger
percentage of the working class than did SA whites.
The bomb only matters in a war between conventional militaries.
Basically it ensures that Israel won't be invaded by the old Egyptian/
Syrian/Jordanian alliance again.
> I believe the difference is that the road to Jerusalem as the capital
> of unified, democratic and secular socialist state is through
> Damascus, Cairo and Amman. It will involve the destruction of the
> Israeli economy through boycotts and other forms of economic
> disintegration, strikes by Jewish and Arab workers and a host other
> factors. But I'm on the side of the Palestinian majority.
> David
In and of itself, the destruction of the Israeli state is not
necessarily progressive. Only its replacement can justify its
destruction; nothing short of socialist revolution will solve the
Palestinian question, and in order to have a socialist revolution in
Israel and the Occupied Territories, you need to have the support of
the Israeli working class.
How exactly does the "road to Jerusalem as the capital of unified,
democratic and secular socialist" run through the surrounding Arab
countries? Their bourgeois nationalist regimes have always treated
the Palestinians as pawns to be traded away in exchange for crumbs
from US imperialism (or even as dangerous enemies ala Black September
or Mubarak's fear of Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood). Do you mean that
revolutions in those countries would be a precondition for a
Palestinian revolution?
It should be noted that since neither of us is Israeli or Palestinian,
nor affiliated with a current that has an Israeli or Palestinian, this
is all extremely hypothetical. Of more immediate importance is what
we, as Americans, do here. What actions do you support here:
boycotts, hot cargo?
macphineas
macphineas
Dusty thread, I'll post that reply (which contains your posting being
replied to in full) here as well:
On Jan 5, 8:57 am, David <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me just address the issue of bourgeois nationalism.
> We don't' decide the leadership, organization, program of nationalism,
> bourgeois or otherwise. it flows, initially, and organically, from the
> repression and dispossession of the nation in question.
True; however, the role of revolutionaries is to fight to lead the
oppressed against their oppressors, to win them to the revolutionary
banner, not adapt to the slogans and programs of nationalist
organizations, all which are ultimately bourgeois in nature. And the
role of revolutionaries is to expose that bourgeois nature.
> Bolsheviks support these struggles. They don't really, or haven't,
> preconditioned it on anything except that they fight colonialism.
> BTW...this was true for Latin America as well which, when the
> Comintern came out with their program, was totally "UNcolonized" and
> independent for 100 years, longer than most African nations have been
> now, but were NEO-colonized. So they were not dealing with direct
> occupation, per se, nor, for that matter, were they dealing with that
> in China.
Let's make this concrete--the way anti-imperialism has manifested
itself in LA is the guerrilla struggle. What is your position on
this?
> Lenin was clear about communists having 'space' to organize IN these
> movements while remaining independent of them. He was for fighting for
> *leadership* for the movements for national liberation. He was for an
> alliance in some cases (the KMT to site the best example, under Sun
> Yat-sen) as well. He saw the struggle as legit regardless.
And his epigones picked that ball up and ran with it, all the way up
to today. But they sure as hell weren't fighting for leadership by
tail-ending the nationalist movements, and we both know how things
worked out with the KMT.
> You keep saying there is an "Israeli nation". We disagree. There is a
> state, but no nation, again, especially if you ask THEM what the
> Israeli nation is, it's me as well as my cousins born there. Secondly,
> more importantly, different from the US, is that we've had development
> of 10 geneations of "Americans" and the native peoples are no longer
> demanding any kind of serious 'national liberation' anymore with most
> exceptions. There are 300 million people now.
So at what point does quantitative become qualitative? There is
exactly 100 years separating the US annexation of California and
Israel's foundation, and now 60 years since that. That's at least
three generations, not counting those Zionist settlers who immigrated
from the early 1900's. In 1948, should the SWP have called for
Mexican self-determination in California? Or Indian self-
determination? What about in 1908?
> In Israel there are STILL first generation settlers who continue to
> come and...the indigenous people are still ALIVE...that first
> generation and DIRECT decendents. This is qualitatively different.
So when they die, and Israel still exists, your line will change?
> So when we say a CA is an answer and solution within the direction of
> socialist revolution to solve the "Jewish Question" it includes ALL
> Palestinians. This is why the struggle for a democratic solution
> includes ALL Palestinians and the "Right of Return", that is, a
> political "Land Reform" where all residents and those in *exile* have
> a right to return and participate.
I don't have take issue with this demand, so long as it is spelled out
that the Jewish working class, nation or not, has a right to stay as
well.
A corollary to this is that the Palestinians have been kept as
refugees by the neighboring Arab states for generations. Palestinian
self-determination and the "right of return" must also include a
"right not to return" ie to become Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, and
Egyptians. And this will not happen short of a socialist revolution
that spans the entire region. So ostensibly transtional demands like
a CA must not be allowed to become ends in and of themselves.
> I don't believe that *any* concessions on the "Jewish Nation" or the
> "Israeli Nation" will ever sway many Jews from their allegiance to
> this Apartheid system. Personally I don't. The 1.1 million Russian
> Jews are simply not "Israelis" yet they will fight to preserve their
> status. Sabras are not going to distinguish between themselves and
> their settler parents. It will be bad. I think most will emigrate so
> as not to be 'rule by Arabs'.
> David
Here we have a fundamental difference; I cannot for the life of me see
how the Arab workers will be broken from Islamism and nationalism
until the Palestinian question is resolved, and I can't see how that
will be resolved short of a regional socialist revolution. That in
turn, will require the support of the Israeli working class, along
with the Palestinian workers. So if my analysis is correct, I can't
afford to be as pessimistic about class consciousness in Israel as you
are.
macphineas
jh
I have read this fairly hastily, as I am not in the mood to discuss
this question at the moment. From my hasty reading, mac does indeed
seem to be arguing some pretty orthodox Spartacism here.
-jh-
David
interrupt the flow of my own thinking -- JH is probably correct,
objectively, of his assesement--DW]
Before I answer, I smiled when Mac thought Trotsky's postulates on
Permanent Revolution smacked of 'stagism'. It's funny. Trotsky never
denied there were 'stages'. Rather he framed it in terms of what
people are actually mobilizing around and how they could actually be
fulfilled.
> > Let me just address the issue of bourgeois nationalism.
> > We don't' decide the leadership, organization, program of nationalism,
> > bourgeois or otherwise. it flows, initially, and organically, from the
> > repression and dispossession of the nation in question.
>
> True; however, the role of revolutionaries is to fight to lead the
> oppressed against their oppressors, to win them to the revolutionary
> banner, not adapt to the slogans and programs of nationalist
> organizations, all which are ultimately bourgeois in nature. And the
> role of revolutionaries is to expose that bourgeois nature.
I'm not sure what this means? "Independence for India" "Smash British
Imperialism" "Land to the Tillers"? These nationalist slogans, Mac? We
not only support them, we are BETTER supporters than the radical-
nationalists who raise them initially. We understand the difference in
that we can't stop at national independence or attempt to support land
to the farmers without a workers and peasants gov't in power willing
to economically disenfranchise the 'national' capitalists and their
landlord followers.
Secondly our goal, IMO, is not to "expose the bourgeois nature." but
to lead a revolution against imperialism. The 'exposing' comes through
actions in who is going to, and willing to lead, the masses to go all
the way. The masses *initially* come out for their OWN demands, not
anyone elses, and it's our job to articulate a more radical, working
class program both to lead the fight for these same demands and be
willing to implement them. (I suspect we probably agree here :)
> > Bolsheviks support these struggles. They don't really, or haven't,
> > preconditioned it on anything except that they fight colonialism.
> > BTW...this was true for Latin America as well which, when the
> > Comintern came out with their program, was totally "UNcolonized" and
> > independent for 100 years, longer than most African nations have been
> > now, but were NEO-colonized. So they were not dealing with direct
> > occupation, per se, nor, for that matter, were they dealing with that
> > in China.
>
> Let's make this concrete--the way anti-imperialism has manifested
> itself in LA is the guerrilla struggle. What is your position on
> this?
Ah...now you are talking about something I was actually involved in.
In the old FI in the 1970s, which at that time arguably had the
majority of self-proclaimed Trotskyists inside it, also had two
sections actively committing cadre suicide by engaging in it. We are
talking tactics and strategy here. it goes to the idea, too, of
*denying* democratic rights to settlers in colonial situations (we can
think of Algeria too, here) and whether armed struggles as a strategy
is a good idea. And generally, no. But clearly it is not AS bad as
people think and I'm willing to look at it in a case-by-case basis
now, something I would of before including what happened in Nicaragua,
El Salvador, Cuba, Vietnam , China ,etc. Generally I don't like
Focoisimo or armed struggled but sometimes there is no choice, as
well.
> > Lenin was clear about communists having 'space' to organize IN these
> > movements while remaining independent of them. He was for fighting for
> > *leadership* for the movements for national liberation. He was for an
> > alliance in some cases (the KMT to site the best example, under Sun
> > Yat-sen) as well. He saw the struggle as legit regardless.
>
> And his epigones picked that ball up and ran with it, all the way up
> to today. But they sure as hell weren't fighting for leadership by
> tail-ending the nationalist movements, and we both know how things
> worked out with the KMT.
Well, wait, in Trotsky's criticisms of the Comintern policy, it was
not the united front he opposed with the KMT, it was the political and
organizational subordination (and therefore, military) that he
opposed. I think it WAS wrong to admit the KMT into the Comintern but
not the general approach advocated by LT and the Chinese LO. He later
argued that Trotskyists should *enter* the Red Army AND the KMT army
to fight the Japanese. The anti-Imperialist UF.
> > You keep saying there is an "Israeli nation". We disagree. There is a
> > state, but no nation, again, especially if you ask THEM what the
> > Israeli nation is, it's me as well as my cousins born there. Secondly,
> > more importantly, different from the US, is that we've had development
> > of 10 geneations of "Americans" and the native peoples are no longer
> > demanding any kind of serious 'national liberation' anymore with most
> > exceptions. There are 300 million people now.
>
> So at what point does quantitative become qualitative? There is
> exactly 100 years separating the US annexation of California and
> Israel's foundation, and now 60 years since that. That's at least
> three generations, not counting those Zionist settlers who immigrated
> from the early 1900's. In 1948, should the SWP have called for
> Mexican self-determination in California? Or Indian self-
> determination? What about in 1908?
No, this is artificial. Why? Because at the time of annexation...
1848...there were maybe only 5500 Mexicans in the entire SW of the
U.S. There were about 8 million Native Americans so the question was
better directed toward them. But at a time when Arizona, the southern
part of California and New Mexico had more than Anglos, hell yes. But
this was manifested by Chicano, not Mexican nationalism. there is no
historical basis, for example, for "The Socialist Re-unification of
Mexico" that some groups argued. Chicanos were *distinct* (and to a
certain extent, still are) from "Mexicans". Another discussion and an
interesting one. When I was in the SWP, we support the RUP (and other
Chicano nationalist groups) calls for an independent "Aztlan".
But again, as I noted previously, the generation thing only works if
you discount the EXISTING generation of Palestinians who have actual
living claim to the land they were expelled from. In large part the
formation of the "Palestinian Nation" was the result of this
expulsion, this 'tragedy' as they call it. The Israeli claim is
exactly like that of a 10th generation Afrikaner to the land: it's
abrogated based on their racist, Apartheid rule whole 'settler'
functioning.
> > In Israel there are STILL first generation settlers who continue to
> > come and...the indigenous people are still ALIVE...that first
> > generation and DIRECT decendents. This is qualitatively different.
>
> So when they die, and Israel still exists, your line will change?
No...because unlike, say, other countries, including the above
mentioned Mexican claim to Texas, the nation lives continually in the
consciousness of the masses of Palestinians. It is ongoing. In the
USSR and Russia today, had Stalin dissolved and dispersed, say, all
Armenians, but Armenians continued to function in exile with a serious
*national* consciousness, then the "Armenian question" wouldn't go
away. It's not unlike the dispersed Crimean Tarters and other
natonalitiies who WERE dispersed to all ends of the old USSR by Stalin
during WWII.
> > So when we say a CA is an answer and solution within the direction of
> > socialist revolution to solve the "Jewish Question" it includes ALL
> > Palestinians. This is why the struggle for a democratic solution
> > includes ALL Palestinians and the "Right of Return", that is, a
> > political "Land Reform" where all residents and those in *exile* have
> > a right to return and participate.
>
> I don't have take issue with this demand, so long as it is spelled out
> that the Jewish working class, nation or not, has a right to stay as
> well.
Again...it's foolish not too. The way to *include* and therefore split
the Zionists, is exactly the CA, it's the only way TO do it. Plus it's
part of the original program of the FI.
