Re: M-TH: Festive Greetings
Bugger me too. Has anyone read the new Wheen bio of Marx. Apparently Marx used to get up to hijinks by throwing stones at street lamps and then split when the bobbies arrived. There's nothing wrong with having fun as long as its at the bosses' expense. Its when we are paying for it that makes it no fun at all. Dave Bugger all this asceticism! It doesn't say anywhere a leftie can't enjoy a bit of convivial excess with his or her fellow human beings, does it? As Monty Python almost said, I wasn't expecting a phalanx of sombre Franciscan friars! So Jesus wasn't actually born on this date, so it's a colonised pagan feast further transformed by crass commercial opportunism, so Jesus is not quite our chap (did enjoy that bit about the turning of the merchant's tables, though), so what? After all, as the saying almost goes, all serious theorising and no wanton Bacchanalia makes lefties dull boyz'n'galz. In my selfless way, I shall be downing a foamy jar for each of you! A very happy Thaxmas to all! Rob. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: China and LOV
You shoudnt be so sensitive Rob. My post was directed to Simon and his World Socialism. If you identify with this current that's your problem. By the way pb covers those like you and me who own their own tools of intellectual trade. Parasitism? Depends what you do with the state pay check. Blueprint. Definitely. Russia failed to live up to it. exploiting defeat? Well the menshies took a back seat until the end of the SU, not wanting to own up to any affinity with Stalin. Then they popped up all fresh with their Eurocentric patented democratic socialism. That's what is patronising, including the belief that we are not onto you. Dave. Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 22:30:49 +1100 To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: M-TH: China and LOV Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whilst I obviously tend to Simon's general point of view (although I'm closer to Hugh on the finance/'productive capital' question) - and I do find it strange to be considered 'pb' when we own nothing, 'parasites' when we ask nothing, 'offering blueprints' when that is precisely what we know we can not do, 'exploiting defeat' when it is all we hold dear that is being defeated, and 'patronising' for believing in the potency of democratic activism - I'd've thought we had better things to talk about. Like the democratic activism going on in and regarding Seattle. That consumate poll-watching politician par excellence, Clinton, is actually opting to walk the thin high wire on this one - and the attempts to ridicule the protesters are waning because this is too big, right across the spectrum - and that little distinction between what is human and what is market is pressing itself on people's attention around the world - and third-worlders are feeling sufficiently cocky to talk about power gaps in globalist paradise - and people are asking loudly how does the socio-economic system we have address the gaps it immanently produces - and our suits are coming to learn no-one is swallowing their tripe any more - and unionists, students, anarchists, greenies and Marxists are getting used to the feel of each others' shoulders again - and they're learning that the great democracy's answer to popular expression comes from the barrels of guns - but they're also tasting popular potency for the first time in a generation. All this in the belly of the beast, too! Geez, that wouldabeen nice to talk about, eh? Obviously not. Cheers, Rob. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: China and law of value.
Simon wrote: I think that where we are parting company is that I am seeing the productive relationship also as a social relationship, and the purpose of revolution to change the social relationship by qualitatively changing the productive relationship, not quantitatively. Yes SOCIAL relations are relations of production. No problem there. Revolutionising the social relations of production is the aim of revolutionaries. I also think that, as I have pointed out before, the dialectics of Left wing philosophy are fundamentally flawed in failing to grasp this fact in their analysis of society, by treating people and thus their ENTIRE needs, rather than just their PHYSICAL needs, as objective. If you mean that physical=production and entire=social then same as above, the two cannot be separated. In human society physical reproduction has to be social. Now i know that it would be very nice for me as a member of the working class to get a cut of my own surplus, possibly an equal share with everyone else in that society. I wouldn't call it anything other than capitalism, even if my nose was no longer rubbed quite so hard in my own means of subsistence and my wage was somehow removed from what I actually produced (which leads to the labour vouchers systems which Marx correctly criticised: and to criticise a distribution of surplus for one abstraction by reference to the real facts is surely to criticise all abstractions with reference to the same fact...?) In particular, however, if I was no longer allowed to consider my wage a realistic sum, and saw a few people telling me what to do and rolling in the loot which I amd my brothers and sisters had produced, I would start thinking that someone is pulling a fast one. If anything, the law of value is intensified, because I have to define it consciously! Or, alternatively, I live in a society which does not allow me to discuss such things, which means that someone else is making that decision. You are talking about the quantitative distribution of the surplus without qualitatively transforming the social relations here I take it? I agree that no quantitative change under capitalism can qualify as a change of the capitalist social relations of production. But this begs the question as to what that change was in the case of the workers states. The effect may be similar, namely persistence of unequal distribution, but can you can only draw the conclusion that unqual distribution equals capitalism if you have an abstract definition of capitalism as unequal distribution and an idealist definition of socialism as equal distribution. Lenin argued that capitalist social relations of production had been overthrown in Russia, but that under the new workers state, bourgeois inqualities (to each according to their work) would persist until such time as what Hugh talked about as primitive socialist accumulation would produce sufficient economic goodies (plenty) to allow truly socialist norms of distribution to evolve (to each according to their need). So even in the case of a healthy workers state you could not define socialism as one of equal distribution. In a degenerated workers state where the bureaucrats control production, the inequality is clearly much greater, and in reality conforms to the bourgeois norms of unequal distribution. But to deduce from that that bourgeois social relations of production exit would be a mistake. Because it would mean that you did not recognise the material leap made possible by a workers revolution and by workers property, since you put in its place an idealist blueprint of socialism as a 'finished product'. To forsake the real because of its imperfections for the sake of a perfect ideal is no way to run a revolution. At the end of the day, in the society I live in I have a value, as a complete entity, rather than having a dual existence (as conscious creature and as machine) where the machine can be made a machine and be given a value, and I can enter the productive process freely as architect rather than as bee. Whatever end of the telescope you look through. You feel you have value and subjectively want to escape the determinism of necessary labour and surplus labour, but how? As you say at the start only by qualitatively transforming social AND productive relations. And you are still using the word "value" instead of "price" when you talk of suspending the LOV.It does require certain inputs for a labourer at a certain historical level of production to create a certain product. If you give over and above that you may be investing in future production (teaching the worker, making him/her healthier, etc.), genuinely unaware of the value of their labour (which the market finds via the price mechanism, and the state guesses), forced into paying more (a REAL strike), or genuinely uncaring (either uneconomically flogging workers to
M-TH: Washington and Moscow
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
Re: M-TH: China and law of value.
What I am saying is that the value of something is the amount of labour
that goes into it. To replace an arbitrary price based on chance and the
market with an arbitrary price based on a commissar's rule of thumb does
not suspend this rule.
Yes but you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Marx
started with labour under capitalism, and proved that the political
economists had falsely abstracted 'labour' as a historical property
from capitalism and then surreptitiously reapplied it to prove that
labour value was natural and universal. With this false
assumption, they could not show how the value of labour could
account for profits other than by a deduction from wages since
the wage was held to be the value of labour. Marx showed that under
capitalism it is the 'socially necessary labour-time expended' that
determined value i.e. the amount of 'labour-power' used up in that
time. The only reason that this could happen is if the capitalist can
employ workers for a longer period than is necessary to reproduce the
value of the labour-time used-up, i.e. the value of labour power,
constituting a period of surplus-labour time and suplus value.
This could happen only under capitalist social relations where the
workers were dispossessed (during the process of primitive
accumulation) of the means of production and forced to work ("unfree"
because forced to work for someone else or starve) but also "free" as
Marx says i.e free as an equal exchanger of their commodity
labour-power at its value (more or less).
