******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
I'm sorry, Luko, to have taken so long to reply, but other business
intervened.
Recall that we are discussing Trotsky's letter which says that the working
class must "choose between two dictators" with regard to how to the Italian
invasion of Ethiopia.
Lüko Willms wrote:
> > You correctly call this text a _letter,_ and it begins with "Dear
>> comrade", so obviously a letter to someone of his cothinkers on Great
>> Britain. The "new principle" of "choosing between two dictators" was not
>> his, Trotsky's, but of the ILP conference or rather of John Alston Maxton,
>> Baron Maxton, of Blackwaterfoot in Ayrshire and Arran....
>> who imposed this distorted view on the ILP party conference,
>>.. by an ultimatum.
In my comments on Trotsky's views, I quoted Trotsky's words,not Maxton's.
Trotsky could have supported Ethiopoia against Maxton without endorsing the
idea of "choosing between two dictators". Instead he made a point of
endorsing this principle.
> > It is dishonest from your part then to project this view on Trotsky,
>>whereas Trotsky is sharply arguing against this view.
Not only were these Trotsky's words, but they have been cited repeatedly in
the Trotskyist movement. It's one of the keystones behind the support of
various Trotskyist groups for certain reactionary regimes during wars, such
as Saddam Hussein's regime, or the Taliban. But you ignore all that, as if
you lived on another planet. What an utter evasion.
The fact is that you don't want to look at the serious issues raised by the
criticism of Trotsky, so you pretend that any criticism is "dishonest". The
Stalinists use a similar method, accusing critics of being thugs, or CIA
agents.
>> The issue in this letter is not so much Italy's war to conquer Ethiopia,
>>t the politics of the ILP and of revolutionary communists.
You're just evading, evading, evading the issue.
> > About the Italian war Trotsky wrote a letter to the International >>
Secretariat, which is published in the "Writings 1935-36" on page 41
>>.... July 17, 1935 > > > > > > To the International Secretariat > > > >
> > Of course, we are
> >for the defeat of Italy and the victory of Ethiopia, However, we
>> want to stress the point that this fight is
> > directed not against fascism, but against imperialism. When war is
> > involved, for us it is not a question of who is "better," the Negus
> > or Mussolini; rather, it is a question of the relationship of
> > classes and the fight of an underdeveloped nation for independence
> > against imperialism. ...
At first sight, the 1935 letter might appear to contradict Trotsky's 1936
letter. In 1935, Trotsky says it is not a question of who is better,
Mussolini or the Negus. But in the 1936 letter, he says that the proletariat
must choose between dictators, and dreams of "the victory of the Negus". So
it looks like Trotsky is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
However, even though I am a critic of Trotskyism, I think that these two
letters are consistent. Trotsky's argument is that, with respect to war, he
doesn't care about the internal nature of the conflicting regimes. That's why
it isn't a matter of who is better. That's why he stresses that "this fight
is directed not against *fascism*, but against *imperialism*." (Trotsky's
emphasis) For him, it doesn't matter whether the regimes are democratic or
fascist or dictatorial.
In the 1936 letter, he develops this idea more dramatically than in the 1935
letter: yes, he says, the working class must choose between dictators. But
it's the same idea: it doesn't matter who's better, it doesn't matter whether
they are both dictators, it doesn't matter what their relationship is to the
class struggle, just choose one of the two dictators for other reasons.
Trotisky claims in 1935 to be considering "the relationship of classes
involved", but this is empty verbiage. He says nothing about the class and
national situation in Ethiopia and, in fact, is giving a rationale for not
considering the relationship of classes.That's why he doesn't care about the
oppression of the subject peoples in Ethiopia; he doesn't consider whether
this hinders the resistance to Italian occupation; and he doesn't care about
Selassie's absolutism at all. There is no criticism, no "critical" support,
no support for the masses who want reform, no consideration of what is needed
for the African peoples to unite in struggle -- just dreams about how great
Selassie might be.
So a careful reading of these letters shows that they are consistent. For the
period of war, anti-absolutism and the opression of subject peoples was
irrelevant to Trotsky. And outside the war, he didn't care about Ethiopia
at all. It was as if Ethiopia was a blank slate for him, no classes, no
politics, no internal conflicts worth mentioning.
The internal situation might be irrelevant for Trotsky, but it wasn't for the
Ethiopian people. It wasn't for the mass opposition to Italian aggression,
the opposition that persisted even after Selassie's armies crumbled, the
opposition that was a forerunner of partisan movements against fascism in
Europe in World War II.
-- Joseph Green
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