> A corollary to this is that the Palestinians have been kept as
> refugees by the neighboring Arab states for generations. Palestinian
> self-determination and the "right of return" must also include a
> "right not to return" ie to become Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, and
> Egyptians. And this will not happen short of a socialist revolution
> that spans the entire region. So ostensibly transtional demands like
> a CA must not be allowed to become ends in and of themselves.
Sure but understand. It's not only these gov'ts that have done this.
Palestinians themsleves have *chosen* to stay in the camps, such as in
Lebanon, for very political reasons, to stay together as a people.
I've see many interviews with Palestinians in Beruit and Gaza (under
Egypt) about this. It's a political act to stay in the camps. There
have never been any desire for Palestinians to integrate into the
larger Arab nations.
> > I don't believe that *any* concessions on the "Jewish Nation" or the
> > "Israeli Nation" will ever sway many Jews from their allegiance to
> > this Apartheid system. Personally I don't. The 1.1 million Russian
> > Jews are simply not "Israelis" yet they will fight to preserve their
> > status. Sabras are not going to distinguish between themselves and
> > their settler parents. It will be bad. I think most will emigrate so
> > as not to be 'rule by Arabs'.
> > David
>
> Here we have a fundamental difference; I cannot for the life of me see
> how the Arab workers will be broken from Islamism and nationalism
> until the Palestinian question is resolved, and I can't see how that
> will be resolved short of a regional socialist revolution. That in
> turn, will require the support of the Israeli working class, along
> with the Palestinian workers. So if my analysis is correct, I can't
> afford to be as pessimistic about class consciousness in Israel as you
> are.
Mac, you are making a lot of assumptions here. Who says they are
"Islamic" politically? Palestinians are famous for their secularism,
the highest in the Arab world. This has changed, for sure, because the
traditional nationalist and left forces all capitulated to Zionism.
Many Palestinians (lots/most/many) voted, for example, for Hamas for
one issue only: corruption by the Fatah PA. Others voted for Hamas
because they have a "one state" solution, unlike Fatah. Even the
majority of Christians voted for Hamas because of these reasons. So
don't automatically associated 'votes' with 'allegience'.
Secondly, this is why building a real anti-Imperialist UF AND a
Trotskyist part of Palestinian workers is critical, in my groups
opinion and are trying to do so, under terrible repressive conditions.
We're also dialoguing with Jewish workers to win them too anti-Zionist
positions.
The problem is that, IMO, you are too quick to "precondition"
everything. "We should do this if they do that". We don't determine
the course of the class struggle nor the weapons people chose to
liberate themselves. We can influence, we can argue and discuss, but
to be part of those interfaces, we need to be part of the struggle,
and do so UNconditionally.
DW
dusty
...
> A corollary to this is that the Palestinians have been kept as
> refugees by the neighboring Arab states for generations. Palestinian
> self-determination and the "right of return" must also include a
> "right not to return" ie to become Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, and
> Egyptians. And this will not happen short of a socialist revolution
> that spans the entire region. So ostensibly transtional demands like
> a CA must not be allowed to become ends in and of themselves.
...
> macphineas
The propositions that are put forward under the cover of "socialist
revolution"! It's "Doc" Macphilistein's Elixer sold only out of our
covered wagon - cures anything from flatulence, constipation, saddle
sores, bunyans, "ladies problems"...to consumption. Step right up
folks...all you need is this very small...Transitional bottle for this
special offer of just ONE DOLLAR to get you started in the right
direction...
macphineas
> [For the moment I have to ignore JH's comments because it will
> interrupt the flow of my own thinking -- JH is probably correct,
> objectively, of his assesement--DW]
>
> Before I answer, I smiled when Mac thought Trotsky's postulates on
> Permanent Revolution smacked of 'stagism'. It's funny. Trotsky never
> denied there were 'stages'. Rather he framed it in terms of what
> people are actually mobilizing around and how they could actually be
> fulfilled.
Stagism is an easy trap to fall into--we have to bring Labour power,
so that they can betray the masses, before we can have a revolution
etc. If you go over to unconditional support for certain groups, you
become politically responsible for their actions, and will have to
answer for them to the masses.
>
> > > Let me just address the issue of bourgeois nationalism.
> > > We don't' decide the leadership, organization, program of nationalism,
> > > bourgeois or otherwise. it flows, initially, and organically, from the
> > > repression and dispossession of the nation in question.
>
> > True; however, the role of revolutionaries is to fight to lead the
> > oppressed against their oppressors, to win them to the revolutionary
> > banner, not adapt to the slogans and programs of nationalist
> > organizations, all which are ultimately bourgeois in nature. And the
> > role of revolutionaries is to expose that bourgeois nature.
>
> I'm not sure what this means? "Independence for India" "Smash British
> Imperialism" "Land to the Tillers"? These nationalist slogans, Mac? We
> not only support them, we are BETTER supporters than the radical-
> nationalists who raise them initially. We understand the difference in
> that we can't stop at national independence or attempt to support land
> to the farmers without a workers and peasants gov't in power willing
> to economically disenfranchise the 'national' capitalists and their
> landlord followers.
>
> Secondly our goal, IMO, is not to "expose the bourgeois nature." but
> to lead a revolution against imperialism. The 'exposing' comes through
> actions in who is going to, and willing to lead, the masses to go all
> the way. The masses *initially* come out for their OWN demands, not
> anyone elses, and it's our job to articulate a more radical, working
> class program both to lead the fight for these same demands and be
> willing to implement them. (I suspect we probably agree here :)
But what is "all the way?" Remember, these movements are multi-class
national movements, and contain conflicting classes with conflicting
demands. The bourgeois wants something different than the petty-
bourgeois; the worker something different from the peasant. It's
possible to give the peasants land reform, then use them to crush the
working class, as happened in some of the left bourgeois-nationalist
dictatorships.
Revolutionaries must defend the interests of the masses under their
own banner, and make clear that bourgeois nationalist formations, no
matter how radical their rhetoric, will betray their interests once
brought into power. That doesn't mean a revolutionary organization
can't fight alongside them, even inside them (so long as it takes
precautions against getting blind-sided), but that it makes clear
their weakness. It's a thin line between principled and unprincipled
dealing with bourgeois formations, especially inside them.
>
> > > Bolsheviks support these struggles. They don't really, or haven't,
> > > preconditioned it on anything except that they fight colonialism.
> > > BTW...this was true for Latin America as well which, when the
> > > Comintern came out with their program, was totally "UNcolonized" and
> > > independent for 100 years, longer than most African nations have been
> > > now, but were NEO-colonized. So they were not dealing with direct
> > > occupation, per se, nor, for that matter, were they dealing with that
> > > in China.
>
> > Let's make this concrete--the way anti-imperialism has manifested
> > itself in LA is the guerrilla struggle. What is your position on
> > this?
>
> Ah...now you are talking about something I was actually involved in.
> In the old FI in the 1970s, which at that time arguably had the
> majority of self-proclaimed Trotskyists inside it, also had two
> sections actively committing cadre suicide by engaging in it. We are
> talking tactics and strategy here. it goes to the idea, too, of
> *denying* democratic rights to settlers in colonial situations (we can
> think of Algeria too, here) and whether armed struggles as a strategy
> is a good idea. And generally, no. But clearly it is not AS bad as
> people think and I'm willing to look at it in a case-by-case basis
> now, something I would of before including what happened in Nicaragua,
> El Salvador, Cuba, Vietnam , China ,etc. Generally I don't like
> Focoisimo or armed struggled but sometimes there is no choice, as
> well.
Guerrilla struggle is almost always wrongheaded, and always wrong as a
focal point for political work. Why? It's based on the peasantry,
and puts the workers in a subordinate position. It was only possible
to lead successful guerrilla struggles in the past because of the aid,
both political and military, of the Soviet Union. Without the USSR as
an anchor, guerrilla movements in the current period will necessarily
turn to, and become puppets of, imperialism. So it's at least
political suicide to do so now, in addition to probably being actual
suicide.
>
> > > Lenin was clear about communists having 'space' to organize IN these
> > > movements while remaining independent of them. He was for fighting for
> > > *leadership* for the movements for national liberation. He was for an
> > > alliance in some cases (the KMT to site the best example, under Sun
> > > Yat-sen) as well. He saw the struggle as legit regardless.
>
> > And his epigones picked that ball up and ran with it, all the way up
> > to today. But they sure as hell weren't fighting for leadership by
> > tail-ending the nationalist movements, and we both know how things
> > worked out with the KMT.
>
> Well, wait, in Trotsky's criticisms of the Comintern policy, it was
> not the united front he opposed with the KMT, it was the political and
> organizational subordination (and therefore, military) that he
> opposed. I think it WAS wrong to admit the KMT into the Comintern but
> not the general approach advocated by LT and the Chinese LO. He later
> argued that Trotskyists should *enter* the Red Army AND the KMT army
> to fight the Japanese. The anti-Imperialist UF.
The idea was very similar to the PMP: fight under the command of
bourgeois leadership (in the KMT's case, not yet imperialist) in order
to win rank-and-file soldiers over to Trotskyist positions. But to do
that, you must maintain a Trotskyist organization and principles,
otherwise this sort of entryism fast devolves into adaptation to these
bourgeois forces. Trotsky, while warning about this, underestimated
the danger that adaptation to bourgeois or Stalinist forces posed. We
now know better.
And the problem with any united front with the KMT, or PLO, or similar
group, is that they *demand* political and organizational
subordination as a precondition to united action. A tactical
adaptation, in order to win more forces to Trotskyism, easily becomes
a strategic one, and the revolutionary tendency loses its principled
moorings. Look at all the Trotskyist groups always on the lookout for
some "progressive" bourgeois group to lash themselves up to.
There never was any "Chicano" consciousness before the 60's. They
were widely dispersed and almost exclusively racist Spanish creoles
dependent upon Indian peon labor, like in Northern Mexico itself.
Californios were at least as distinct from Tejanos as they both were
from people in D.F. But then, within modern Mexico, there are still
huge differences between the Indian South, providing the bulk of the
emigrants, and the creole North. All the "Chicano" nationalism is
petit-bourgeois idiocy, just like the old Stalinist "Black Belt"
theory, which splits the US working class along ethnic/racial lines.
"Aztlan" is at least as culturally Midwesterner as it is "Chicano."
>
> But again, as I noted previously, the generation thing only works if
> you discount the EXISTING generation of Palestinians who have actual
> living claim to the land they were expelled from. In large part the
> formation of the "Palestinian Nation" was the result of this
> expulsion, this 'tragedy' as they call it. The Israeli claim is
> exactly like that of a 10th generation Afrikaner to the land: it's
> abrogated based on their racist, Apartheid rule whole 'settler'
> functioning.
Then my claim to living in California is abrogated based on my
citizenship in the racist, apartheid settler country of the USA. I
guess I should cut my body up and ship it to various European
countries.
>
> > > In Israel there are STILL first generation settlers who continue to
> > > come and...the indigenous people are still ALIVE...that first
> > > generation and DIRECT decendents. This is qualitatively different.
>
> > So when they die, and Israel still exists, your line will change?
>
> No...because unlike, say, other countries, including the above
> mentioned Mexican claim to Texas, the nation lives continually in the
> consciousness of the masses of Palestinians. It is ongoing. In the
> USSR and Russia today, had Stalin dissolved and dispersed, say, all
> Armenians, but Armenians continued to function in exile with a serious
> *national* consciousness, then the "Armenian question" wouldn't go
> away. It's not unlike the dispersed Crimean Tarters and other
> natonalitiies who WERE dispersed to all ends of the old USSR by Stalin
> during WWII.
Um, it is exactly that. I don't know what you think about the Tartars
or Chechens, but they went back and demanded their land. Didn't like
Kazakhstan so much, it turned out. And the Khazak gov't didn't like
them too much either...But in both cases, their status is basically
unsolvable under capitalism. The capitalist solution is ethnic
cleansing, like in Yugoslavia or Eastern Europe after WWII.
>
> > > So when we say a CA is an answer and solution within the direction of
> > > socialist revolution to solve the "Jewish Question" it includes ALL
> > > Palestinians. This is why the struggle for a democratic solution
> > > includes ALL Palestinians and the "Right of Return", that is, a
> > > political "Land Reform" where all residents and those in *exile* have
> > > a right to return and participate.
>
> > I don't have take issue with this demand, so long as it is spelled out
> > that the Jewish working class, nation or not, has a right to stay as
> > well.
>
> Again...it's foolish not too. The way to *include* and therefore split
> the Zionists, is exactly the CA, it's the only way TO do it. Plus it's
> part of the original program of the FI.
Right, and one would fight to win Israeli workers over to that demand.