The 'socially necessary labour time' which determines value is itself
the result of the law of value operating through the market to make
capitalists invest in labour-saving machinery to increase labour
productivity. Only those commodities that represent the least
SNLT will be sold forcing less efficient produces to close down
or tool up. That has the effect of developing the forces of
production and increasing the relative rate of exploitation. It also
sets in motion the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, which is
the most powerful manifestation of the fundamental contradiction
between use value (forces) and exvchange value (relations).
Thus as soon as the bourgeois state puts limits on competition then
it distorts the LOV. As soon as a workers state replaces the market
with administered prices, then 'socially necessary labour time'
ceasees to be the mechanism of value determination. But there is a
qualitative difference between capitalist planning and socialist
planning. In the former, values are still formed by the LOV, but
distorted as the state can tax and direct capital into areas other
than productive investment which slows down the development of the
forces. The value of constant capital and variable capital does not
reduce as fast as it could. This exacerbates the TRPF which can be
partly offset for a period by cheapening of both C and V. That is why
the temporary solution to the TRPF is the vicious 'return' of the
naked LOV.
Under socialist planning we are no longer talking about value in the
capitalist sense at all. Labour time goes into producing goods, but
the 'value' of these goods is not set by the LOV, SNLT etc but by
either the democratic decisions of producers as Hugh says, in which
case value is 'socialist needed labour time' defined as meeting the
needs of consumers by the production of useful goods, or in a
bureaucratically deformed workers state, by the interests of the
bureaucrats to survive as a caste on the backs of the workers.
This discussion began with China. The point about getting the LOV
right is that it allows us to recognise that once the LOV is
suspended the potential is there to replace it with a healthy workers
plan that can escape the use/exchange value contradiction
and allocate productive resources in advance to produce use-values.
What we have seen in China is unfortunately so far not only a failure
to achieve that, but an impending full restoration of capitalism in
which the LOV returns with all its brutality as we are seeing in
Russia.
Not to think in these terms, but to say that China was always some
form of capitalism, is to miss the whole historically progressive
upsurge that resulted from the Russian Revolution, and which can
still be recovered by workers who have this understanding and
revolutionary struggle to guide and inspire them.
Dave
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Washington and Moscow
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. 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. 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 At 11:55 19/11/99 -, George wrote: penetratingly about the contradictions. However I think the following paragraph gets the balance wrong: Despite Russia apparent determination to bring Chchnea under its control Russia has made concession to be included in a final document to be signed which involves ging the OSCE both a political and humanitarian role in the Chechnea.The fact that Russia has made such a concession even if it were to turn out to be a merely paper concession is an indication of both Russian internal weakness and growing isolation from the West. The press releases from the OSCE tried to present it that Moscow had made concessions on Chechnya, but (unless it is to be more willing to resettle the civilian population) there are none! The west has decided to go along with Yeltsin and Putin because it prefers them to a Primakov type more left wing regime that would accomodate the Communists. They previously censored Yeltsin for declaring war on Chechnya. It is rumoured that Russia insisted on the USA and the rest of OESC recognising that Chechnya was its territory otherwise it would veto US action against Iraq. This is an imperialist compromise, not in the interests of the people of Iraq, of Chechnya, nor of Russia. I am not in favour of Nato bombing the Russian army, but when you compare what the IMF and the west did financially to Indonesia to force it to disgorge East Timor, you can see its recent stance on Chechnya as not imperialist aggression but imperialist appeasement of aggression. Yeltsin is up to his neck in corruption and they could pull the rug on his government any time they wanted, if they preferred the alternative. Which they do not - for imperialist reasons. Witness this article in the New York Times for evidence that the IMF can dictate policy from Jakarta to Moscow: The New York Times November 10, 1999 Longtime I.M.F. Director Resigns in Midterm By DAVID E. SANGER WASHINGTON -- Michel Camdessus resigned Tuesday in the middle of his third term as chief of the International Monetary Fund, setting off a behind-the-scenes struggle involving the Clinton administration and big European nations over who will direct the agency that is in effect dictating national economic policy from Russia to Indonesia and Africa. Camdessus, who has steered the I.M.F. for nearly 13 years through a succession of economic crises, said Tuesday that "entirely personal reasons" had prompted his resignation two years before the end of his term. Colleagues said constant travel and a succession of international crises had exhausted him. But in a half-hour conversation in his office here Tuesday afternoon, the 67-year-old former central banker in France appeared vigorous, telling tales of political intrigue, responding to attacks from conservatives in the U.S. Congress who had accused him of wasting billions in bailing out Russia, and arguing that his much-attacked prescriptions saved Asia from a far worse economic fate. And in discussing the fund's growing political impact throughout the world, he acknowledged for the first time that its actions in Indonesia served as a catalyst in forcing out the man who led the nation, the world's fourth-most populous. "We created the conditions that obliged President Suharto to leave his job," Camdessus said. "That was not our intention," he said, but quickly added that soon after Suharto's resignation he traveled to Moscow to warn Russian President Boris Yeltsin that the same forces could end his control of Russia unless he acted to contain them. Chris Burford London --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: China and law of value.
The point about the law of value is that it is a law. Capital tries its best to accumulate by reducing the value of commodities. Nation states get in the road of the perfect operation of the LOV, but they cannot prevent it from operating including its crisis effects. The former USSR and China in breaking with the world market suspended the LOV except for imports (a relatively small part of their economy). What the reintroduction of the market does is to reassert the operation of the LOV. Zhu's role has been to open up to the LOV in order to force the state sector to compete so that his bureaucratic caste can convert themselves in a new bourgeoisie. His desperation is shown in the concessions made by China to the US - half of telecommunications opened up to the US and the US allowed to use anti-dumping legislation against China for another 15 years (David Sanger, NYT 16 Nov). What is interesting about this is not that it sheds new light on Marx - all this stuff is old hat - but what it says about the counter-revolution in China. For those of us who belief that the degenerated or deformed workers state in China was progressive because it replaced the LOV with state planning, it looks as if China has reached the point of no return in the counter-revolution at which the banking, insurance and communications industries will be opened up to the global market. Joining the WTO symbolises this, but what it symbolises is that the Chinese currency becomes convertable and the LOV can then act upon the whole economy with little state hindrance. The basis of workers' property, the mechanism of planning and adminstered prices, is replaced by the market. At this point we would have to say that the Chinese state is now controlled by functionaries who serve the class interests of a bourgeoisie, and that it is no longer even the vestige of a degenerated workers' state. Now that the workers of the former USSR have seen the effects of the LOV, maybe Chinese workers will stop the restoration process at the 11th hour. Dave. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Whither the discussion
There seems to be a lot of lost souls on this list who claim to be Marxists yet endorsed NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia, or who claim to be world socialists without having read a word of Marx. Do they think that this is the groucho marx thaxist theatre? They could save a lot of time and energy by reading the Communist Manifesto and then whipping themselves. Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 05:14:54 -0500 (EST) From: Gerald Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: M-TH: Re: Whither the discussion Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Simon wrote: I think that the difference here is that I am not arguing for a Marxist revolution, but a socialist one: i.e. that while Marx provided one of the first expositions of socialist theory, you don't have to have read a word of Marx to be a socialist. Note the inference that while he is arguing for socialist revolution, I am not. You have a clever talent for the creation of strawmen to argue against. The socialist revolution does not carry a Marx (TM) trademark on its banner. Thanks for the englightenment. So only the great men of history, who have the time to study rather than work, can make the revolution? Wrong. Another strawman innovation. I've been accused of arrogance before, Imagine the audacity of anyone who says that someone who sends posts from an address which reads (in part) "THE WORLD SOCIALIST MOVEMENT" displays arrogance! and sometimes probably rightly, but this is breathtaking. Agreed. Your inability to listen to what others have to say and your creation of strawmen to argue against shows not only your arrogance but your inability to engage in a worthwhile discussion. Click. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Whither the discussion
