While it is tempting to engage Albert in a discussion on whether or not Lenin was in
favour of 'defence of the fatherland' (if only to defend Lenin who isn't in a
position to defend himself) I can't help but think that most participants to this
column are more interested in the merits of Neither's views now. If Albert wants to
take up Lenin's views privately I'll be happy to oblige. I'll limite myself to
observing that opposition to the slogan 'defence of the fatherland' (when this applied
to capitalist countries) was the defining point of Bolshevism.
Albert says:
Also I don't agree with your assumptions about tactical alliances. They
rarely have anything to do with "shared resources". I think you may
perhaps confusing the issue with the "broad united fronts" periodically
set up by tiny rival lemmingist sects to compete with each other for
recruits. These have no relevance to serious politics.
Paul Esposito: That's fine if all neither is doing is supporting the right of One
Nation to campaign without being made the victim of state harassment, raising PR
despite the fact of a defacto alliance on the question with organisations like ON
etc... But as far as I could tell, the precise status of Neither, its capacity to
speak as an organisation, its membership criteria etc, its attitude to other parties,
and to candidates supporting aspects of Neithers program remain matters of debate.
If we do not have open discussion of policies we cannot function as an
organization and cannot defeat the two party state. If we can learn how
to handle disagreements about policy better
than others "on the left" we could become a VERY significant force.
Paul Esposito; This was the point of my original letter.
If people want to be in an organization where they agree with every
policy they will find that such organizations are either mainstream or
very very small. (In my case there would probably only be 1 member).
Paul Esposito: That would apply to me as well!
[JPE]
Leftists are for NO NATION - we are for the unity of working people on a
world scale, regardless of birth. By that standard, all 'national
parties' have racist policies. - and that's why leftists are opposed to
all the parties including One Nation.
The view that all 'national parties' have racist policies simply removes
all content from the word 'racist'. That is not a political line,
leftist or otherwise, but just plain silly.
Paul Esposito: On the contrary, it underlines the inherent link between national
chauvinism and racism -- because when push comes to shove, the nationalist always
feels closer to his or her own ruling class than the working people from other
countries his or her own ruling class exploits. This is a very familiar theme in
Australian history -- and it is no accident that the the populist socialists in
Australia -- at the turn of the century and many years after were the backbone of the
White Australia policy. That's why the first duty of every serious leftist goes far
beyond mouthing platitudes about human equality, and [John Paul Esposito] exposing
how the ruling class in every capitalist country uses nationalism to con the working
people of that country into forging the chains which bind them, and drive them into
confrontation with their class brothers and sisters from other nations.
So my point remains -- all parties that support capitalism are, in the long run,
racist parties and 'opposed to the people' (if by 'the people' one means working
people without distinction of birth, geography)
Paul