>
> > A corollary to this is that the Palestinians have been kept as
> > refugees by the neighboring Arab states for generations. Palestinian
> > self-determination and the "right of return" must also include a
> > "right not to return" ie to become Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, and
> > Egyptians. And this will not happen short of a socialist revolution
> > that spans the entire region. So ostensibly transtional demands like
> > a CA must not be allowed to become ends in and of themselves.
>
> Sure but understand. It's not only these gov'ts that have done this.
> Palestinians themsleves have *chosen* to stay in the camps, such as in
> Lebanon, for very political reasons, to stay together as a people.
> I've see many interviews with Palestinians in Beruit and Gaza (under
> Egypt) about this. It's a political act to stay in the camps. There
> have never been any desire for Palestinians to integrate into the
> larger Arab nations.
Here is another disagreement--I don't see the Levantine states as
separate nations. Across the region, they are all Arabs, with a
common language and, with regional variations, culture; the main
differences are tribal and religious. Their status as separate states
is wholly a product of imperialism carving the region up to make it
easier to control.
Flowing from this, if you offer the Palestinians the right of return,
they must also be offered the right to become full citizens of
whatever state they've been living in since their expulsion from
Palestine. Given the artificial nature of most of these states (only
Egypt possesses much claim to a distinct national identity) I see this
demand as transitional to bringing Palestinians over to a socialist
federation of the Middle East, a clean break with imperialism.
I was referring to the Arab working class as a whole, not just the
Palestinian. Islamism, while by no means hegemonic, has become a
major force in the last 2 decades, in part due to the political
bankruptcy of nationalist formations like the PLO. The willingness of
these organizations to compromise with imperialism, Israeli or
otherwise, is the root cause of the "corruption" that has eroded the
support of the PLO and its constituent parts, especially Fatah.
>
> Secondly, this is why building a real anti-Imperialist UF AND a
> Trotskyist part of Palestinian workers is critical, in my groups
> opinion and are trying to do so, under terrible repressive conditions.
> We're also dialoguing with Jewish workers to win them too anti-Zionist
> positions.
>
> The problem is that, IMO, you are too quick to "precondition"
> everything. "We should do this if they do that". We don't determine
> the course of the class struggle nor the weapons people chose to
> liberate themselves. We can influence, we can argue and discuss, but
> to be part of those interfaces, we need to be part of the struggle,
> and do so UNconditionally.
>
> DW
I condition only the activities of revolutionaries in the region.
What is an "anti-imperialist united front?" It sounds like a nice
name for opportunistic adaptation to bourgeois nationalism.
Revolutionaries cannot allow themselves to be swallowed up by
bourgeois "progressive" movements; instead, they need to march under
their own banners and explain why revolution is the only solution to
these questions, not hope that they can get a hearing if they adopt
the same slogans as the nationalists. Revolutionaries must be
fighting for revolution, not merely independence or a righting of
historical wrongs; I support Palestinian liberation because it is the
key to socialist revolution in the Middle East. And to have that
revolution, you need to bring workers round to socialism, not just
nationalism. Only then can we both "be a part of the struggle" and
remain principled.
macphineas
Vngelis
>
> The propositions that are put forward under the cover of "socialist
> revolution"! It's "Doc" Macphilistein's Elixer sold only out of our
> covered wagon - cures anything from flatulence, constipation, saddle
> sores, bunyans, "ladies problems"...to consumption. Step right up
> folks...all you need is this very small...Transitional bottle for this
> special offer of just ONE DOLLAR to get you started in the right
> direction...
Check the $ on the side. Even that aint gonna be worth shit.
http://vngelis.blogspot.com/
Machpilistein is sellin himself like the campguards in Hitlers
occupation.
vngelis
jh
> On Jan 5, 4:36 pm, David <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
continue to discuss Zionism are encouraged to change the thread title
back.
...
> > > ...In 1948, should the SWP have called for
> > > Mexican self-determination in California? Or Indian self-
> > > determination? What about in 1908?
>
> > No, this is artificial. Why? Because at the time of annexation...
> > 1848...there were maybe only 5500 Mexicans in the entire SW of the
> > U.S. There were about 8 million Native Americans so the question was
> > better directed toward them. But at a time when Arizona, the southern
> > part of California and New Mexico had more than Anglos, hell yes. But
> > this was manifested by Chicano, not Mexican nationalism. there is no
> > historical basis, for example, for "The Socialist Re-unification of
> > Mexico" that some groups argued. Chicanos were *distinct* (and to a
> > certain extent, still are) from "Mexicans". Another discussion and an
> > interesting one. When I was in the SWP, we support the RUP (and other
> > Chicano nationalist groups) calls for an independent "Aztlan".
New Mexico and Texas and California are each different situations.
New Mexico has a separate identity from Mexico going back to the
seventeenth century. Self-determination for New Mexico was certainly a
real issue in the 19th century. I don't know enough NM history to say
when that was no longer a realistic prospect, but I doubt it was
realistic in the 1960s when newfangled "Chicano nationalists" started
raising it.
The southern tip of Texas was not even in Texas under Mexican rule, it
was part of a Mexican state. Irredentist movements to return the
southern tip to Mexico persisted, and flared up during the Mexican
Revolution. Even now, I could see an argument for returning it to
Mexico perhaps, if the majority-Chicano population of the area wanted
that, which they certainly don't. Now Texas is heading, like
California, to becoming a majority minority population. But given that
a very large proportion of the minority population is black, the idea
of Chicano nationalism in Texas is silly.
California is a horse of another color altogether. California has been
a center of agribusiness stretching back into the 19th century and
even the cattle-raising rancheros of Mexican California. By WWI at the
latest, the majority of the agricultural proletariat of California had
become Mexican immigrants. And it still is. The "Okie" invasion of the
1930s, glorified by Steinbeck in "Grapes of Wrath," was brief. The
original Californios long ago were integrated either upwards into the
Anglo ruling class or downward into be plebeian Mexican immigrants.
>
> There never was any "Chicano" consciousness before the 60's. They
> were widely dispersed and almost exclusively racist Spanish creoles
> dependent upon Indian peon labor, like in Northern Mexico itself.
> Californios were at least as distinct from Tejanos as they both were
> from people in D.F. But then, within modern Mexico, there are still
> huge differences between the Indian South, providing the bulk of the
> emigrants, and the creole North. All the "Chicano" nationalism is
> petit-bourgeois idiocy, just like the old Stalinist "Black Belt"
> theory, which splits the US working class along ethnic/racial lines.
> "Aztlan" is at least as culturally Midwesterner as it is "Chicano."
>
This is not quite correct. Chicano consciousness began during WWII,
with the Zoot Suit anti-Chicano riots and the Sleepy Lagoon trial. The
main bearers of Chicano nationalist consciousness have been Chicano
college students, through MECHA, La Raza Unida etc. The lumpenized
barrio population went through developments in the '60s very similar
to black people in the ghettos, so parallel and allied to the Black
Panther Party you had the Brown Berets, who were sort of Chicano
nationalist but not exactly, just as the Black Panthers were sort of
black nationalist but not exactly.
Meanwhile the main expression of the farmworkers has been
unionization, led by the CP in the 1930s and more recently by Cesar
Chavez's UFW, which has had some Chicano nationalist overtones but is
basically *not* a Chicano nationalist organization and never has been.
Now the main expression is the organization of Mexican illegal
immigrant workers, quite disconnected from any of the above movements.
In fact, these people tend to use "Chicano" as a term of abuse, sort
of like the way Russian Jewish immigrants a hundred years ago referred
to German Jewish immigrants and particularly successful Russian-Jewish
immigrants as "alrightniks."
-jh-
David
> I have read this fairly hastily, as I am not in the mood to discuss
> this question at the moment. From my hasty reading, mac does indeed
> seem to be arguing some pretty orthodox Spartacism here.
>
> -jh-
I would agree...but it doesn't come from the SL...or more specifically
Yossi Schwatz "interpentrated people's" thesis but it does objectively
dove tails with it.
On another aspect of the thread... I agree about the Arab nation and
most Trot groups I know of support this idea, which it self has some
overlaps with both Baathism and Nasserism which also believed this.
Some countries have historical developments that go back further than
the consoldiation of Arab nationalism, Egypt for one. But if you look
at the map of the "Arab League", that is the layout for a Socialist
Federation of the Arab nations...But the distinct arab
countries...that and interesting, and, for another, thread.
D.
srd
> > I have read this fairly hastily, as I am not in the mood to discuss
> > this question at the moment. From my hasty reading, mac does indeed
> > seem to be arguing some pretty orthodox Spartacism here.
>
> > -jh-
>
> I would agree...but it doesn't come from the SL...or more specifically
> Yossi Schwatz "interpentrated people's" thesis
Who's Yossi Schwartz? How did the SL come to adopt his theory?
srd
Vngelis
> On Jan 9, 10:51 am, David <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have read this fairly hastily, as I am not in the mood to discuss
> > > this question at the moment. From my hasty reading, mac does indeed
> > > seem to be arguing some pretty orthodox Spartacism here.
>
> > > -jh-
>
> > I would agree...but it doesn't come from the SL...or more specifically
> > Yossi Schwatz "interpentrated people's" thesis
>
> Who's Yossi Schwartz? How did the SL come to adopt his theory?
>
> srd
A left zionist
http://www.marxist.com/moroccan-marxists-yossi-schwartz.htm
To keep fashionable in academia is why they adopted him.
vngelis
jh
I think the Ba'athist idea of a pan-Arab nation is about on a par with
the Titoite idea of a Yugoslav nation. Which as we know didn't work
out too well. Really goes back to Lawrence of Arabia come to think of
it. An anti-Ottoman Empire British imperialist conspiracy.
The Ba'athist's attempts to create a Lawrence of Arabia pan-Arab state
were all miserable failures, because there is no Arab nation. The
different Arab states just about all have at least one and often
several nations within their boundaries.
Except on the Arabian peninsula itself, which, except for Yemen,
hasn't really reached the nation-state level of development, it's
still tribal, oil wells or no oil wells.
Now Yemen is a real nation that has existed for some three thousand
years. Ideally, it would have a national revolution and then conquer
the rest of the Arabian peninsula and integrate the various oil well
tribes into the Yemeni nation. But in the era of imperialism that is
improbable.
Instead, the oil well workers should seize power and establish a
workers' state. Few of them are Arabs, by the way.
-jh-
jh
a/k/a Y. Rad, the leader of the old Israeli Spartacist League of the
1970s. He didn't in fact invent the "interpenetrated peoples"
doctrine, which came out of a Spartacist internal discussion on the
national question in the 1970s that focused equally on Northern
Ireland. I think the first document embodying the theory was actually
about Northern Ireland, not Israel/Palestine.
He did *initiate* the discussion, with a document on the 1948 war. The
"original" SL position on the 1948 war was Israel defensist, on the
grounds that if the Israelis had lost, they would have been driven
into the sea. His document demonstrated through historical analysis
that this was a Zionist myth, and that given the great military
superiority of the Zionists over the Arab countries, there was never
any question that the Zionists were going to win, and that it was the
Palestinians, not the Hebrew-speakers, who were in danger of national
destruction.
-jh-
PS: if anyone is interested in looking at these documents, they are
publicly available, in the Spartacist collection at the Hoover
Institute.
David
That is an interesting perspective. I understand about Yemen being
old...but it's about as distinct *now* from greater Arabia as, say,
Algeria is. In fact Yemen is more Arab than Algeria or Morocco (the
latter actually has minority of Arabs albeit linguistically it's
majority Arab).
But anyway...indeed...the "Greater Yeman" idea is really fascinating,
albeit about 13 hundreds years too late.
The "Arab Socialist Federation" really is the Baath idea but with a
working class and internationalist perspective. There really is no
basis for the countries surrounding the House of Saud not to be one
united Arab republic. They could then let Kurdistan go and REALLY fuck
with he Turks (and Iranians for that matter).
jh
That sort of proves my point, doesn't it? Insofar as there is such a
thing as an Arab nation, it is Yemen. If it were to conquer so-called
"Saudi Arabia" and the other feudal emirates, you could have some Arab
nation-building.
>
> But anyway...indeed...the "Greater Yeman" idea is really fascinating,
> albeit about 13 hundreds years too late.
Yeah. Yemen is in very poor shape these days, about to run out of both
water and oil.
>
> The "Arab Socialist Federation" really is the Baath idea but with a
> working class and internationalist perspective. There really is no
> basis for the countries surrounding the House of Saud not to be one
> united Arab republic. They could then let Kurdistan go and REALLY fuck
> with he Turks (and Iranians for that matter).
I wouldn't include what they call Iraq these days, or Syria for that
matter. Mesopotamia and Phoenicia go back a long way and is *not*
Arab. Kuwait and the non-Palestinian parts of Jordan however, sure.
The Palestinians are definitely a nation, and not an Arab nation. And
they suffer national oppression at the hands of Israel, Lebanon,
Jordan, etc. They should be freed.