Super reply Chris. Keep it up. You might note that the point of surveying the various brands of socialism in CM was to characterise their class standpoint. What's your's Chris? As for Chechyna, the LCMRCI has along with several other groups put out a statement in Spanish. When its translated I'll forward it to this list. Dave Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 00:13:41 + To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: Whither the discussion Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 23:35 08/11/99 +, you wrote: There seems to be a lot of lost souls on this list who claim to be Marxists yet endorsed NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia, or who claim to be world socialists without having read a word of Marx. Do they think that this is the groucho marx thaxist theatre? They could save a lot of time and energy by reading the Communist Manifesto and then whipping themselves. How diligently have you read Marx? The Manifesto itself describes lots of self declared socialists who are not scientific socialists. It is entirely normal that a marxist position would have to clarify itself in relation to them. Utopian socialism is not always reactionary. BTW has the Liaison Committee issues a call yet for unconditional military solidarity with the Chechens? And if so how is it going to be implemented, if it does not also call on the IMF to impose sanctions on Russia as it did on Indonesia to make it disgorge East Timor? Chris Burford London --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Up Against the Wall, Althusser
The guy was nuts. If you invoke the name of the revolutionary proletariat to go round topping nutters youre not serious. What's happening in your part of the world that's real? dave. In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Bedggood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Who would hang him Jim? You? In whose name? Why workers' militias of course, in the name of the revolutionary proletariat. Maybe you don't know the evidence. Althusser confesses that he killed Helene after she joined those who were criticising him for defending the Communist Party's betrayal of May 68. Earlier, Althusser had voted to have Helene's party membership suspended on wholly spurious grounds that she was a war-time collaborator. In fact she was a resistance heroine, whose militant politics were an anathema to a party that had become a bulwark of capitalist stability. -- Jim heartfield --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: SV: M-TH: Is NZ a bloated semi-colony?
What do you mean? DOn't you understand even the most elementary thing about imperialism, that it is the main enemy, and when it attacks a semi-colony we defend the semi-colony, even to the extent of militarily blocking with the national bourgeoisie, maintaining the armed independence of the working class. Why don't you read Trotsky on China. As for WW2 your precious Cannon blocked with his bourgeoisie against Hitler. See if you can deny that. And as for Chechnya. As you well know in the exchanges we had on the character of Russia today, when you stupidly claimed that Russia today was imperialist becuase it was before the Revolution, I stated that despite Russia's semi-colonial character today, if it attacked breakaway nationalist movements that were not backed by imperialism, then I would be against Russia. Just as I am against Indonesia in E Timor, but would subordinate this to the defence of Indonesia if attacked by imperialism. Wake up Spartoid. Dave writes! In a war between the US and NZ I will bloc militarily with the NZ bourgeoisie. Dave Yes he would. And which side would you have blocked with in WW2 out of your little NZ perspective. This I think a realistic alternative. And which side in the Russia/Chetchenen stuff? Warm Regards Bob Malecki --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Is NZ a bloated semi-colony?
Gidday Bill, Yes NZ earned differential rent on its pastoral production for much of its history I agree. But a lot of this dissappeared into the hands of the financiers, banks etc who had the mortage on the land etc. i.e. much of it back to the motherland. That part which was retained by the owners of the best land became the capital fund for a weak national bourgeoisie which set up factories in backyard sheds with tariff protection and then state subsidies to survive. I don't take the view that NZ was part of the centre living off the British working class (like Rob Steven) or the periphery for that matter, but like most of the white-setter colonies was a 'special' sort of privileged semi-colony so long as protection was tolerated by and profitable for imperial finance capital. I would venture to say that the loss of this protection has sent NZ down the semi-colonial stakes towards a less bloated and more emaciated existence. What do you say? Dave Dave, You make the claim that surplus value has been pumped out of NZ by finance capital from the 1840's to the present I'm interested in what empirical evidence you have regarding the inflows/out flows of surplus value in the NZ economy - my impression is that for chunks of our history, for instance part of the 50's,60's and early seventies, that our agricultural produce sold at prices considerably in excess of there value in foreign markets, indicating an inflow of surplus value. Naturally I stand to be corrected on this point. cheers Bill Cochrane --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Is NZ a bloated semi-colony?
Gerry, As far as I know the Lenin criteria for imperialism/semi-colony/colony has not changed, much as the post-als would like us to believe the opposite. Surplus value pumped out of NZ by finance capital from the 1840's to the present confirms NZ as NOT imperialist, despite its relatively priviledged white aristocracy of labour. NZ is closer to Argentina which Lenin characterised as a "financial colony" of Britain. Today its financial dependency is spread over Australia, Britain, Japan and the US. I regard Australia as sub, or semi-imperialist, at most a very minor imperialist state, since it generates a relatively larger proportion of surplus outside Australia, including NZ. In reality, NZ economically is a sort of 7th state of Australia. But Australia still has considerable surplus sucked out by US, Japanese etc capital. When it comes to the crunch I would not defend Australia against any other imperialist power. Bob's understanding of imperialism is stuffed by the Sparts who don't want to take the side of semi-colonies, especially LA ones, against their own prized US, unless absolutely forced to do so by the intrusion of reality. Much easier to sell dual defeatism to the US labor aristocracy -even the middle class as its close enough to pacifism- than taking the slogan the "main enemy is at home" seriously. This dates back to the 2ww period with the SWP (US) failed to clearly pose the national question in the LA semi-colonies, especially Argentina, in relation to the US (not to mention the sell-out on the question of fascism). In other words, the Sparts use subjective categories that happen to fit in with their US chauvinist stance on the world. Fundmentally, this method is imperio-centric since it puts the consciousness of the US labor aristocracy at the centre of its world. In a war between the US and NZ I will bloc militarily with the NZ bourgeoisie. Dave Hi Dave (B). I must have missed this before: In reality these are imperialist troops (or in NZ's case of a bloated semi-colony) prepared to back up the Indonesian military if it can't keep the lid on the upsurge of mass struggles. The cross class backing they are generating at home now will serve the imperialists well if it comes to that. There is agreement between us regarding whether Australia is an imperialist nation (it is), but why do you consider NZ to be a "bloated semi-colony"? It would seem to me that if we can characterize Australia as imperialist, then we should also characterize NZ as imperialist. Jerry --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Hot Pursuit
What could have worked "quite nicely" Rob? Dave Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 05:17:02 +1000 To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: M-TH: Hot Pursuit Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] G'day George, Yep. I have to agree. Canberra is going with the military on tactics, and with the Yanks on strategy. 0/2 for mine. We're busy making something that could have worked quite nicely into something that might well get very ugly for all involved. To torture an old Australian insult, if brains were dynamite, John Howard still couldn't blow his nose. Cheers, Rob. Canberra's "hot pursuit" statement concerning invasions into West Timor ties in with the views I have expressed concerning the imperialist invasion of East Timor leading to the conflict widening to increasingly include all of Timor. As I have already said the situation is more complicated than it may appear and could lead to a very messy situation for Canberra. The Australian's Defence Minister blunder is a further indication of how unprepared and inexperienced they are diplomatically and militarily for their new role as Washington rotweiler in the Indian/ Pacific region. Warm regards George Pennefather Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site at http://homepage.tinet.ie/~beprepared/ --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Hot Pursuit
