Dave Bedggood
Mon, 22 Nov 1999 04:35:43 -0800
Bobs bullits..
Dave writes..
> Burford's analysis of Chechyna starts from the proposition that both
> OSCE (the European end of the Atlantic alliance) and Russia are
> imperialist. George is closer to the truth when he recognises that
> Russia is making a concession to imperialism. This is not only
> because Russia is weak and isolated, but because it is a restored
> capitalist semi-colony of US and EU imperialism.
B
Who are you kidding with thuis bullshit Dave? The poor little Russia scenario you are
trying
to clue into your "anti-imperialist" united front methodology has nothing to do with a
"Trotskyist" perspective. Russia is clearly acting like an imperialist wannabe and is
wheeling and dealing with other imperialist powers hardly because it is a semi colony
to USA
imperialism but in its *own* imperialist wannabe intentions. In the Yugoslavian stuff
Russia
clearly was making wheeling and dealing with the Germans.
D
We've had this one out many times Bob. By any measure, Russia is not
imperialist. It is poor, and while not little is it getting smaller.
It is a restored former workers' state whose economy is virtually
collapsed. The methodology is Lenin and Trotsky. Imperialism
produces a surplus which it has to invest in colonies and
semi-colonies (today's client states) or loan to its rivals.
Without that, it would have to physically annex regions to get
hold of new markets, resources etc so as to create this surplus,
like Tsarist Russia did. Russia today does not fit either of those
scenarios. Is Rusia's invasion of Chechnya imperialist? Is it
about to grab new resources? No its trying to defend existing
resources established during the Soviet era. Its oppressive yes.
That's why we can't support it. But oppression by itself is not
imperialist. 20 years ago the Red Army invaded Afghanistan, and
you argued correctly that that was to defend Russia from the US
backed Mujadaheen. Now the USSR has collapsed, and the Russian
Federation itself is beginning to break up. While the invasion of
Chechnya cannot be justified, it is primarly defensive.As much as one
third of Soviet oil was supplied by Chechyna. So Russia's invasion is
not imperialist motivated but rather motivated to prevent a total
collapse of the economy. Of course the new bourgeoisie would have
long term plans to expand outside the Russian Federation, but can
they do this now? No way.
D
It is true that imperialism is indulging Russia, but that is because
> it has larger fish to fry. Not only keeping the pro-West >
Yeltsin/Putin in power, but also keeping the Russian Federation a >
Federation, not a mass of fragments. It knows damn well that the >
Russian army is a better bet in guaranteeing US oil investments and >
the pipelines in the Caspian and Caucasus, than a bunch of Islamic >
warlords.
B
More bullshit. As if poor little Russia would defend American
interests. In fact the Americans are supporting or were supporting a
lot of these regimes just against Russia. Like in Afghanistan and
certainly the southern belly of the ex SU. The real action is the
conflict between the Germans and Americans and which side the
imperialist wannabes wind up in the coming confrontation. The only
thing the Americans support is their *own* interests and certainly
would block with anybody whether warlord or Russian
D
Which proves my point, that in Chechnya there is no advantage to the
imperialists to see the Caucuses which are part of the
Russian Federation fragment. Keeping control serves Russia's
interests as major oil pipelines pass through to the Russian
Black Sea. But this also serves the US interests, as a united
Russia is better able to pay back its massive debt. Outside the
Russian Federation, the US and EU imperialists are doing deals with
the new bourgeoisies of the former Soviet Republics. Russia is in no
position right now or in the forseeable future to compete for the
spoils in these countries.
D> >
The correct position in this situation is to condemn Russia's >
invasion of Chechyna, and recognise its independence, but without >
given any support to imperialist intervention including >
'humanitarian' interventions. By making these demands on Russian >
workers and troops, there is the possibility that a workers >
opposition to the war can join forces with Chechen workers and >
peasants against both the new Russian bourgeoisie, and the new >
Chechen bourgeoisie. > Dave
B
More bullshit. Certainly we recognize the right to self determination
for the Chetchenyan peoples against the imperialist wannabe attack by
the Russians. However no support to either side who on the one hand
want to create a new imperialist Russia and on the other a pro
Islamic capitalist republic. In fact in this war the main enemy is at
home!
D
Yes well this is an incomplete way of posing the national question.
We agree that we are against Russian intervention. But how to be for
Chechen independence but against its Islamic bourgeoisie? Only by
putting the demand for Chechen self-determination to Russian workers
and troops. That's the only way to unite Russian and Chechen masses
against both of their bourgeoisies and to fight for a Socialist
Federation of the former Soviet Union.
B
But your line is confusionist and some sort of anti war popularlist
in that on the one hand you say that Russia is a semi colony fighting
for its right to become a nation against imperialism instead of
realizing that Russia has become a capitalist state through
capitalist counter revolution and is now on the road of imperialist
wannabe.