-jh-
David
This sounds strange. It's how you define 'Arab'. Certainly,
genetically, all these areas have had enough intermingling with
indigenous tribes (ALL of N. Africa for example). Iraq and Syria are
most definitely Arab but custom and recent history. Mesopotamia and
Phoenicia are not contemporary nations in anyway whatsoever. What are
we talking about wit hthe term "Arab"? It's not like "Dutch". It is,
primarily linguistic, the languages they speak, read and write in, and
equally, their own identification as "Arab" that arose during their
fights with colonial powers dominating them. In this sense the Arab
League members, define, objectively, what the Arab "Nation" is IMHO.
DW
macphineas
John, come on; the Arab conquest happened 1300 years ago. This area
has been Arabized for the last 1300 years, barring a few interludes of
Crusaders, Mongols, and Maronite Francophilia. To say Palestinians
are not only a separate nation, but a non-Arab at that, is an utter
travesty. Neither Mesopotamia nor Phoenicia exist, nor have they
existed for millenia. You might as well call the Iraqis Persians,
it'd be less inaccurate.
Secondly, Palestinians don't suffer national oppression by any
countries but Israel; in the others, they suffer a caste oppression
sui generis, as permanent refugees, based on the peculiarities of the
Zionist conquest of most of Palestine. They should be freed, yes, but
one has to be clear on what they should be freed from.
macphineas
macphineas
They read Arabic, write Arabic, speak Arabic, identify as Arabs;
they're Arabs. Arab consciousness has decreased somewhat in the past
few decades, as US imperialism has been very successful at its divide-
and-rule policy there, but that has yet to change the fundamental
national conditions. Even emigrants here in the States identify
themselves as Arabs, regardless of whatever country they happen to
come from.
macphineas
jh
Yeah, but the old national divisions have re-emereged in the last half-
century, that is if they had ever disappeared which I doubt. Syrians
and Iraquis etc. see themselves as Syrians and Iraquis. Yes, they
speak Arabic, just like Americans and Brits and Canadians and
Australians all speak English. And have at least as much of a common
cultural heritage. Nonetheless they are different nations. Should we
call for a united socialist British Commonwealth? I think not.
>
> Secondly, Palestinians don't suffer national oppression by any
> countries but Israel; in the others, they suffer a caste oppression
> sui generis, as permanent refugees, based on the peculiarities of the
> Zionist conquest of most of Palestine. They should be freed, yes, but
> one has to be clear on what they should be freed from.
>
> macphineas
If Black September in Jordan, or the massacres of Palestinians in
Lebanon, or what the Egyptians are doing to Gaza right now, is not
national oppression, what would be? It is not "caste" oppression, they
are not seen as members of an inferior social grouping, like
untouchables in India or blacks in America.
If they were all just Arabs, then they would not be permanent
refugees, but would have been integrated into the host nations. They
have not been, with the very partial exception of Jordan, where they
are the majority of the population, and should rule, but are second-
class citizens.
-jh-
jh
OK, since they speak Arabic, they are an Arab nation, in the same
sense that the USA is an English nation.
Nonetheless, we here in California ain't Brits.
-jh-
macphineas
They see each other as Arabs as well. It's a matter of which
definition is stronger; the one imposed by imperialists after their
inter-imperialist wars, or the one that has an objective basis in
reality. There was no Syrian or Lebanese or Palestinian or Jordanian
or Iraqi national consciousness before WWI, something you should know.
As to the Anglophone settler countries, I consider there to be two
nations; Australia-New Zealand, Britain and white Africans on the one
hand (as evidenced by Dingbat's longing for the return of the British
Empire and all that entails), and the American one. Anglo Canadians
are *definitely not* a separate nation from Americans. Quick test--
Leonard Nimoy and Willaim Shatner: of the two, who is American, and
who is Canadian?
Australia will remain independent because of its geographical
isolation from the rest of the Anglophone world (except its Pacific
island colonies) but should probably be united with New Zealand.
Canada and the US should likewise become one state, after the
revolution here, with autonomy, not independence, for the Quebecois.
Mexico, and probably Central America and the Caribbean, could join if
they wish.
>
>
> > Secondly, Palestinians don't suffer national oppression by any
> > countries but Israel; in the others, they suffer a caste oppression
> > sui generis, as permanent refugees, based on the peculiarities of the
> > Zionist conquest of most of Palestine. They should be freed, yes, but
> > one has to be clear on what they should be freed from.
>
> > macphineas
>
> If Black September in Jordan, or the massacres of Palestinians in
> Lebanon, or what the Egyptians are doing to Gaza right now, is not
> national oppression, what would be? It is not "caste" oppression, they
> are not seen as members of an inferior social grouping, like
> untouchables in India or blacks in America.
>
> If they were all just Arabs, then they would not be permanent
> refugees, but would have been integrated into the host nations. They
> have not been, with the very partial exception of Jordan, where they
> are the majority of the population, and should rule, but are second-
> class citizens.
>
> -jh-
But they are seen as essentially the same, but inferior, because they
aren't immigrants, but refugees--which is one reason some, as Dave
said, do choose to remain in the camps. The other reason for the
permanent refugee status is that it allows the countries with the
camps to maintain territorial claims on Israel, in the hopes that they
can someday redeem them. They're a bargaining chip for the Arab
bourgeoisie, so long as they're kept as a refugee caste.
macphineas
macphineas
The Atlantic Ocean has a little something to do with that.
macphineas
jh
> On Jan 10, 1:10 pm, jh <jhsherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>...
> > Yeah, but the old national divisions have re-emereged in the last half-
> > century, that is if they had ever disappeared which I doubt. Syrians
> > and Iraquis etc. see themselves as Syrians and Iraquis. Yes, they
> > speak Arabic, just like Americans and Brits and Canadians and
> > Australians all speak English. And have at least as much of a common
> > cultural heritage. Nonetheless they are different nations. Should we
> > call for a united socialist British Commonwealth? I think not.
>
> They see each other as Arabs as well. It's a matter of which
> definition is stronger; the one imposed by imperialists after their
> inter-imperialist wars, or the one that has an objective basis in
> reality. There was no Syrian or Lebanese or Palestinian or Jordanian
> or Iraqi national consciousness before WWI, something you should know.
You had an Ottoman Empire, with lots of different subordinated
nationalities in it, stretching from Armenia to Algeria. The British
invented the idea of a "pan-Arab" nationality, as a weapon vs. Turkey
in WWI. Lawrence of Arabia was the point man.
After the Allies won, the pan-Arabists were sold out (Lawrence was
pissed), and instead the various Arab states were invented out of
whole imperialist cloth, Iraq being the worst example. So you had
Ba'athism and other sorts of pan-Arab nationalism for a while. Now it
is pretty much gone, and very unlikely to come back.
A Socialist Federation of the Middle East will *not* have a
specifically Arab character, and is very unlikely to include North
Africa. It certainly wouldn't include Egypt.
>
> As to the Anglophone settler countries, I consider there to be two
> nations; Australia-New Zealand, Britain and white Africans on the one
> hand (as evidenced by Dingbat's longing for the return of the British
> Empire and all that entails), and the American one. Anglo Canadians
> are *definitely not* a separate nation from Americans. Quick test--
> Leonard Nimoy and Willaim Shatner: of the two, who is American, and
> who is Canadian?
Leonard Nimoy, as we all know, is a Vulcan, whereas Shatner is an
earthling.
>
> Australia will remain independent because of its geographical
> isolation from the rest of the Anglophone world (except its Pacific
> island colonies) but should probably be united with New Zealand.
> Canada and the US should likewise become one state, after the
> revolution here, with autonomy, not independence, for the Quebecois.
> Mexico, and probably Central America and the Caribbean, could join if
> they wish.
>
But seriously, I do think Canada should have the right to self-
determination. They don't seem to want to be part of the USA. I would
not support a US seizure of Canada. Nor an Australian seizure of New
Zealand for that matter.
Mexico has had bad experiences with the USA. They are much more likely
to want to be part of a Latin American Socialist Federation than with
the USA.
That is certainly not the case in Lebanon, where the Lebanese have
made it very clear that Palestinians are not Lebanese and will never
be allowed to become such. They are seen not as inferior, but as a
danger to the Lebanese nation and all the various Lebanese national
and religious factions. Hezbollah does not feel any differently from
the Christians or the Sunni or the Druse on this issue. They are the
farthest thing from a bargaining chip for the Lebanese government,
which would love to get rid of them.
And in Jordan they are not refugees, but second-class citizens,
maintained in that status because if they had equal rights, that would
be it for the Hashemite monarchy right there. Which no longer wants
the West Bank back, because that would be the tipping point, and the
Hashemites would fall.
If Egypt were to be given Gaza back, not impossible by the way, indeed
it is the logical imperialist solution, Gaza would explicitly become a
nationally-oppressed colony of Egypt, treated no differently than the
Israelis treat it now.
-jh-
jh
>
>...
> > Nonetheless, we here in California ain't Brits.
>
> > -jh-
>
> The Atlantic Ocean has a little something to do with that.
>
> macphineas
Something. But more important was the American Revolution *against*
the Brits.
-jh-
David
regard, but probably the closet thing culturally are the Chinese which
we alway refer to as... "Chinese". Yet they speak different languages
here, and have vastly different cultural traditions north and south,
east and west.
There is, as JH notes, an identity of being "Iraqi" or "Saudi" as
well. For that matter, the totally artificially "Kuwaiti" 'nation' as
well. But there is a totally dual identification that IS unique and
that is the "Arab nation". There is little political pan-Arabism
anymore that I know of outside of small political circles. But it
doesn't mean there isn't an underlying nationalism along these lines.
Traditional Trotskyist "Federalism" often advocated across borders, is
most likely applicable in the Arab world than anywhere else in the
world today.
DW
srd
Let's take our discussion of "conditions" one step further if you're
willing. What would you say if Hamas acquired the capability of
shelling Tel Aviv and did so?
Even MacFool is invited to answer, although getting read isn't
guaranteed. [Right inverts need not apply.]
srd
jh
Well, I disagree. If you are right, then pan-Arabism will re-emerge. I
don't think it will, I think it is dead as a doornail.
I think a Socialist Federation of the Middle East is a good demand.
But there would be nothing particularly Arab about it, it would
include Turks, Kurds, Persians, hopefully even Hebrew-speakers. I
don't think it would include Egyptians or other North Africans, who
would more likely participate in a United Socialist Federation of
Africa.
The driving force would be the oil workers. Most of whom on the Saudi
Arabian peninsula, where most of the oil is, are from places like the
Philippines.
-jh-
jh
I would say that would be highly reactionary, and really stupid. I
would oppose it. If they want to shell military bases that would be
another matter. Not reactionary, but also pretty stupid all
considered.
As Hamas is highly reactionary but not stupid, I think it is very
unlikely that they would shell Tel Aviv. And shelling military bases
would be dangerous, so I think they'd be unlikely to do that either.
Hamas is spending a lot of effort right now at trying to prevent non-
Hamas forces that think that Hamas is selling out from shelling
Israel. Not too successfully however.
-jh-
macphineas
Oh, I agree 100% with this. Arab nationalism has a much greater
objective basis, even now, than affiliation with the different Arab
states. The SL on Iraq, for instance, is that it's 3 different
nations, Sunni Arab, Shia Arab and Kurdish. I think that's a
ridiculous assessment.
As to who would join a Middle East federation, that would have to be
worked out by the various peoples themselves. There are historical,
as well as contemporary reasons that Iranians, Turks and Kurds would
want to maintain a separation from it, as well as the Maghreb.
macphineas
David
SRD, first, if we are going to discuss this seriously, and I believe
you do, let's just let go of the insulting names, at least for this
thread.
My position on this is the same as the original PFLP air plane
hijackings in the 1970s. I oppose this tactic for the exact same
reason Marxist always oppose terrorism (and yes, that is the word
Trotsky and Lenin used). It is, by definition, a *exclusion* of the
masses. I suspect such a Hamas-situation-of-them-acquiring-a-150mm-
Howitzer falls into this. But I don't condemn them the same way.
Israel shells Gaza, Hamas responds, end of discussion. But AS simply a
provocation on the IDF, it's totally insane unless they want
Martyrdom. It was similar to my criticism of the tactic by Hezbollah
firing dumb-rockets into N. Israel and specifically NOT targeting
military bases or artillery that were used to killing Lebanese. It
served NO purpose at all but invite more death and destruction on the
Lebanese.
David
David
In answer to both Mac and JH: it's interestingly complex, yes? First,
I think, and argue, that Arabs are a nationality historically, full
stop. As such they are entitled to nationhood. And yes, of course,
within that, I see various national and linguistic minorities having
full democratic rights.