Rob replies: What could have worked "quite nicely" Rob? Just garrison the towns and feed who's left (btw: I see elsewhere that some believe the casualty figures are surprisingly low - a strange thing to say at a stage when nearly half a million people are still missing. I'm still inclined to suspect a real genocide programme was under way - and I reckon awful news awaits). Hang around while Falintil tries to make something of what's left. And then pull out, leaving East Timor to economic dependence and the mercies of whomever and whatever lies in the bush beyond the West Timorese borders (and how things pan out in Djakarta). Rob I think youve got big illusions on the "niceness" of Aussie 'jackal' imperialism. The UN was powerless to prevent the genocide for over 25 years. It had no interest in opposing the arming of Indonesia and disarming Fretilin. The UN may have saved some lives by going in belatedly, but a lot fewer than if the Falintil had not been forced under the UN agreement to refrain from self-defence. The genocide after the vote for independence, resulted from fury at the referendum backfiring on the Indonesians, and opposition to losing control of ET's resources. This could have been hugely minimised by Falintil forces had they not been neutralised by the UN and the Fretilin national bourgeois leadership. Gusmao kept his bargain with the UN and the worker and peasant ET's paid the price. What do you mean "hang around"? The terms of the UN resolution requires the disarming of Falintil! I spoke to a territorial soldier here who was all keen to sign up to go. His perspective was that the UN troops would be their for "ten years" to protect the new Gusmao/Horta government - i.e. Aussie's client state. He thought that part of the UN's role would be to train the E Timorese army. I told him that he was 25 years too late. If you think that the UN are going to allow any real independence fighters to remained armed, and then get out, you have big illusions. But now Australia has seen fit to give Asia a 'white man's burden' speech, and has compounded it with some guff about being America's local arse-kicking representatives. And then they've started talking about entering sovereign Indonesian territory, and fanning the very nationalistic bellicosity I reckon the Indonesian military hopes to exploit to bend the presidential process to its will. Howard has already been flying the old 'national service' kite, and Costello is already contemplating 'reappraising the social welfare system' to pay for a spot of rearming. Nice. Ignore the Australian working class for 25 years, and then make 'em pay for it when it's time for someone to reap what's sown. Yeah, this is much more likely. Now that the UN is in, it will stay and fight for 'western democracy' and create a phoney war against the Indonesian military which will be good for the Aussie and Kiwi governments electoral chances. ' Our Jenny' having sucked up to Clinton over APEC recently, appeared in battledress to send off the 'boys and girls'. Yeah even killing or training wogs can be gender neutral these days. Aussie workers sound just as chauvinist as kiwi workers. The UN mission in E Timor is being painted up here as akin to the Rugby World Cup, America's Cup, and the Olympics, all wrapped into one, with massive hakas performed for the TV cameras etc. Defending democracy is so politically correct. Even the union support for E T is to get their governments to send peacekeeping troops to defend 'human rights', cutting across any Aussie or Kiwi class afilliation with the E Timorese freedom fighters and the Indonesian masses. In reality these are imperialist troops (or in NZ's case of a bloated semi-colony) prepared to back up the Indonesian military if it can't keep the lid on the upsurge of mass struggles. The cross class backing they are generating at home now will serve the imperialists well if it comes to that. A lot of people are alive right now (I reckon, anyway) because we went in. Amelioration - possibly only short-term amelioration at that - seemed the limit of possibility from the off. That doesn't mean you don't give it a go - but their longer term fortunes seem to me, and always did seem to me, firmly in the hands of questionable others. Who's the "we" that "went in"? This is the language of nationalism and not class. Another way of putting this is that upward of 300,000 people are dead because Aussie and Kiwi workers did not oppose the rotten jackal servility with which their successive bourgeois governments sucked up to the Yanks and Indonesian dictators. By going in, as you put it, the bourgeosie are trying to excuse their rotten role by claiming some redemption for "our" past by "our" present actions. Its high time that we chucked this whole history of bloody complicity and "our" western racist moral superiority which we now
M-TH: (Fwd) urgent
A statement on the situation in East Timor by Communist Workers' Group of NZ. 6 September. Printed in Class Struggle # 29 September-October 1999 East Timor - A national revolution betrayed. Long before the overwhelming vote for Independence on August 30, the explosion of violence in East Timor was totally predictable. Ever since the leaders of Fretilin were forced to abandon the armed struggle for the peaceful process of UN negotiated solution, it was clear Indonesia would not give up without a fight. The Golkar regime has made no secret of its purpose in bringing in migrants and arming paramilitaries. It wants to hang on to East Timor because it is has rich resources. Its illegal occupation has been backed by the US, Australia and NZ for 24 years. In the face of this reality, to believe that it was possible to make a peaceful transition to independence is a criminal betrayal of the people of East Timor. The only course possible from the start has been for armed struggle to defend the Independent state of East Timor declared by Fretilin in 1975. In the crisis today, workers around the world must call for the right to self-defence of the East Timorese, for a total ban on any military and political support for the Indonesian regime, and demand the immediate withdrawal of all Indonesian and paramilitary forces! A Victory for the Armed Resistance? The overwhelming vote for independence has not set off massive celebrations among the 78.5% who survived 25 years of repression to vote for separation. Instead it has sparked off a mounting campaign of terror by the pro-Jakarta armed thugs. Daily reports show the onesided war being waged by the small minority of para-militaries against the mass of the population. The thugs are being allowed free reign to terrorise and murder pro-independence supporters. Their purpose is to act as stooges for the Indonesian regime to destabilise the process of secession to keep control of the territories with the richest resources in the West adjoining West Timor. This crisis is the result of nearly 25 years of Indonesian occupation and resettlement of East Timor. After many years of military campaigns to immobilise Fretilin, the downfall of Suhato brought the fate of East Timor to a head. Habibie only agreed to a referendum under pressure from the US which wants to pose as the champion of 'human rights'.. No doubt Habibie expected that the years of brutal repression and the policy of resettling migrants in East Timor would have created a majority for integration with Indonesia. Now that the result is such a resounding victory for Independence, Jakarta is attempting to once more hang onto the territory by force. It will it take the Jakarta regime until November to ratify the vote. Only then will it agree to the UN implementing the transition to independence. This gives the pro-Jakarta forces over two months in which to occupy the key regions they want to retain and to politically cleanse these regions of Independencias. When the UN finally gets into gear it will be too late to undo the genocide. Can the "West" intervene unilaterally? Yes it can. The US sidestepped the UN last year over Iraq, and more recently in unleashing the NATO bombing of Kosovo. But will it, and ought it to intervene? The peacenik left in the West, including Australian and NZ, was softened up to the point of giving backhanded support to the US in Kosovo. While opposing NATO's bombing in principle, it blamed Milosovic's "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovo for the intervention. The effect was to qualify its opposition to NATO by calling for NATO to turn itself into a 'peacekeeping' force in a soverign territory in the name of 'human rights'. The same with East Timor. While preferring a UN solution, most of the left are calling for immediate action by the US to defend the 'human rights' of the people of East Timor. This is like calling on the tiger to guard the calf. The US was the main backer, along with Australia and NZ, of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor in the first place. It is total hypocrisy or naivety at least to suppose that the biggest enemy of the declaration of Independence in 1975, can now turn around and be the defender of 'human rights'. When East Timor was abandoned by Portugal in 1975, its militant front, Fretilin, declared an independent state. The US, about to lose the war in Vietnam, and paranoid about the spread of communism (it helped Suharto to massacre of 2 milliion communists in Java in 1965) called on Suharto to suppress the Fretilin. Specifically, the US wanted to retain acces to the deep sea passage for its submarines to the south of Timor. It was this support, plus that of Australia and NZ ( the US's South Pacific lackey states) that gave Indonesia the backing it needed in the UN to cover up its murderous occupation as some sort of 'development'. Malcolm Fraser, Prime Minister of Australia defended
Re: M-TH: thaxis homepage
