Maxim Linchits wrote:
Ah, things would have been much better for the cause of socialism and
national liberation, if the US and Britain remained neutral and faced
a battered USSR after the war (there is also the possibility, albeit
remote, of their alliance with Germany). And no wretched compromises
would have to be made if the British labor movement took a "defeatist"
stance and let Germany take over Britain along with of its foreign
markets.
If the British labor movement had been powerful enough to stave off the
imperialist war drive, it would have also been powerful enough to make a
revolution. What was missing from the Labour Movement was a class
analysis. It was suffused in the same disgusting class collaborationism
that has the American left clapping like seals for a president who is
about to commit this country to a horrible blood-letting in Afghanistan.
Stalin was involved in a poker game with the allies. He tossed the chips
of France and Greece on the table what did he get in return? A buffer
zone in Eastern Europe?
I don't disagree with the individual points. But the argument as a
whole is uncontroversial among "Marxists" only if Marxism=Trotskyism.
That's fine. I don't mind being in a minority of one when the rest of
the left has forgotten how to think in class terms.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