My difference with JH on this is that he sees all this as one of
geography. I don't, at all in fact. It's one of nationality. This is
the heart of such federation, not the redrawing of borders because
it's "convenient" to put non-Arab nations like the Turks, Kurds and
Persians in the same 'Federation' as Arabs. Not yet, not anyway, yet.
I think to have what JH suggests means making all past history
irrelevant because it sounds good.
The starting point for a *regional* Federation or Confederation (we
don't use that term enough, I think) would be *first* based on Arab-
unity by those same oil workers JH points to, not just on the Arabian
countries of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, etc but with the oil
workers in Libya and Algeria as well. I hadn't actually previously
thought of it in this hydro-carbonized Proletarian manner before. It's
a creative, albeit some what myopic, perspective but very interesting.
After that point, and successful revolutions in Iran etc one can
expand that. I see Iran as being "no more" really with Kurds there
joining a Greater Kurdistan, Azeries joining Azerbaijan and the Arab
sections of Iran joining any Arab Federation, maybe. There is a
genuine national struggle by Baluchis in *Pakistan*, I don't know how
this would effect Iranian Baluchistan at all but we're encroacing on
sub-continent politics anyway.
I don't actually see the above happening anyway. The course of the
national revolutions and if they are lead by communists becomes
critical in this regard and uneven. Impeiralist encroachments in this
regard have to be fought, I believe, like Kurdish movements in Iran
and Iraq that are at the behest of Imperialism, etc.
DW
macphineas
For practical propaganda, the focus should be on the Israeli response,
its brutality and dis-proportionality, which shows the Israelis to be
clearly imperialist aggressors.
But to attack non-military, or at least non-state targets, is
unsupportable, reactionary, and self-defeating. It drove the masses
away from the PFLP in the 70's, and will drive the masses from Hamas
and Hezbollah, if they continue to demand Islamic martyrdom for the
populations that support them. Also, drives the masses in Israel
towards their own imperialism, just as 9/11 allowed US imperialism to
to go forward with its occupations in the Middle East, while
simultaneously putting into place repressive police measures in the US
(and allowing the other imperialist states to follow suit). And to
egg on the Israelis with *almost* harmless provocations is the
definition of reactionary stupidity. It plays right into the
imperialists' hands.
macphineas
srd
> My position on this is the same as the original PFLP air plane
> hijackings in the 1970s. I oppose this tactic for the exact same
> reason Marxist always oppose terrorism
Marxists oppose terrorism as ineffective and counter-productive, not
as "immoral." This is to say, they don't call terrorists for just
causes--causes supported by revolutionary workers--"reactionary."
> (and yes, that is the word
> Trotsky and Lenin used).
What's your point with the parenthetical. I certainly don't question
the use of the term.
> It is, by definition, a *exclusion* of the
> masses. I suspect such a Hamas-situation-of-them-acquiring-a-150mm-
> Howitzer falls into this. But I don't condemn them the same way.
> Israel shells Gaza, Hamas responds, end of discussion.
This is exactly the point where my question is directed; your response
is vague because you don't specify in what respect your response is
different than it would be to Israeli shelling. I'm trying to locate
this within the discussion of conditions. We both, I think, militarily
support Hamas against Israel. This doesn'
srd
On Jan 11, 7:38 pm, srd <srdiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2:25 pm, David <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My position on this is the same as the original PFLP air plane
> > hijackings in the 1970s. I oppose this tactic for the exact same
> > reason Marxist always oppose terrorism
>
> Marxists oppose terrorism as ineffective and counter-productive, not
> as "immoral." This is to say, they don't call terrorists for just
> causes--causes supported by revolutionary workers--"reactionary."
>
> > (and yes, that is the word
> > Trotsky and Lenin used).
>
> What's your point with the parenthetical. I certainly don't question
> the use of the term.
>
> > It is, by definition, a *exclusion* of the
> > masses. I suspect such a Hamas-situation-of-them-acquiring-a-150mm-
> > Howitzer falls into this. But I don't condemn them the same way.
> > Israel shells Gaza, Hamas responds, end of discussion.
>
> This is exactly the point where my question is directed; your response
> is vague because you don't specify in what respect your response is
> different than it would be to Israeli shelling. I'm trying to locate
> this within the discussion of conditions. We both, I think, militarily
> support Hamas against Israel. This doesn'
imply agreement either with their program or their military strategy.
When they shell Tel Aviv, is this just another misguided tactic, part
of futile strategy OR is it a departure from the military struggle
that is conditionally supportable; do we refuse to support Hamas
militarily to the extent that it directs its attack on Tel Aviv?
srd
David
My objection to all this is *political*. IT serves no purpose. It is
not a 'moral' question its a political one, that is: does it work?
Shelling a city as part of a general offensive is or can be a correct
tactical asset as part of an overall political and military strategy.
The *reality* is that Hamas did this to *specifically* provoke a
reaction by the IDF. So it's politically suicidal AND stupid because
far more Palestinians died that Israelis. It also hands Israel a kind
of "moral excuse" to reign terror down on Palestinians, something we
oppose, obviously. Again, it goes to the *Marxist* view on Terrorism
as a strategy and we oppose it.
Now...concretely again, I have less objection or none at all to what
Hezbollah was doing in *reaction* to the Israeli carpet bombing of
south Lebanon. Military it was dumb, as I noted above, but politically
it was 'excusable' since from a military point of view, the IDF
started it. Politically, the kidnapping of two IDF soldiers was
amazingly stupid...not at all from a moral question...they are
soldiers after all...but because ultimately it brought on the IDF
murder of thousands of civilians in south Lebanon and probably set
back any sort of united effort against the Zionists. But the IDF also
lost: they ended up *losing* a ground war to Iranian trained special
forces and that was embarrassing.
So you have to distill all this down to the costs, politically, cadre-
wise, etc.
David
jh
My objection to this sort of thing is first and foremost moral-but
therefore political as well. Trotsky, means correspond to ends.
Deliberate attacks on innocent civilians correspond to nationalist
ends, not those of the workers movement.
They're also usually a bad idea politically, but that is the secondary
issue, most useful for convincing those lacking in moral fiber not to
engage in this sort of thing.
This is entirely separate from the issue of whether or not one should
support a particular side in a military conflict. War is hell, as
Sherman put it, and one does not refuse to support the just side
merely because the warriors with justice on their side happen to be
committing crimes. One can always try them for their crimes
afterwards.
-jh-
macphineas
The question is then why is it morally objectionable? Because it only
serves to widen the gulf between the Israeli and Palestinian workers,
pushing them to their nationalist leaderships in both cases, and
further from revolution. The means are rotten not in the abstract,
because they kill civilians, but because they serve to disorient the
masses and objectively, as you correctly point out, further only the
political ends of the nationalist groups.
>
> This is entirely separate from the issue of whether or not one should
> support a particular side in a military conflict. War is hell, as
> Sherman put it, and one does not refuse to support the just side
> merely because the warriors with justice on their side happen to be
> committing crimes. One can always try them for their crimes
> afterwards.
>
> -jh-
This comes down to whether military support means unconditional
support of all tactics and strategies employed by the side you
support; Diamond earlier argued it did, while I disagreed. With
regard to Hamas, in the case of a hypothetical war between them and
Israel, a revolutionary party would support them against Israeli
oppression, while pointing out that their reactionary tactics do
nothing to further the cause of Palestinian oppression. Said
revolutionary party should fight to win leadership of the military
struggle from Hamas, rather than allowing them to sell it out to
Israel. That can only be done by participating in the military
struggle under the revolutionary banner, in fighting a principled
struggle against oppression. (I think Trotsky erred in recommending
that Trotskyists fight under the KMT army, as it led to political
confusion and opened them up to being blind-sided by repressive
measures)
macphineas
srd
> The question is then why is it morally objectionable? Because it only
> serves to widen the gulf between the Israeli and Palestinian workers,
> pushing them to their nationalist leaderships in both cases, and
> further from revolution.
No, it clearly isn't _just_ that because you would leave no
distinction between individual terror (I.T.) directed against the
military/state apparatus and terrorism directed against ordinary
civilians. I assume all of us take a basic Marxist position on I.T.
against the class state. That is _not_ morally objectionable; yet it
is politically objectionable for reasons like the standard ones you
give. If terror against civilians is morally objectionable--which I
think is obviously true but not inconsistent with defending it--the
reasons are _other_ than that it backfires. That's a tactical/
strategic objection, not a moral one. I.T. is invariably
counterproductive, but it isn't invariably immoral.
<SNIP>
> This comes down to whether military support means unconditional
> support of all tactics and strategies employed by the side you
> support; Diamond earlier argued it did, while I disagreed.
Military support means support of that's side's right to use military
strategies and tactics it and it alone chooses. It doesn't mean
support of that side's politics, hence its morality.
Where I think Holmes goes wrong that he refuses to defend the right of
nationalists to fight a nationalist war by nationalist means. It
doesn't take a greater dialectician to see that it can be immoral to
oppose another's _right_ to do what is in itself immoral.
srd
David
I think *logically* SRD is correct. There is also a difference between
the individual morality one feels...if you see a hurt child for
example and *choose* to ignore it, it can be seen, and I would see
this, as an *immoral act* decontextualized from any particular class
situation (and who the FUCK thinks like that anyway). I don't think,
conversely, that I could ever, under any circumstances, intentionally
hurt a child. Say what you want about it, if I was on the firing squad
for the Tsars family in 1918, I'd be shoot'n the Tsar and Tsarina, not
the kids. That's me.
However, that 'act' itself was highly justified for the obvious
political reasons, 'moral standards' or not.
DW
Vngelis
You have children hence the distinction.
But fighter pilots who bomb on high have no morals per se.
War is war. Rules of engagement do not apply.
Those who do apply certain rules have a bigger chance if their war is
just
of winning the people on their side.
LIke the Bolsheviks did in the civil war or the EAM-ELAS fighters did
against the
Germans.
vngelis
David
Of course. I'm saying one the 'problems' is viewing these questions
abstractly from one's own situation. Yes, I have kids although, I felt
the same way in any event apriori to my have a child.
John Stewart was censured because he suggested there is no difference
between a B-52 bomber crew and someone setting off a bomb in a car. It
was a "how dare you compare them". Indeed, how does one not?
david
srd
supportable, depending on target; never the B-52.
srd
jh
> On Jan 12, 11:37 am, jh <jhsherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>...
> > My objection to this sort of thing is first and foremost moral-but
> > therefore political as well. Trotsky, means correspond to ends.
> > Deliberate attacks on innocent civilians correspond to nationalist
> > ends, not those of the workers movement.
>
> > They're also usually a bad idea politically, but that is the secondary
> > issue, most useful for convincing those lacking in moral fiber not to
> > engage in this sort of thing.
>
> The question is then why is it morally objectionable? Because it only
> serves to widen the gulf between the Israeli and Palestinian workers,
> pushing them to their nationalist leaderships in both cases, and
> further from revolution. The means are rotten not in the abstract,
> because they kill civilians, but because they serve to disorient the
> masses and objectively, as you correctly point out, further only the
> political ends of the nationalist groups.
>
K9illing innocent civilians is the farthest thing from an abstract
issue, it is extremely concrete.
Socialists do not do this because they want to liberate humanity from
the class system and oppression by the ruling classes. *All* of
humanity, for that matter even the ruling classes themselves, in their
own way trapped in the prison of the class system.
However, socialists are not pacifists, self-defense is always
legitimate, and all too often innocent people do die by accident. That
is not the fault of the socialists, but of the oppressive class system
of contemporary society.
Nationalists do kill innocent civilians deliberately, because they are
about liberating their particular nation from oppression, and the fate
of non-members of their nation does not fall within their moral
compass.
>
>
> > This is entirely separate from the issue of whether or not one should
> > support a particular side in a military conflict. War is hell, as
> > Sherman put it, and one does not refuse to support the just side
> > merely because the warriors with justice on their side happen to be
> > committing crimes. One can always try them for their crimes
> > afterwards.
>
> > -jh-
>
> This comes down to whether military support means unconditional
> support of all tactics and strategies employed by the side you
> support; Diamond earlier argued it did, while I disagreed. With
> regard to Hamas, in the case of a hypothetical war between them and
> Israel, a revolutionary party would support them against Israeli
> oppression, while pointing out that their reactionary tactics do
> nothing to further the cause of Palestinian oppression. Said
> revolutionary party should fight to win leadership of the military
> struggle from Hamas, rather than allowing them to sell it out to
> Israel. That can only be done by participating in the military
> struggle under the revolutionary banner, in fighting a principled
> struggle against oppression. (I think Trotsky erred in recommending
> that Trotskyists fight under the KMT army, as it led to political
> confusion and opened them up to being blind-sided by repressive
> measures)
>
> macphineas
I'll go along with that. Fighting under the KMT army during WWII,
after Trotsky died, was extremely questionable because by then Chiang
Kai-Shek had become a US puppet.