Yeah. Add Trotsky. Russ, I got the new codes and moved the index.html to the site and now the address to the thaxis page works. But you got to download the rest of the stuff. Just send me a note so I can post the codes to you. My computer crashed along with all the addresses. The address for thaxis page is; http://host.bip.net/thaxis Just now Russ's index page is there. The meat on the bones will come when Russ download's the rest of the stuff to the site.. Bob Thanks for setting this up Bob! I've uploaded all the materials and will begin work on the links page soon. I've kept the pages simple so that they will load quickly over a slow connection. Earlier Rob asked: G'day Russ, How was that pint(s) of Pedigree and the weekend off? Very nice, ta. Good flat, warm English beer can't be bettered, though Marstons, who brew the Pedi, have been taken over by a rival brewery. Could all turn very sour. Same thing happened to Ruddles County, which used to be brewed in Rutland, Englands smallest county. Now it's brewed elsewhere and officianados tell me it aint quite the same. Anyway, that's enough beer talk, I'm starting to sound like a member of CAMRA (the Campaign for Real Ale-, a bunch of leftish saddoes). Tell us more about these meta tags, mate. The manipulation of search engines has to be an issue for all this democratic discourse we're being promised, no? These tags are 'hidden' descriptors of the page, the contain a description of the page and a list of key words. Once a search engine has been told about the site it sends a spider (!) which records the description and logs all the key word. So, when someone does a search of the word 'marxism' it should pick up the Thaxis page. Here are the tags for the home page: META name="description" content="Marxism Thaxis: An open and moderated e-mail based forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised in both the work of Karl Marx and, more generally, the tradition(s) that work has inspired." META name="keywords" content="marx, marxism, thaxis, politics, theory, praxis, engels, lenin, leninism, revolution, revolutionary, kapital, capital, capitalism, ussr, 1917, party, communism, socialism, dialectics, historical, materialism, dialectical, karl, manifesto, discussion, e-mail, forum" Anyone want to add any more keywords or change the description? Russ --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Bolshevism lives
Hugh writes: Hugh's position is a very common one. Wish it was!! [Common enough among Trotskyists. You share it with most of the big groups that came out of the Usec plus the IS and its splinter Workers Power. Have you followed the Australian Green Left stuff on Kosovo?] [...] Dave! At a certain point the relations of production come into conflict with the forces of production, and some of the democratic rights rooted in bourgeois property become contradictory and come into conflict with themselves. Read "The Renegade Kautsky" by Lenin and "Terrorism and Communism" by Trotsky again before dismissing the defence of "basic democracy" like this. Only the greatest respect for the basics will give a revolutionary party and its fighters the respect and support needed to carry a revolution through to completion. Even politically warped forces like the Chinese Red Army, the Yugoslav partisans, and the Cuban and Vietnamese guerrillas won over the masses by the respect they showed for the rights of ordinary workers and poor people -- they were like fish in water. [Yes obviously thats where bourgeois democracy comes from. My point is not that it is invented by only by its recognition, but that it has to be 'recognised' in class terms. We do not fight for the democratic rights of fascists because they aim to smash workers. We do fight for democracy against reaction because it frees our hands to continue the fight etc etc] As the bourgeoisie and more and more of the petty-bourgeoisie desert any kind of democracy, the workers movement has to take up the banner of elementary rights -- but of course it doesn't stop with them. [Yes, but not willy nilly i.e. in the SU in 1991 it was wrong to bloc with Yeltsin on the basis of bourgeois democratic rights against the hardline stalinists on the grounds that they were Stalinist dictators, precisely because such a defence was to reintroduce those same forces and relations which we tried to so hard to reject].] But I think that in the case of Kosovo Hugh and not James is right. The history of Kosovo shows that there is a long-standing national antagonism between Serbs and Albanians which infects the workers and peasants. Most recently this has been exaccerbated by Milosovic under pressure from imperialism, so that several votes and referenda have expressed the wish for ethnic Albanians to secede from Serbia. In that sense the criterion of tactical expediency requires Serbs and workers in oppressor states to defend that right. Dave weakens his position by making it one of tactical expediency. It's one of principle, and much stronger than he imagines. [bourgeois principle yes which is why workers subordinate bourgeois democratic rights to the interests of workers revolution] The question of how this is tactically raised in the middle of an imperialist invasion has been much debated on this list. Hugh and most of the old IS Trotskyists say that Yugoslavia cannot defend itself in Kosovo. That position is putting a major condition on the defence of Yugoslavia. Whether we endorse self-determination for Kosovo or not, this cannot be advanced by the intervention of imperialism. So the Yugoslavian troops are justified in defending Yugoslavia in Kosovo against the KLA as well as NATO. Dave talks of Yugoslavia, but he means Serbia. Not even Montenegro is a really solid prop of the present rump federation any more, even though its population is clearly Serb. [ I use Yugoslavia to mean the FRY as it legally exists, and which sovereignty has been ignored by NATO. NATO will probably try to separate Montenegro from the FRY, again an imperialist intervention in the rump having taken out the prime cuts already.] Since Kosova is a nation of its own, there's no way that separating its fate from that of Serbia harms the revolutionary movement. The same thing goes for East Timor if Indonesia should be attacked. It's obvious that Serbia's policies have been so genocidal that the Kosovar Albanians welcome the NATO jackboot as a liberator. People have to learn from their own mistakes. Lots of workers in Croatia and other parts of the old Yugoslavia thought that dissolution and capitalism would give them the capital and progress they craved. They were credulous and gullible. But they know better now, when their wages buy them milk and bread and little else. [This is the critical question. If imperialism had not intervened in Yugslavia in the mid 80's, and if it had not imposed its will since late 1998 on Kosovo, it would be true to say that the immediate secession of Kosovo has to be supported. However, that is not the reality. Its not obvious at all that Serbia's policies have pushed most people into the arms of NATO. The extremes on both sides have been pushed forward at the expense of the moderates as a result of NATO. First by wrecking the more moderate line and UN settlement agreed by the Serbs; then imposing Rambo yeh! on a new
M-TH: NATO wins
There has been a lot of rubbish written about this war. Most of it qualifying NATO's role in stopping Milosovic. NATO has won. Yugoslavia is defeated. Now we are getting bullshit from the same left saying that NATO's war has been stopped by a rising tide of public opinion pushing for a UNO solution. This echoes Milosovic attempt to present a defeat as victory. Most of the West left intelligentsia are saying that this outcome could have been avoided were it not for bloodyminded US and UK politicians/generals. Marxists do not indulge themselves in fantasies that paint up defeats as victories. As we have noted many times on these lists, the attack on Yugoslavia is a continuation of the Cold War to finish off what is perceived by the imperialist ruling classes as the threat of "communism". This war was planned in essence in 1917. It did not spring from the twisted minds of a few Western politicians, even social democratic ones. It didnt even flow from the cesspit of Eurocentric racism. Racism, real as it is, is not a sufficient explanation for imperialist war for Marxists. NATO now occupies Kosovo, and there can be no freedom for Kosovo while that is the case. The social imperialist left acted as left cover for NATO by demanding that Yugoslavia defend itself against NATO but not in Kosovo - the very issue over which the civil war was being fought. This is not unconditional defence of Yugoslavia. This is a pathetic adaptation to the racist anti-Serb media war which NATO ran to justify its illegal war. As a result, the mass of workers in the main imperialist countries went along with this and refused to mobilise against the war. Only in Greece, and to a lesser extent in Italy, did we see genuine worker mobilisations and worker defence of Yugoslavia. This defeat sets the precedent for NATO to intervene in any civil war on the pretext of defence of human rights and democracy. Worse than that, NATO has now got Security Council restrospective legitimacy for its dirty war. The relative weakness of Russia and China has allowed the West to bully these oppressed states into ratifying NATO's bloody war. Imperialism can now plan to use NATO at any time to defeat any opposition to its imperialist adventures in Eastern Europe and Asia including Russia and China! The lessons we need to learn from this defeat is that the Western so-called Trotskyist left as well as the old Stalinist left has all but given up the defence of the international working class in preference for providing moralising cover for their own ruling classes. We can expect it to go along with a succession of national wars where imperialism steps in to restore democracy with a few thousand missiles. Next in their sights must be the breakup of Russia and China. What is left of the left had better get its act right and prepare to fight in anti-imperialist military blocs with nationalist dictators against the main enemy in a number of impending wars. Imperialism is the epoch of war and revolution! For anti-imperialist united fronts! In the imperialist countries them main enemy is always at home! Dave Bedggood Communist Workers Group. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: What Next?
