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. 

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. And 
now with the Chetchenian stuff it is hardly Russia who is making a concession but the 
Americans fearing that the Germans might get in to the Caucasis. 
> 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. 

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 against the Germans getting influence in the area. And wanna bet 
that if the Americans get to much influence that we will see a turn in diplomatic 
relations by the Russians towards Germany? This proves that Russia is hardly a semi 
colony but a capitalist country with imperialist ambitions and will play all sides of 
the fence to defend its *own* interests...
> 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  

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! 

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.

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 

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 

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 interests.Futhermore...

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..

Warm regards
Bob Malecki

     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Reply via email to