Circa 1937, when Japan first invaded, it seems to me that that was a
legitimate tactic, especially being as trying to fight in Mao's
guerilla army would have been suicidal, as the Greek example
demonstrates.
-jh-
jh
Depends on (a) who is in the car and (b) who is under the B-52's
bombs.
Certainly Russian bombers bombing German troops during WWII was
justifiable, I should think.
-jh-
David
yes, good point, sorry. But HE compared them in terms of 'terror' and
that was the point, and it was a good one.
David
JH, plenty of civilians were killed as well. There is little evidence
that the Russian airforce ever made a distinction, especially and most
notably in East Prussia and Poland. They did not employ, however,
terror bombing like the US, Britain and Germany. BTW... I believe in
Europe, prior to Le May taking over the 8th Airforce there was none
more inclined to deliberately target civilians than the Brits. Even
the Germans had to focus some of their efforts on industry.
The Russians did very little strategic bombing, even against German
transport (bridges, trains, etc). Mostly it was targeted tactical
bombing.
But there are enough isntances of socialist liberation forces
'targeting' civilians in China, Vietnam and other places. The
Partisans were also accused of some well placed massacres of Croatians
populations as well. (of course that was both a national and socialist
liberation).
I think it's a totally false dicotomy, anyway. People fight to win,
both sides, equally, using more or less the same strategy and tactics.
Trying to seriously parse the differences is silly and probably ah-
historical.
DW
srd
The truth is concrete; the Russians didn't fly B-52s. <g>
srd
macphineas
Can't do much strategic bombing without strategic bombers; the Soviets
didn't have many until the 50's. The better example here is
Afghanistan, which the Soviets bombed the hell out of,
indiscriminately killing many civilians. Since the SL, and by
extension JH, see this war as progressive, he should explain how this
tactic can be employed by the Soviets and yet still be progressive.
> But there are enough isntances of socialist liberation forces
> 'targeting' civilians in China, Vietnam and other places. The
> Partisans were also accused of some well placed massacres of Croatians
> populations as well. (of course that was both a national and socialist
> liberation).
All of which were part of Stalinist national chauvinism, and should
have been exposed and opposed (despite supporting the national
liberation struggle itself) as counter-revolutionary.
>
> I think it's a totally false dicotomy, anyway. People fight to win,
> both sides, equally, using more or less the same strategy and tactics.
> Trying to seriously parse the differences is silly and probably ah-
> historical.
>
> DW
Not true by any stretch--strategy and tactics are determined by the
class interests of the belligerents. The Civil War was a great
example of this: Sherman burns Atlanta to the ground, Sheridan burns
the Shenandoah, Butler employs stringent martial law in New Orleans,
all in order to destroy the slave system. In WWII, the development of
strategic bombing was a conscious attempt by the dominant imperialist
powers to decisively crush their emergent rivals. As Clausewitz said,
"warfare is the continuation of politics by other means."
macphineas
macphineas
>
> > The question is then why is it morally objectionable? Because it only
> > serves to widen the gulf between the Israeli and Palestinian workers,
> > pushing them to their nationalist leaderships in both cases, and
> > further from revolution.
>
> No, it clearly isn't _just_ that because you would leave no
> distinction between individual terror (I.T.) directed against the
> military/state apparatus and terrorism directed against ordinary
> civilians. I assume all of us take a basic Marxist position on I.T.
> against the class state. That is _not_ morally objectionable; yet it
> is politically objectionable for reasons like the standard ones you
> give. If terror against civilians is morally objectionable--which I
> think is obviously true but not inconsistent with defending it--the
> reasons are _other_ than that it backfires. That's a tactical/
> strategic objection, not a moral one. I.T. is invariably
> counterproductive, but it isn't invariably immoral.
So why then do you see it as immoral? My own morality develops from
my politics.
My own understanding is this: a group like Hamas is a bourgeois
nationalist formation (at best) with thoroughly nationalistic aims.
That's the subjective factor, trying to win a greater share of global
surplus value for their own bourgeoisie, by taking it from another
bourgeoisie. Thoroughly reactionary.
Objectively, however, their nationalism is progressive in that they
must fight imperialism in order to further their own aims, as their
nation is oppressed by imperialism. Their struggle must then be
defended by revolutionaries, insofar as it dovetails with a fight
against imperialism. Yet their political goals, methods, and tactics
are completely alien to revolutionary politics, as they are not at all
a revolutionary force. In this, they will do things that objectively
aid imperialism, like firing indiscriminately at civilian, and working
class, targets, drawing no line between citizens of an imperialist
country and the military apparatus that imperialism employs to oppress
the oppressed nation in question. In the interests of telling the
truth to the masses, and furthering international socialist
revolution, we must make clear that such tactics are both politically
wrong and immoral, as they objectively, and usually subjectively, help
entrench class oppression within both oppressed and oppressor nations,
and thus make further brutality and bloodshed inevitable. The only
way to act truly morally is to take actions that further the cause the
liberation of all mankind from the class oppression that has been the
hallmark of history thus far written.
When terrorists make clear the distinction between non-state members
of an imperialist nation-state, ie its working class, and the
imperialist state apparatus itself, then their actions are
supportable, as they act as a subjective wedge to divide the workers
of the imperialist country from their state, or in the 19th century,
their bourgeoisie.. It's invariably unsuccessful, as it makes the
masses bystanders in their own liberation, but does not consciously
drive them to their bourgeoisie, lumping them together with their
oppressive state. Indiscriminate terrorist actions do exactly that;
nationalist organizations consciously strive to make the carve
humanity up along national, and only national, lines. The intent, the
subjective factor, is important here.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > This comes down to whether military support means unconditional
> > support of all tactics and strategies employed by the side you
> > support; Diamond earlier argued it did, while I disagreed.
>
> Military support means support of that's side's right to use military
> strategies and tactics it and it alone chooses. It doesn't mean
> support of that side's politics, hence its morality.
>
> Where I think Holmes goes wrong that he refuses to defend the right of
> nationalists to fight a nationalist war by nationalist means. It
> doesn't take a greater dialectician to see that it can be immoral to
> oppose another's _right_ to do what is in itself immoral.
>
> srd
It's a fine line to tread between military and political support.
Nationalists will fight wars of national liberation using the methods
that further their goals; revolutionaries, however, can't stoop to
their level. Insofar as they actually do fight for national
liberation, revolutionaries fight alongside them, although independent
of their methods and ruthlessly critical of their politics; when they
inevitably betray the aspirations of the masses, the revolutionaries
must carry on the struggle alone, or even in open opposition to the
nationalists. But the cardinal sin of the 20th century, in my
opinion, was attempting to find a shortcut, replacement vanguards, who
could carry out revolutionary tasks without being revolutionary in
themselves. The role of the revolutionary is to build a leadership
capable of carrying out revolutionary tasks, including splitting the
masses from the bourgeois nationalists.
macphineas
macphineas
Right; in this case the subjective factor is key. In killing
civilians deliberately, in a nationalistic cause, imperialism is
objectively strengthened and internationalism weakened; strategies and
tactics flow from underlying political, and thus moral, positions,
which are alien to the cause of proletarian revolution.
Chiang had already betrayed his Communist allies once, what would stop
him from killing off the few meddlesome Trotskyists? If he wasn't in
a desperate enough military situation to actually observe the UF with
Mao, he certainly couldn't have been trusted to command Trotskyist
cadre. Fighting, as best they could, within the occupied cities,
maintaining their own organization, was the best the Chinese
Trotskyists could have done under the circumstances.
macphineas
David
>
> Not true by any stretch--strategy and tactics are determined by the
> class interests of the belligerents. The Civil War was a great
> example of this: Sherman burns Atlanta to the ground, Sheridan burns
> the Shenandoah, Butler employs stringent martial law in New Orleans,
> all in order to destroy the slave system. In WWII, the development of
> strategic bombing was a conscious attempt by the dominant imperialist
> powers to decisively crush their emergent rivals. As Clausewitz said,
> "warfare is the continuation of politics by other means."
>
> macphineas
First, Sherman burned Atlanta (and did much, much worse things to the
whites in S. Carilona I might add). Secondly...a 'strategic bomber' is
not a thing, so much as a doctrine of war. The Russians had two & four
engine bombers not unlike the Germans that could drop tonnage on
cities, armies etc. the Tupolev was one, Petlyakov another. They
could, and did, rain down destruction on all sorts of targets
strategically. But, like I noted, they were used, generally,
tactically.
I don't really make a distinction between sides in doctrine of how a
war is fought EXCEPT in terms of the politics of each side and the
revolutionary side can use a class analysis to sow division in the
enemies ranks, and prepare for revolution as part of the war. But the
way it's actually fought? Terror. After all, that is what all war is
about. Period.
DW
srd
What about the differences between the Soviet Union and the U.S. on
nuclear policy, the Soviets (as I understand) abjuring massive
retaliation against civilian targets?
srd
srd
> So why then do you see it as immoral?
I don't think I can do any better in the explication and application
of Trotsky's argument than Holmes.
> My own morality develops from
> my politics
>
Try not to be more offended than you are already, but your methods are
like those of _bad_ brief writer. There's all this tangential fluff,
but the part that's directly relevant is confined to this very obscure
sentence above. How does "classical" terrorism act as a subjective
wedge? And the sentence with the one immediately following aren't even
coherent. If the efforts are "invariably unsuccessful," those making
the efforts aren't ACTING in the manner specified.
I'm sure it's unintentional here, but all the extraneous fluff serves
to hide from YOURSELF that your real point doesn't even make sense.
srd
srd
>
>
>
> > Not true by any stretch--strategy and tactics are determined by the
> > class interests of the belligerents. The Civil War was a great
> > example of this: Sherman burns Atlanta to the ground, Sheridan burns
> > the Shenandoah, Butler employs stringent martial law in New Orleans,
> > all in order to destroy the slave system. In WWII, the development of
> > strategic bombing was a conscious attempt by the dominant imperialist
> > powers to decisively crush their emergent rivals. As Clausewitz said,
> > "warfare is the continuation of politics by other means."
>
> > macphineas
>
> First, Sherman burned Atlanta (and did much, much worse things to the
> whites in S. Carilona I might add). Secondly...a 'strategic bomber' is
> not a thing, so much as a doctrine of war. The Russians had two & four
> engine bombers not unlike the Germans that could drop tonnage on
> cities, armies etc. the Tupolev was one, Petlyakov another. They
> could, and did, rain down destruction on all sorts of targets
> strategically. But, like I noted, they were used, generally,
> tactically.
So in at least some instances, the Soviets bombed German civilians
intentionally?
srd
jh
> On Jan 12, 7:20 pm, jh <jhsherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Certainly Russian bombers bombing German troops during WWII was
> > justifiable, I should think.
>
> > -jh-
>
> JH, plenty of civilians were killed as well. There is little evidence
> that the Russian airforce ever made a distinction, especially and most
> notably in East Prussia and Poland. They did not employ, however,
> terror bombing like the US, Britain and Germany.
Given other misdeeds by Soviet troops with respect to German
civilians, it would be surprising if Russian bomber pilots made much
effort to avoid accidentally killing German civilians in East Prussia.
Poland might be another matter, given that the front commander
Rokossowski was himself Polish. But then maybe he didn't have command
over the bomber pilots.
But they did not *deliberately* try to kill German civilians, as per
US, British and German air tactics. I assume that is what you mean by
"terror bombing."
> BTW... I believe in
> Europe, prior to Le May taking over the 8th Airforce there was none
> more inclined to deliberately target civilians than the Brits. Even
> the Germans had to focus some of their efforts on industry.
>
> The Russians did very little strategic bombing, even against German
> transport (bridges, trains, etc). Mostly it was targeted tactical
> bombing.
>
> But there are enough isntances of socialist liberation forces
> 'targeting' civilians in China, Vietnam and other places. The
> Partisans were also accused of some well placed massacres of Croatians
> populations as well. (of course that was both a national and socialist
> liberation).
I would not at all be surprised to find out that the behavior of the
highly proletarian Soviet Red Army with respect to civilian
populations was better than that of Tito and Mao's peasant guerilla
armies.
Of course one can't put anything as beyond possibility with
Stalinists. But still, class is a fundamental determinant of social
behavior.
A workers army does not normally conduct atrocities against innocent
civilians, because the class interests of the working class are social
liberation. It must be said that with respect to the Nazis there was
extreme provocation, though this does not justify Stalinist
nationalist German-baiting with its tragic consequences. Ordinary
German civilians were *not* responsible for Nazi crimes, whatever Ilya
Ehrenburg etc. might have claimed.
The class interests of the peasantry are different.