(6) China is still a DWS. Its route to restoration has been the slow path controlled by the bureaucracy. But further pressure may slow down and even reverse this process. But even if China speeds up the process, converts its currency and lets the Law of Value rip, it, like Russia today, would be a large semi-colony. (7) Russia today is a capitalist semi-colony. Lenin regarded Russia under the Tsar as an imperialist country because despite its super-exploitation by European imperialism, it was politically expansionist. Had the revolution not happened in 1917, Russia would quickly have sunk into colonial or semi-colonial status, just like China before the war. Today it has reverted to that status. (8) These developments will require Trotskyists to stand firmly on the Anti-Imperialist United Front as did Trotsky in China in the 1920's. We bloc militarily with the national bourgeoisie to defend democracy against imperialism, but maintain our armed independence and defend democratic rights internally so as to prepare the ground for permanent revolution. (9) Trotskyist groups that want to participate in regroupment should do so by debating the major points which determine world events at the moment, and subject their programme to the test of these events. Dave Bedggood. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Paragraph on Balkans
John wrote: Dave wrote: Kosovars should defend themselves also against any Serb oppression. Surely they are defending themselves by calling on the assistance of NATO to arm and fight for them. You might not agree but that was their decision. We do not support ANY action by imperialism. Kosovars can chose to call on NATO but they will learn that this will be worse than Serb oppression which itself is caused by imperialism. We hope that multiethnic militias can stop Serb oppression and unite workers against imperialism. Communists should always remain optomistic but we should never rely on HOPE. Revolutions are not built on hope but on analysis and action. Hope should be left to the Social(ist) Democrats and the religious who are so much better at it. I didnt say we should rely on hope. we have to spell out the ABC's of communist leadership in oppressed countries as well. Otherwise workers will fall into the trap of popular fronts with their bourgeoisies. So what you are saying is that, unless they are directed by the left in the imperialist countries (who have dramatically failed to build any serious Anti-Imperialist movement) then those fighting in the oppressed countries will fail. This seems to fly in the face of Marx and Engels' post-1848 position, when they agreed that Ireland was the key to revolution in Britain not the other way round. This appears to have been proved correct by the example of Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam etc. who have shown that it is the workers of the oppressed nations who are the most revolutionary in practice. It should be us who follow their lead, their action and their ability to come to the right decisions without the benefit of 'western education'. This is even more so when interferring in their struggle in a situation they clearly know best. No I said nothing about directing the struggle in oppressed countries from the oppressor countries. Communists have an international programme and have to build an international party in both oppressed and oppressor countries. "We" therefore are not located in any specific country. The struggle of workers and poor peasants in oppressed countries has to be taken up and supported by workers in the oppressor countries so that imperialism is smashed at home. Dave --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: paragraph on Balkans
Rob rote, G'day Dave, A quibble ... You write: When NATO and imperialism are defeated or out of the Balkans, we can call for the implementation of self-determination for Kosovo. It may be that the result will be a Kosovar Socialist Republic in a Balkan Federation which will include Serbia, Croatia and Albania. I honestly can't see any such thing in the offing - certainly not in the chronological order you seem to posit. If NATO leaves the scene as things are (and they're not likely to leave till they're a sight worse), the Kosovars wouldn't be able to get back. Remember, those hapless Krajina Serbs still need somewhere to live; Milo will still be in the chair (and as the new hero of Kosovo-Polje at that - no chance of a popular movement unseating him then); many of the Albanian Kosovars are spread all over the globe, and won't be too keen to consign their kids' futures to the tender mercies of a cocky Serbian government (and they'd come close to qualifying for even the west's definition of 'refugee'); and Russian popular opinion will be behind a Greater Serbia policy to the hilt - their wounded pride finding succour in NATO's defeat. We can call for whatever we want then, Dave. We won't get it, and we'll look a right bunch of charlies to boot (no offence, Chas). [The point it that we have to be for the victory of Yugoslavia, DESPITE Milosovic. The reason is that Milosovic is a national bourgeois who is kept in place by imperialism. A military bloc with Milosovic against NATO and the KLA (Hugh's point that the KLA are a legitimate independence movement does not hold after Rambo-yeh.) will help to limit NATO's victory and strengthen Yugoslavia's defence, so that the deal that Milosovic makes will be less destructive to workers everywhere. But evenso, his deal with NATO will expose him to workers, just as the KLA deal has done, or will do increasingly as it is obvious that NATO has destroyed their independence movement. On the question of calling for something but not being in the position to get it. How do you know if you don't try? When Bosnia was partitioned by Germany and the US (with not much help from Milosovic) it was against a strong multiethnic opposition. That unity can be rebuilt with the correct tactics. The obvious way to do it is to strengthen the multiethnic elements in the Yugoslav army, build multiethnic militias in Kosovo to defend Kosovar Albanians and Serbs from both NATO and the Serb paramilitaries. This is the only class basis on which to defend Yugoslavia and at the same time defend the national rights of Kosovars. ] The likely alternative to NATO victory is a Milosovich victory - he'll be bigger than Lazar! That's the hole into which NATO has dug itself - and everybody else. [Milosovic victory will be short lived as I argue above, his class interests in league with imperialism will be increasingly exposed to workers and the appeal of the social democrats will be the weaker having just been bombed shitless by the Euro SDs and Greens.] And Croatia is about as likely to join hands with Serbia, socialist or not, as I am likely to stop smoking. [Already more and more Croatians are fed up with the Tudjman regime and the old 'communists' are making a come back as they see Croatia's dependence on imperialism wrecking the economy. This gives Trotskyists the opportunity to split away the left of the communists around real working class struggles] This isn't an argument against stopping the bombing at all (take note, Chris). The bombing is what got us to this state of possibilities, and it exacerbates the situation the longer it continues. And, let's not forget, it butchers innocent people and destroys lives. All theory aside, stopping the bombing has to be a priority for any civilised human being. The upshot of a NATO defeat (as Milosovich triumph) would be the popular media scapegoat hunt and its likely consequences. The new member states, Greece and maybe one or two others might find it politically impossible to stay in NATO, and Britain and the US would be on the outer. The US Right would benefit (but what's the difference?), but an altogether more gratifying soul search might happen in Britain, where the Right currently backs Blair right up to all-out war (do these people have ANY FUCKING IDEA how Russian popular opinion is reacting to this (correctly) perceived assault on their sovereignty - do they realise a three-star general is now ensconced in the Moscow chair?). [Stopping the bombing is only the start. It does not stop a 'peace deal' with the UN partitioning Kosovo a la Rambo yeh! That's why workers defence of Yugoslavia is the only correct strategy everywhere. If Greece and some of the others pull out of NATO, and the Russians stand up to NATO, that will be because their workers force them to do so, against the chauvinists whose class interests are tied to imperialism.] Defending Yugoslavia does