D
What's the confusion about Russia as a capitalist semi-colony? Its
not a workers state, and its not an imperialist state. Its in a
transition which is more likely to see it collapse and fragment
further under imperialist pressure, than become an imperialist state.
Its you who are confusionist. Your characterisation of Russia as
imperialist is based on impressionistic criteria, mainly it seems
your ability to mind read the intentions of the ' imperialist
wannabes' or to flip back in time to the Tsar as if the recent
counter-revolution was really just a bourgeois democratic revolution
so that now instead of the Tsar we have a bonapartist Yeltsin.
Ironically this is close to the position of the western bourgeoisies
who now see Russia as having emerged from barbarism into democracy.
But they are not so blind as to suppose that Russia is a "big power"
and an economic threat. They are not even very concerned about
Russia's miiltary power unless some whacko Zirinovsky type gets
control of the buttons. Theyre more concerned about Bin Laden and
handheld nukes.
B
You are trying to put Russia in the slot of China in the twenties
rather then seeing that capitalist counter revolution does not equal
this but something quite different then we have seen before in
history. That is the evolement of the ex degenerated workers state
towards becoming once again and imperialist power or take the world
down trying.There ain't no way in the world you can justify this line
except by adapting Trotskyism or Leninism to the politics of the
Mensheviks betwen Feb. and October at best. But then they had the
fuedalist relations and czar to lean on. You my friend only have your
false conception of and anti imperialist united front and the only
thing it will get you is your organization supporting Russian war
credits in the future imperialisat war.
D
Its true that we have not seen capitalist restoration before.
Therefore we have to be careful about drawing hasty conclusions about
the transition. It may also be true that Russia's new bourgeosie will
try to escape from the ecoomic mire by a policy of expansion, similar
to that which led Lenin to define Tsarist Russia as imperialist. But
this hasnt happened yet, and the conditions which would allow it to
happen do not yet exist. Meanwhile, we have the reality of Russia as
a huge cot case, stagnating and imploding against a background of
an impending world economic crisis and a more expansionist and
agressive US and EU. A war between Russia and these imperialist
powers right now would not be between imperialists to divide the
world, but between imperialism and an oppressed semi-colony.
In that situation, whatever the popular consciousness of the US and
EU labour aristocracies hostile to Russia, we would have to swim
against the stream and defend Russia. As a Spart, no doubt you will
take your cue form the anti-Russian sentiment in the US working class
and not run the risk of getting offside with the most advanced
working class in the world by backing Russia against the US.
B
You are in fact the reverse side of Chrs's arguement in a sense.
Chris I believe argues imperialism on Russias part so that he can
support his own British humanitarian solution in the coming war while
you take the side of the Russian rulers and their imperialisat
intentions by covering for them from the left screaming they are a
semi colonial country.Both lines are comparible in their social
patriotic stance and will mean that you will go tell the workers to
die defending someting which is hardly in their Well even Lenin under
the czar never did that despite the backwardness of Russia. And
Russia is fa more advanced today then it ever was in when it comes to
industry and war. But the key question is hardly your arguement that
Russia must be defended against imperialism because it is a semi
colony. But the workers must fight for its defeat and a new socxial
revolution..
D
The key question is whether imperialism oppresses Russia or not.
If it does, which is what we argue, then Russian workers will
experience this and bloc with their bourgeoisie, regardless of any
Trotskyist sect in its shopfront declaring Russia to be imperialist.
Therefore, in order to break them from their bourgeoisie, especially
the openly fascist red brown forces who blame Jews, minorities etc
for this oppression, we have to mobilise Western workers to bloc with
them against the main imperialist enemy. Especially when that enemy
masquerades as 'democratic' and 'humanitarian' and paints the Russian
bourgeoisie as barbaric, semi-feudal, etc. Only by doing this can we
avoid a repeat of 1914 which seems to be Bob's big fear, when most
workers on all sides succumbed to patriotism. Bob's position with its
"the main enemy is at home" mantra cannot deal with a world in which
there are oppressor and oppressed nations - that is the imperialist
epoch. Why? Because the Spart method is to adapt to US patriotism in
its labour aristocracy, so the enemies of Amerika become the enemies
of the Amerikan labour aristocracy, and the enemies of the Sparts.
This follows the position taken by JP Cannon during WW2 when the
SWP succumbed to mass pressure and supported the war against Hitler
and downplayed their opposition to the main enemy at home. Bob is
heading for the same betrayal when a war with Russia would see the
Sparts declaring dual defeatism, but in practice adapting to a war
against some fascist leader of the 'imperialist' Russia rather than
opposing the main enemy at home.
Dave
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---