-jh-
jh
> On Jan 12, 7:20 pm, jh <jhsherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>...
> > Depends on (a) who is in the car and (b) who is under the B-52's
> > bombs.
>
> > Certainly Russian bombers bombing German troops during WWII was
> > justifiable, I should think.
>
> The truth is concrete; the Russians didn't fly B-52s. <g>
>
> srd
True, and a good point! Perhaps there's hope for you after all,
dialectically speaking.
However, they did have bombers of their own. Granted, bombers less
well adapted for mass murder than are B-52s.
-jh-
jh
> On Jan 12, 7:59 pm, David <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>...
> > The Russians did very little strategic bombing, even against German
> > transport (bridges, trains, etc). Mostly it was targeted tactical
> > bombing.
>
> Can't do much strategic bombing without strategic bombers; the Soviets
> didn't have many until the 50's. The better example here is
> Afghanistan, which the Soviets bombed the hell out of,
> indiscriminately killing many civilians. Since the SL, and by
> extension JH, see this war as progressive, he should explain how this
> tactic can be employed by the Soviets and yet still be progressive.
I am not familiar with the Soviets conducting strategic bombing from
on high against civilian populations during the war. That sounds to me
like one of the many CIA claims whose absurdity was demonstrated, like
the weird business about alleged chemical poisoning with moldy bee
feces. Or the alleged bombs designed to look like toys for children.
The preferred tool of the Soviets for bombing guerilla encampments was
the helicopter gunship, a vehicle that allows much more discretion-
theoretically at least.
I have no doubt that large numbers of civilians were killed
accidentally, what should one expect from Brezhnev. Given his
incompetence in other fields of Soviet leadership, the fact that the
Soviet army did pretty well militarily is about the most one could
expect. Stalinists do not improve due to senility.
>
> > But there are enough isntances of socialist liberation forces
> > 'targeting' civilians in China, Vietnam and other places. The
> > Partisans were also accused of some well placed massacres of Croatians
> > populations as well. (of course that was both a national and socialist
> > liberation).
>
> All of which were part of Stalinist national chauvinism, and should
> have been exposed and opposed (despite supporting the national
> liberation struggle itself) as counter-revolutionary.
>
Sure. But it is necessary to watch out for imperialist propaganda. The
US claimed that the VC and NVA committed all sorts of alleged crimes,
which usually evaporated on closer scrutiny.
>
>
> > I think it's a totally false dicotomy, anyway. People fight to win,
> > both sides, equally, using more or less the same strategy and tactics.
> > Trying to seriously parse the differences is silly and probably ah-
> > historical.
>
> > DW
>
> Not true by any stretch--strategy and tactics are determined by the
> class interests of the belligerents. The Civil War was a great
> example of this: Sherman burns Atlanta to the ground, Sheridan burns
> the Shenandoah, Butler employs stringent martial law in New Orleans,
> all in order to destroy the slave system.
Be it noted that Sherman, Sheridan and Butler scrupulously avoided
killing innocent civilians. They destroyed a lot of property of
course.
> In WWII, the development of
> strategic bombing was a conscious attempt by the dominant imperialist
> powers to decisively crush their emergent rivals. As Clausewitz said,
> "warfare is the continuation of politics by other means."
>
> macphineas
Yes. Mass murder and imperialism fit together, in Mao's words, "like
lips and teeth."
-jh-
jh
> On Jan 12, 7:18 pm, jh <jhsherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>...
> > However, socialists are not pacifists, self-defense is always
> > legitimate, and all too often innocent people do die by accident. That
> > is not the fault of the socialists, but of the oppressive class system
> > of contemporary society.
>
> > Nationalists do kill innocent civilians deliberately, because they are
> > about liberating their particular nation from oppression, and the fate
> > of non-members of their nation does not fall within their moral
> > compass.
>
> Right; in this case the subjective factor is key. In killing
> civilians deliberately, in a nationalistic cause, imperialism is
> objectively strengthened and internationalism weakened; strategies and
> tactics flow from underlying political, and thus moral, positions,
> which are alien to the cause of proletarian revolution.
>
Yes.
...
> > > ... (I think Trotsky erred in recommending
> > > that Trotskyists fight under the KMT army, as it led to political
> > > confusion and opened them up to being blind-sided by repressive
> > > measures)
>
> > > macphineas
>
> > I'll go along with that. Fighting under the KMT army during WWII,
> > after Trotsky died, was extremely questionable because by then Chiang
> > Kai-Shek had become a US puppet.
>
> > Circa 1937, when Japan first invaded, it seems to me that that was a
> > legitimate tactic, especially being as trying to fight in Mao's
> > guerilla army would have been suicidal, as the Greek example
> > demonstrates.
>
> > -jh-
>
> Chiang had already betrayed his Communist allies once, what would stop
> him from killing off the few meddlesome Trotskyists? If he wasn't in
> a desperate enough military situation to actually observe the UF with
> Mao, he certainly couldn't have been trusted to command Trotskyist
> cadre. Fighting, as best they could, within the occupied cities,
> maintaining their own organization, was the best the Chinese
> Trotskyists could have done under the circumstances.
>
> macphineas
Circa 1937, the KMT army *was* the Chinese army, it was not a KMT
force as such.
The main task was indeed to try and keep roots in the Chinese
proletariat. This was a supremely difficult task. Basically, much if
not all of the Chinese proletariat was deproletarianized by the end of
WWII, after 20 years of civil war, imperialist war, and mass slaughter
of entire urban populations by the Japanese.
The proof is in the pudding. The Chinese Trotskyists did indeed
participate in the national resistance to the Japanese invaders, and
did indeed participate in the Chinese army. I think, though I am not
sure, that some Chinese Trotskyists accepted officer commissions. And
my impression is that the Trotskyist soldiers were not in fact
slaughtered by Chiang, as he saw his main enemy as Mao, and was not
worried about the Trotskyists.
The problem was that after the US entered the war, and Japan had
conquered most of China, Chiang effectively turned into a US puppet,
and the only real national resistance to Japanese imperialism was
Mao's troops. Which is why Mao was able to seize power after the
Japanese surrendered. In this context, Chinese Trotrskyist underground
work in the areas Chiang controlled, which was actually fairly
effective, turned out not to be very useful.
-jh-
David
But it wasn't a 'workers army' and it wasn't organized as such John,
no more than the US army was beyond soldiers class. The Red army was
first and foremost politically indoctrinated NOT as a force of social
liberation but one of "protecting Russia, the Motherland". Full stop.
It was also mostly peasant, as workers were needed in the factories.
You had a fully 'proletarian' German army squaring off against an
almost fully peasant Red Army. Funny about that, huh?
While Russia may of been an underlying workers state, it fought as a
nationalist army against the 'foreign invader'.
DW
David
John, the Rusisan deployed heir Back-bear strategic bombers
indiscrimintly. Viliages were wipe out, 1 million Afghans dead. In
this sense the fought the war no differently than the US did in
Vietnam.
Most of the 'terror bombing' was actually not necessarily 'directed'
agaisnt civilians. Sure, the general flattening of Berlin and fire
bombing of Hamburg was, but overall every bombing had military value.
The US, Britain and Russia (JH take note) *supported* the bombing of
Desden...the first time (and actual fire storm) because it was a huge
marshingling RR yard. The Brits pushed for more...and won...to
compeltely extinguish the city as a city. Most civilian deaths in
germany were the reuslt of 'strategic' carpet bombing of factories,
roads, rail yards, etc and of course the civilians paid the price
because hte powers didn't give a shit about casulties.
Generally speaking, as I noted way above, the russian doctrine doesn't
give to carpet bombing cities or towns or villiages. But if a viliage,
town or city is harboring the enemy, it s going to get pulverized and
the amount of 'collective guilt' as a reason for this is impossible to
determine. Trotsky's Red Army characterized certain towns and
villiages as "enemy" and they all suffered the results. War is simply
ugly and if I were the God of War I would try not to kill civilians.
But war kills and they are all fought more or less the same exactl way.
jh
Well, no. Despite all the "kill the boches" propaganda, the fact
remains that the Red Army just didn't carry out the kind of mass
murder of German civilians that the US and Brits did in Hamburg,
Dresden etc. There were a lot of German women raped by Soviet soldiers
however, on a larger scale than with US and British soldiers. That had
a lot to do with anti-internationalist Stalinist deformations.
The Red Army did have a very strong proletarian heritage, which had
not been dissipated, and thought of itself as a workers and peasants
army, with, according to all the classic slogans, the workers in the
leading role.
-jh-
jh
It was an incredibly brutal civil war. And still is, by the way. But I
would like to see documentation as to strategic bombers wiping out
villages Vietnam-style. I don't recall that *particular* charge being
made at the time by Reagan, though there were a lot of others.
>
> Most of the 'terror bombing' was actually not necessarily 'directed'
> agaisnt civilians. Sure, the general flattening of Berlin and fire
> bombing of Hamburg was, but overall every bombing had military value.
> The US, Britain and Russia (JH take note) *supported* the bombing of
> Desden...the first time (and actual fire storm) because it was a huge
> marshingling RR yard.
Of course Stalin supported it, he supported Hiroshima and Nagasaki
too. Typical Stalinist pop-front opportunism.
The "huge marshalling RR yard" excuse reminds me of some of the stuff
Hiroshima Facts came up with. Fact was it was a civilian city in what
was going to be the Soviet sector, and a lot, indeed probably most, of
the civilians killed were refugees fleeing the front. Whatever excuses
the generals gave, the real purpose was to impress the Soviets, who
were to occupy Dresden, with "Allied" might.
The Brits pushed for more...and won...to
> compeltely extinguish the city as a city. Most civilian deaths in
> germany were the reuslt of 'strategic' carpet bombing of factories,
> roads, rail yards, etc and of course the civilians paid the price
> because hte powers didn't give a shit about casulties.
>
> Generally speaking, as I noted way above, the russian doctrine doesn't
> give to carpet bombing cities or towns or villiages. But if a viliage,
> town or city is harboring the enemy, it s going to get pulverized and
> the amount of 'collective guilt' as a reason for this is impossible to
> determine. Trotsky's Red Army characterized certain towns and
> villiages as "enemy" and they all suffered the results. War is simply
> ugly and if I were the God of War I would try not to kill civilians.
> But war kills and they are all fought more or less the same exactl way.
So then they bombed Afghan villages where the Mujahedeen were present?
That's different from Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Dresden or Hamburg or a
whole lot of what the US did in Vietnam. Even formally, bombing a
military unit is different from bombing a factory with workers working
in it, or the living quarters where they lived, as the US bombing
planners explicitly stated in the case of Japan at least.
But it does sound like a dubious tactic to me, close to the moral
borderline. Case by case examination would be required to detemine
whether and when the Soviets crossed the line. But I am sure that a
lot if not most of those million casualties can basically be blamed
one way or another on the Mujahedeen cutthroats and their CIA and
Islamic fundamentalist backers.
-jh-
Vngelis
>
> -jh-
Its good to know that Jesse Helmes adopts the worst type of anti-
soviet
propaganda. German soldiers raped and burnt alive whole villages
hanging people
on trees in nearly every town like the middle ages.
vngelis
jh
Of course. Everyone knows that.
It is also true that Red Army soldiers committed crimes vs. German
civilians, including the rape of women. As also did US, British and in
particular French, by the way. That is simple historical fact, and
trying to deny it is stupid.
-jh-
Vngelis
You have spent time calling me a stalinist, BNP, fascist etc without
one iota of proof.
It is also ironic that once the globalist left adopted imperialism in
its death agony it uses
that language when most of our adult lives we have been in physical
conflict with the stalinists,
including the heirs of Velouhiotis.
Rapes are committed everywhere. The issue at stake is that when your
cold war bros
adopt it as a policy assigned to forces they are up against or to
minimise their struggle
you adopt it as if it was a ruling policy. Ie officers of the Red Army
had rape as an official policy.
German officers did and their practice showed it.
vngelis
srd
Yeah, the Stalinists supported the immigrants whom you physically
excluded from the Square, to give one example; but let's not confuse
the conflict when the Stalinists persecuted you with the Stalinists
whom you persecute today. LaRouche when through a stage of physically
attacking Stalinists too.
Getting back to the 2nd guerrilla war, yes, you (meaning Sklavos and
his comrades) were "in physical conflict" with Velouhiotis. This is
what makes it all the more remarkable that you hold Velouhiotis up as
proof that signing the subject anticommunist declaration was a
wonderful deed.
I'll concede, it now looks to me that my appraisal of your views on
Velouhiotis was unfair. Your comments can be accounted for simply by
your everyday Opportunism, where you'll take ideological succor from
any colorable source.