Re: M-TH: Re: paragraph on Balkans
John Walker wrote: Just a BRIEF reply to Dave's reply to Rob. Without wanting to sound too sectarian there were a few points in the repy which don't seem to make much sense to me. The arguement appears to be that we should defend Yugoslavia as well as supporting the right of Kosovars to defend themselves. Rob's 'dual defeatism' seems to be replaced by 'dual defence-ism'. Is this you position and is it consistant with reality. As for the Trotskyist rhetoric of: in the Yugoslav army the rank-and-file have to organise to take control of the army; to encourage the formation of multi-ethnic militia; to act against any reactionary paramilitaries engaged in ethnic cleansing; and to call for a truce if and when it is necessary for the workers movement to survive. Communists lead this movement by forming cells in the army and in militias and workers councils. I do not care much for Left-ists in the Imperialist counteries issuing political strategies to comrades in a far more difficult and critical situation in oppressed countries. One final more general point is one the varing responses of the left. In Britain the support for Yugoslavia is coming from the Old Pro- Soviet Communist Parties with the bulk of the left remaining relatively neutral and the Trotskyist Workers Power isolated in its support for the KLA while opposing NATO. What are other comrades experience (as opposed to their own positions. Regards, John Walker In response to John; 1. Dual defensism? Defense against imperialism takes priority. But Kosovars should defend themselves also against any Serb oppression. We hope that multiethnic militias can stop Serb oppression and unite workers against imperialism. Is this consistent with reality? Well, what else is? The 'reality' of today has been imperialism's revival of old ethnic differences. Only the united working class can overcome these differences in a new 'reality' of socialist federations. 2. Communist 'rhetoric'. John should know that communists must have a programme for all situations. In this situation it is the anti-imperialist united front. I might be located in NZ but the international tendency I belong to is spread over a number of countries. I agree that communists in oppressor countries have a first duty to mobilise their working class against NATO. But we also have to spell out the ABC's of communist leadership in oppressed countries as well. Otherwise workers will fall into the trap of popular fronts with their bourgeoisies. 3. Most of the left is correct in giving unconditional support to Yugoslavia. Those who put conditions on this either by opposing Milosovic or supporting the KLA are offering a helping hand to NATO. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: paragraph on Balkans
It seems that the debate on the war on MTh has stalled without many recognising the truth of the Trotskyist position argued early on in the war. The elementary truth of imperialist oppression and the Anti-imperialist united front necessary to defeat it seems to have got lost in the thaxis. Rob's position has the air of not wanting to take sides for fear of being sucked into pre-modernist extremes. George argues for duel defeatism. But these are positions which allow NATO to get away with murder. We are already sucked into barbarism by rotten reactionary imperialism which cannot make everyone modern. Only socialism can do that. Therefore we have to take a side in every question by assessing the gains for the working class so that it can advance to socialism. On Yugoslavia the Trotskyist position is clear - unconditional defence of Yugoslavia against NATO. Yugoslavia is oppressed by imperialism - the main enemy. A defeat for Yugoslavia will be a defeat for workers everywhere, including Kosovo. A victory for Yugoslavia will only be possible if Yugoslav workers and soldiers combine with the workers in the NATO countries and their lackeys like Australia and NZ, and force NATO out. Militant international workers action against NATO is the only course. Only that will create the conditions for socialism and the end to the horrors Rob wants to avoid. Defending Yugoslavia does not mean capitulating to nationalism. On the contrary, imperialism keeps nationalism alive as a means of divide and rule. The national question is the class question. The Balkanisation of Yugoslavia is NATO's testing ground for the Balkanisastion of the whole of Asia. By defending Yugoslavia workers in the NATO countries have to renounce their own nationalism because they are similtaneously calling for the defeat of their "own" countries. Hence workers in oppressor countries must overcome their nationalism to defend Yugoslavia. Workers in oppressed countries (like the Serbs and Kosovars) have the right to defend themselves. That's why we call for the right of self-defence and multi-ethnic militias which includes Serbs and ethnic Albanians. When NATO and imperialism are defeated or out of the Balkans, we can call for the implementation of self-determination for Kosovo. It may be that the result will be a Kosovar Socialist Republic in a Balkan Federation which will include Serbia, Croatia and Albania. (On this question, a recent Los Angeles Times article reports that 1,000s of military age Kosovar men are free in northern Kosovo without any sign of oppression. If that is the case in the middle of a NATO war, that is a sign of hope that Serbs and ethnic Albanians can settle the Kosovo question by getting together to get rid of their respective bourgeois misleaders). Defending Yugoslavia does not mean agreeing with Milosovic. On the contrary, Milosovic cannot and will not defend Yugoslavia because he has a class interest in profiteering from its oppression by imperialism. He is about to do a deal with NATO and is looking for a face-saving formula. However, while Milosovic is leading the army and defending Yugoslavia a military bloc with him is necessary. The lessons of the Anti-Imperialist United Front beginning with the case of China in the 1920's are vital here. In any military bloc with Milosovic, the workers must maintain their armed independence. Thus, in the Yugoslav army the rank-and-file have to organise to take control of the army; to encourage the formation of multi-ethnic militia; to act against any reactionary paramilitaries engaged in ethnic cleansing; and to call for a truce if and when it is necessary for the workers movement to survive. Communists lead this movement by forming cells in the army and in militias and workers councils. Dave Bedggood In response to Rob, my expaination would be that with the collapse of the socialist bloc, and the catastophic effects of capitalism on Russia, Imperialism (in the dual guise NATO the EU) is attempting to pick off all of Russia's neighbours before it has chance to recover. Yugoslavia was the only bulwalk to this advance eastwards (completing the West's 1939-45 war aims). Like in the old Austro- Hungary, they aim to cut it up redistribute it to border states and so isolate and weaken Russia. A Marxist response is far than obvious to me. Other than all out support for Y.C.P., as some argue (we can't support the KLA), there is no real group to support (like Kashmir) and we are left merely hurling abuse at NATO. All fair comment, John. Of course, the west is paying a big price for all this. You can destroy economies, oppose neighbours to each other, manipulate leaderships, discipline labour, and control economic policies, but you can't make people like you. I still think buying them off would have been a better idea (and a lot cheaper) for the imperialists than blowing them away. Another few decades o
Re: SV: M-TH: Revolutionary situations? -- Never heard of 'em...