On another matter, what were the issues in the split in the I.C.
between K. and your dad? [Shortly after the split, K's tendency was
expelled.]
srd
>
> Rapes are committed everywhere. The issue at stake is that when your
> cold war bros
> adopt it as a policy assigned to forces they are up against or to
> minimise their struggle
> you adopt it as if it was a ruling policy. Ie officers of the Red Army
> had rape as an official policy.
> German officers did and their practice showed it.
Your criticism would make sense had Holmes compared the German and
Russian soldiers. Everyone knows about the Germans; the only
comparison Holmes made was between the Russian and troops and those
from the "democratic" countries. You twist words to arrive at your
preconceived "pieces."
srd
jh
All the proof I have needed for the accusations I have made against
you comes from your very own postings.
>
> Rapes are committed everywhere. The issue at stake is that when your
> cold war bros
> adopt it as a policy assigned to forces they are up against or to
> minimise their struggle
> you adopt it as if it was a ruling policy. Ie officers of the Red Army
> had rape as an official policy.
> German officers did and their practice showed it.
> vngelis
Rape was not an official Soviet policy, officers who winked at rape,
as so many of them did, were going against Soviet policy. That is
true. And it is also true that German officers were given explicit
permission to do whatever they wanted to to "untermenschen."
But it is also true that there was an epidemic of mistreatment of
German civilians by Soviet forces, and that this epidemic was due to
the Stalinist conception, which you share of course, of making no
difference between innocent German civilians and Nazis and SS men.
-jh-
macphineas
Yes, although it was never the main method of conducting aerial
warfare for the Red Air Force. From http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/airwar.htm:
"
On the Eastern Front, niether the Red Air Force nor the Luftwaffe had
strategic attack forces. Nevertheless, Red Army bombers attacked
Berlin as soon as they could when the Germans invaded. The majority of
the Soviet air forces were used as flying artillery, using American
Lend-Lease P-39 Airacobras and Iluysin Il-2 Sturmovik “flying tanks”
to attack German tanks. The highly experienced German pilots, skills
honed in air-to-air combat, shot down thousands of Soviet aircraft. It
was not unheard of pilots to have a hundred kills; the top ace had 352
planes, mostly on the Eastern Front. (The top American ace had forty
kills.) American planes flew shuttle missions, landing at Soviet bases
after attacking deep targets in Germany, but due to supply concerns,
the missions were not constant. On the Eastern Front, the vast
majority of air sorties were tactical in nature.
The ideology surrounding bombers prevailed in the West. Starting in
1942, Harris organized massive raids involving all the resources the
RAF could muster. The “1000-plane raids” were as much publicity stunt
as they were actual military operations. If Britain, standing alone
against Germany, had the audacity to send in massive numbers of
aircraft, she could be seen as still fighting back. Before the
Americans arrived in large numbers Harris mounted the first 1000-plane
raid against Cologne on May 30, 1942. Harris had to pull students out
of bomber training programs and fly every aircraft, even damaged and
obsolete ones, to get 1158 aircraft into the air. During the briefing,
the planners claimed that even with 1000 planes over Cologne, aircraft
collision was not a threat and only two aircraft were expected to be
lost. One aircrew officer raised his hand and asked, “Have they
determined which two serial numbers will collide, Sir?” Everyone
laughed, as much out of nervousness as humor.
The raid was devastating to Cologne. 600 acres were destroyed by 1500
tons of high explosives. 500 people died and 4,000 were injured.
13,000 homes were destroyed. Other 1000-plane raids were mounted the
next few weeks. The raids marked a major shift from precision to area
bombing. The first success for heavy bombing, the thousand-plane
raids formed the core doctrine of the RAF for the rest of the war:
large masses of aircraft bombing large areas by night.
"
Strategic bombing was almost entirely confined to the USAAC and RAF.
macphineas
macphineas
A "counter-insurgency" war, like in Afghanistan, is generally fought
the same way by any occupying power; attempt to secure a self-
reinforcing network of towns and villages, keep expanding that
network, while employing overwhelming force against enemy-held
territory. The Soviets destroyed villages and farmland in an attempt
to starve out the insurgents, just like other powers have elsewhere.
>
> Most of the 'terror bombing' was actually not necessarily 'directed'
> agaisnt civilians. Sure, the general flattening of Berlin and fire
> bombing of Hamburg was, but overall every bombing had military value.
> The US, Britain and Russia (JH take note) *supported* the bombing of
> Desden...the first time (and actual fire storm) because it was a huge
> marshingling RR yard. The Brits pushed for more...and won...to
> compeltely extinguish the city as a city. Most civilian deaths in
> germany were the reuslt of 'strategic' carpet bombing of factories,
> roads, rail yards, etc and of course the civilians paid the price
> because hte powers didn't give a shit about casulties.
This is *not* true; Bomber Harris, and later LeMay as well, were
advocates of terror bombing, to crush the German population's morale;
like the Luftwaffe tried, and failed miserably at doing, during the
London Blitz. When towns like Leipzig and Wuerzburg are completely
destroyed, in 1945, with no military value whatsoever, these claims go
out the window. These were imperialist crimes Dave, pure and simple.
>
> Generally speaking, as I noted way above, the russian doctrine doesn't
> give to carpet bombing cities or towns or villiages. But if a viliage,
> town or city is harboring the enemy, it s going to get pulverized and
> the amount of 'collective guilt' as a reason for this is impossible to
> determine. Trotsky's Red Army characterized certain towns and
> villiages as "enemy" and they all suffered the results. War is simply
> ugly and if I were the God of War I would try not to kill civilians.
> But war kills and they are all fought more or less the same exactl way.
In WWII, when the Red Army still had a certain progressive character,
the strategic emphasis remained on artillery and tactical bombers to
knock out German tanks and motorized/mechanized formations. By
Brezhnev, and even more so under Gorbachev, this had changed; many of
the Backfire and Bear sorties were late in the war, '88 and '89.
macphineas
macphineas
Yeah, and Hamburg was a port city; Wuerzburg and Leipzig were, and
are, university towns and UNESCO world heritage sites. Why bomb
them? The policy was to *destroy* Germany, all of it, deindustrialize
it, crush it forever--the A-bomb was a beast of a different stripe,
and conditions had changed.
Here's a somewhat helpful link:
http://utenti.multimania.it/Delenda_Carthago/venik_asaa_eng.html
You can blame the casualties on whoever you want, but the Soviets had
the firepower, and they used it to destroy large parts of the
country. They bombed villages, and farmland, in "enemy-held
territory," especially under Gorbachev, who had a "surge" of his own,
and they did this indiscriminately. And then there was the whole
"regime-change" thing that started it off. The army was deployed to
keep refugees out of the Soviet Union. What exactly was so
progressive about the Soviet invasion?
macphineas
macphineas
And not just German; Djilas noted that when he and Tito protested the
Red Army rapes and looting in Yugoslavia, in *allied* territory,
Stalin just laughed it off, and said: " Does Djilas, who is himself a
writer, not know what human suffering and the human heart are? Can't
he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometers
through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some
trifle?"
In regards to Germany, there was a German=Nazi attitude by the
Stalinists, but that doesn't explain the lax policy about rapes and
looting elsewhere.
macphineas
jh
>
> - Show quoted text -
So in other words, the Stalinists had no *principled* objections to
bombing civilians (any more than Vangelis does) but in practice, the
only time they ever did on any noticeable scale was versus Berlin, the
capital of the Third Reich. And even there, bombing civilians was not
the main emphasis.
Or, putting it another way, the Stalinist air war was ... Stalinist,
the air war of a bureaucratically deformed workers state.
And the air war of the British, the US and of course the Germans was
the air war of an imperialist state.
-jh-
jh
Similar tactics were also used in 1921 vs. the hideous Tambov left SR
kulak insurgency, where a favorite tactics of the insurgents was to
rape and torture female Soviet schoolteachers to death. At one point
poison gas also was used.
Justifiably and necessarily so in my opinion.
>
>
> > Most of the 'terror bombing' was actually not necessarily 'directed'
> > agaisnt civilians. Sure, the general flattening of Berlin and fire
> > bombing of Hamburg was, but overall every bombing had military value.
> > The US, Britain and Russia (JH take note) *supported* the bombing of
> > Desden...the first time (and actual fire storm) because it was a huge
> > marshingling RR yard. The Brits pushed for more...and won...to
> > compeltely extinguish the city as a city. Most civilian deaths in
> > germany were the reuslt of 'strategic' carpet bombing of factories,
> > roads, rail yards, etc and of course the civilians paid the price
> > because hte powers didn't give a shit about casulties.
>
> This is *not* true; Bomber Harris, and later LeMay as well, were
> advocates of terror bombing, to crush the German population's morale;
> like the Luftwaffe tried, and failed miserably at doing, during the
> London Blitz. When towns like Leipzig and Wuerzburg are completely
> destroyed, in 1945, with no military value whatsoever, these claims go
> out the window. These were imperialist crimes Dave, pure and simple.
>
I agree.
>
>
> > Generally speaking, as I noted way above, the russian doctrine doesn't
> > give to carpet bombing cities or towns or villiages. But if a viliage,
> > town or city is harboring the enemy, it s going to get pulverized and
> > the amount of 'collective guilt' as a reason for this is impossible to
> > determine. Trotsky's Red Army characterized certain towns and
> > villiages as "enemy" and they all suffered the results. War is simply
> > ugly and if I were the God of War I would try not to kill civilians.
> > But war kills and they are all fought more or less the same exactl way.
>
> In WWII, when the Red Army still had a certain progressive character,
> the strategic emphasis remained on artillery and tactical bombers to
> knock out German tanks and motorized/mechanized formations. By
> Brezhnev, and even more so under Gorbachev, this had changed; many of
> the Backfire and Bear sorties were late in the war, '88 and '89.
I would find it unsurprising if *some* of the tactics employed by the
Soviet Red Army in what was a just war were unsupportable. Just
because one supports a particular side in a war, does not mean giving
a blank check of agreement with every military tactic ever employed.
Hailing the Red Army in Afghanistan, or during WWII, does not mean a
blank check.
-jh-
jh
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The "regime change" was actually a very good idea, although carried
out in a classic Stalinist fashion. The Najibullah regime was a vast
improvement over the regime at the time of the Soviet invasion, which
had some very serious problems.
Whatwas progressive about the Soviet invasion? It rescued a left-
nationalist regime with Stalinist tinges from the ultra-reactionary
Mujahedeen, the ancestors of the Taliban and Al Quaida. It was, as the
New York Times conceded at the time, the first war in human history in
which womens' liberation was the key issue. The main issue of the
Mujahedeen, based in the mullahs, was opposition to women being taught
to read and write, and reduction (not even elimination!) of the bride
price. And also land reform, which took land away from the mullahs and
the druglords.
Even now, the very minimal rights of women in contemporary Afghanistan
are *entirely* the heritage of the period of Soviet occupation.
The urban population of Afghanistan, whose very existence to a
considerable degree is the heritage of the Soviet period, has made it
clear repeatedly that they feel that things were better off in the
good old days under Brezhnev. The Karzai regime recently has been
trying to resurrect its popularity by appointing various former
Communists to various lesser positions.
Particularly interestingly, last spring a woman was appointed to a
prominent position in the capital in a bid for popularity, whose
previous claim to fame had been that she had been an official in
Najibullah's secret police!
-jh-
jh
Ah yes, Stalin the populist. The raping and looting was against
official Soviet policy. But the winking at violation of official
Soviet policy went all the way up to the top. Stalin was nothing if
not a clever politician.
>
> In regards to Germany, there was a German=Nazi attitude by the
> Stalinists, but that doesn't explain the lax policy about rapes and
> looting elsewhere.
Many Eastern European countries were Nazi allies. The Hungarians,
Rumanians, etc. tended to get the same treatment as the Germans. Jews,
Poles etc. were usually treated better. Soviet troops did make it to
Croatia I believe. Stalin's attitude was that of Vangelis, namely that
Croatia was a German ally. This was not Tito's attitude.
That explains, I expect, the argument over this between Stalin and
Djilas.
-jh-
David
the British and Americans. They coudln't wily nily sacrafice so many
planes. The Cologne raid, BTW, was a exception if few planes were shot
down. 40% casulty rates were not unheard of and usually 5 to 10% was
the norm. This meant a 100% turn over every 10 to 20 raids! Many of
the carpet bombing raids by Harris were unmitaged disasters and hewas
eventually forced from his position and retired.
The raids never demoralized German popular support for Hitler, at
least not that was recorded. But industry was devasted and this helped
the Reds on the east much. Most Nazi aircraft were shot down by
western pilots so the ability of getting experienced pilots to the
East was hindered greatly. This helped Yak 3 dive bomber by the 1944
to really pound tanks and other retreating German forces without the
insanely high casulty rates Red Air Force had suffered previoulsy.
DW