In reply to Bob I think he is cutting and pasting history when he says that we are back pre-1914. This is like saying that today Russia is imperialist and that the redbrowns in Russia are the equivalent of the Nazis. Objectively and subjectively we are way ahead of 1914. Objectively, 1917 has created a legacy which will speed up capitalism's demise. In 1914 most of the world was yet to feel the full effects of the world market and capitalist social relations. Russia, the East and the whole colonial world has had another 80 years of capitalism and developed a proletariat that has the potential to dig capitalism's grave everywhere. Restoration of capitalism has come up against big problems especially since it coincides with yet another world crisis of overaccumulation which cannot call forth Marshall plans but rather has to impose massive destruction of the historic gains of workers. So objectively the historic defeat of 1991/1992 has yet to wind the clock back to 1940 let alone 1914. The US/NATO is doing its best to totally erase the last remnants of post-capitalist society, but it has to use force and that is generating massive opposition in the Eastern bloc, and elsewhere outside the Western Alliance. In other words while 1991 was a world historic counter-revolution it only exaccerbated the objective over-ripeness of imperialism. Subjectively, we are not back to 1917 either. 1917 gave us a revolution in a backward country. It was held back by the completion of the bourgeois revolution in Germany at the hands of mutinying troops and striking workers. Since then most of the world has experienced decolonisation and/or degenerated workers states. You could say that capitalism still had tasks to complete. The 2nd WW was defeat, but it cost imperialism Eastern Europe and China and the decolonisation of the 3rd world. These bourgeois or post-capitalist revolutions won democratic rights, mass workers organisations and welfare states. Despite the counter-revolution of the late 80's and 90's in the East and the onset of a NATO world order, the gains made by the masses in the 80 years since October have yet to be rolled back. Therefore the problem today is not one of a return to 1914 either in objective or subjective terms, but the ongoing crisis of revolutionary leadership. Even here we are not back to 1940 yet. Stalinism was the major barrier to the 4I until recently. Despite its degeneration, the elements of post-war Trotskyism have the seeds of a new international which can rapidly form a new world party. Many of us understand the need for a party capable of uniting objective and subjective realities through a revolutionary programme. We have a crucial test of those Trotskyist elements in the current NATO war against Yugoslavia. The task is to block the military counter-revolution that NATO is embarking on. This is the continuation of the counter-revolution of 1918 - to eliminate any vestige of a post-capitalist alternative to capitalism. Not satisfied with restoring the market, imperialism has to remove any political challenge to its direct domination in the ex-workers states. Today NATO draws the line in blood in Yugoslavia. A victory against Yugoslavia will allow NATO to impose military solutions in every region where it forments nationalist splinters to setup compliant client states. After Yugoslavia it will be the CIS and then China. We can see that workers all around the world are spontaneously coming to the defence of Yugoslavia. Most are not all Stalinists or apologists for Milosovic. They recognise the fundamental principle that a victory for imperialism will be another nail in the coffin of the revolution. The crucial test for these elements who what to make up the new vanguard is how to mobilise this opposition to NATO along working class lines. As well as rejecting the SD solutions of UN/OSCE (e.g. break from the pro- bourgeois leaderships of the USEC and IGMETAL), we have to separate ourselves from all those on the centrist left who want to put conditions on the defence of Yugoslavia either by supporting the KLA or refusing a military bloc with Milosovic (mainly the Stalinophobe pro imperialist democracy left). The revolutionary unity of objective (crisis-ridden imperialism smashing ex-workers state) with the subjective (workers unconditional defence of Yugoslavia) is possible with a programme of mobilising independent international working class action against NATO. Inside Yugoslavia this is expressed by building multi-ethnic militia; outside, by militant strike action against NATO forces as Greek and Italian workers show us the way. Dave --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: China and law of value.
Simon writes, Dear all, Stop me if you've heard this before - but surely, all capitalism plans extensively? To argue that an economy is planned does not stop it from being capitalist. And on the suspension of the Law of Value - you can suspend prices, if you like, and pretend that they don't exist, but you can't suspend the law of value because workers are still working for a wage! Capitalist planning like the welfare state distorts the market and therefore the operation of the LOV. It doesnt suspend it. The workers states did suspend the LOV by replacing the market as the mechanism of allocating prices, fluctuating around value, with administered prices which bear no relation to the socially necessary labour time required to produce goods and services under capitalism. The critical point, is that the LOV does not operate historically outside capitalism because labour power is not a commodity. Workers can be paid a wage in a workers state, but that does not signify that their labour-power is being sold as a commodity. For labour power to be a commodity its value must be set by the socially necessary labour time required to reproduce it. This is determined like the value of all other commodities by the LOV i.e. the mechanism of the market, no matter how distorted by state interevention etc. Value and the LOV is specific to capitalism. This is what allows capitalism to develop the forces of production as capitalists compete to reduce necessary labour time. This is not the case in the degenerated workers states, despite the surface forms of wages, exchange and what you call "value". It is because value is absent in the degenerated workers states (since by definition their degeneration removed the role of democratic workers planning allocating labour time efficiently to overcome scarcity and because they necessarily degenerated and collapsed) that the bureaucrats/bourgeois were despearate to re-establish the LOV. And peasants are still making payments at the farm gate that, even if paid in wheat and pigs, are based upon their value. Or even if you removed money entirely, commodities would still be produced and have value, as per classic Marxism. Except this simple commodity capitalist production was not an actual historical stage in the development of capitalism, rather a logical stage in the development of capitalism. It cannot be capitalism because it lacks generalised commodity production (wage labour as commodity). Petty capitalist production especially in agriculture like the NEP in Russia did not mean that the dominant character of the economy was driven by capital because the plan determined prices not the LOV. That is why the pressure to restore capitalism in China is itself an acknowledgment that the suspension of the LOVcould not develop the forces of production. Failing a political revolution which puts workers in power, the bureaucrats are forced to rejoin the global capitalist economy and allow the biggest TNC's in communications, banking, insurance etc to buy up massive chunks of the state sector. When this happens to the point that these TNC's demand that China converts its currency (allowing the LOV to set prices across the whole of China) provide insurance and commercial law to protect investment, then we can say the LOV rules. I went back to read the section in W,P +P on this. "We arrive, therefore, at this conclusion. A commodity has value, because it is a crystallisation of social labour...The relative values of commodities are, therefore, determined by the respective quantities or amounts of labour, worked up, realised, fixed in them." (Wages, Price and Profit) Note that Marx talks of "social labour". This does not mean all societies throughout history. It means commodity producing society which for him means only the society that is characterised by "generalised production of commodities" capitalism. There is nothing in here which requires the price mechanism, which is effectively one way that the ruling class divides up the surplus between themselves in an "agreed" upon manner. In a system where relationship to society's surplus is political, then that society will focus more on these ties and less on prices. In this case, access to the vanguard party is the means to the surplus. Better to read Capital where its clear that value cannot be realised except as a price. Nor does this mean that the ruling class can suspend the LOV to "agree" on dividing surplus value (profits in practice) and remain capitalist. It it does this by definition means that its rule is not by means of the ownership of the means of production, but through political control of them, and this makes them not a class but a caste. Where the caste defines itself in terms of a vanguard party, this is clearly not what a revolutionary calls a vanguard party. If a Chinese worker produces three bicycles a day, and
