SV: M-TH: Washington and Moscow
Dave replies... > 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. Well,I don't think that the transition going the other way can be explained by claiming that Russia with its history has become a semi colony. And to say that the "economy has collapsed" must be seen in the context of that it is the planned economy that has collapsed and what is coming out of the ruins is another economy with definite class interests. And yes in Afghanistan we still had a degenerated workers state in the Soviet Union and thus the need to defend it, but to claim that the present war in Chetchenya is "defensive" I find quite mind boggling. There are quite a number of scenarios of why this war and the least viable is defensive. Some even say the bombings in Mosco were the work of thgose who needed a war to consolidate Russia. And if you claim the economy being saved by this war I certainly would like to know which economy? > > 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. Naturally various imperialist powers are using this stuff in there own interests. But this certainly does not exclude that the Russians themselves have there own imperialist intentions. In fact one of the big side issues in this war is the message coming from the Kremlin that the west has no business telling the Russians how to deal with this stuff. The latest interesting turn was Yeltsin walking out of the recent meeting with a loud clamour. Leaving the OSSE meeting in a shambles.. > 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 Islamic bourgeoisie? Only by > putting the demand for Chechen self-determination to Russian workers > and troops. That's the only way to unite Russian and Chechen masses > against both of their bourgeoisies and to fight for a Socialist > Federation of the former Soviet Union. Well I think the central task is tell inform the Russian workers and soldiers that the main enemy is at home. > > D > What's the confusion about Russia as a capitalist semi-colony? Its > not a workers state, and its not an imperialist state. Its in a > transition which is more likely to see it collapse and fragment > further under imperialist pressure, than become an imperialist state. > Its you who are confusionist. Well tell me now that we live in a vacum. The "Russian" economy has collapsed. No the Soviet Union and its economy has collapsed and in its place there is something else. This you can not describe for me other then being some sort of semi colony. You are empirically labeling the destitution of the masses in the former Soviet Union as semi colonialoist without taking into question the entire new counter revolutionary segments of society that have taken over and are quite successful and philthy rich because of the overturn. However this is not enoug
SV: M-TH: Washington and Moscow
Chris interestling writes. > > > On the main theoretical difference between Dave and Bob, I am alarmed to > find myself agreeing with both of them. Rather than argue however between > Russia as a developing imperialist state or as a colony, I would like to > suggest a formula I heard at a seminar on the world economy in London 8 > days ago. It was from someone from a Trotskyist background. It was that > there are such things as sub-imperialisms. The definition would be where > the entity keeps some share of surplus value for itself. Interesting take. How would you characterized countries like India,Pakistan. With Russia we are dealing with a country in transition from a degenerated workers state to what? Is the question. A quite new and extremely difficult question. > I think despite our many other differences all of us can see that the West > has been particularly soft on Yeltsin for entirely discreditable reasons. > It is essentially allowing him to play the idea of becoming a > sub-imperialism. They calculate that he will have to compromise and accept > a subordinate position within a global capitalism dominated by the US. I doubt in the long run that imperialism is united or agree on Russia. The destruction of the SU has unfortunately put us back in pre 1914 positions albut with nuclear weapons. > > BTW I note contributors denouncing the possibility of a western > "humanitarian intervention" into Chechnya. What you are not distinguishing > is between a military attack and financial pressure, of the sort that got > the Indonesian troops to withdraw from East Timor. It is quite clear that > the west could have imposed the latter, and for *imperialist* reasons > decided not to. They would rather do business with a corrupt Yeltsin/Putin > regime that oppresses subject nationalities, than a lefter Primakov type > regime. "humanitarian" intervention has nothing to do with what is going on. This is a struggle for positions before the next buig round. > > Perhaps Dave or Bob will not buy it, but what about "sub-imperialism" as a > relevant half-way concept for what Russia under Yeltsin is trying to achieve? Well to put a label on it I like the capitalist Russia with imperialist intentions. Perhaps capitalism in the accumilating stage which in a sense is as impossible as the colonial bourgeoisie being able to carry out the democratic aspects of a bourgeois revolution in the imperialist stage of development. I say that sub-imperialism, as well as a democratic capialist regime in Russia is impossible! You know this reminds me of the theory of peremanent revolution albut in a situation which in history is entirely new to us. I mean this is the first time we are confronted with capitalist counter revolutions in the degenerated and deformed workers states. Bob --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
SV: M-TH: Washington and Moscow
Dave writes.. > Burford's analysis of Chechyna starts from the proposition that both > OSCE (the European end of the Atlantic alliance) and Russia are > imperialist. George is closer to the truth when he recognises that > Russia is making a concession to imperialism. This is not only > because Russia is weak and isolated, but because it is a restored > capitalist semi-colony of US and EU imperialism. Who are you kidding with thuis bullshit Dave? The poor little Russia scenario you are trying to clue into your "anti-imperialist" united front methodology has nothing to do with a "Trotskyist" perspective. Russia is clearly acting like an imperialist wannabe and is wheeling and dealing with other imperialist powers hardly because it is a semi colony to USA imperialism but in its *own* imperialist wannabe intentions. In the Yugoslavian stuff Russia clearly was making wheeling and dealing with the Germans. And now with the Chetchenian stuff it is hardly Russia who is making a concession but the Americans fearing that the Germans might get in to the Caucasis. > > It is true that imperialism is indulging Russia, but that is because > it has larger fish to fry. Not only keeping the pro-West > Yeltsin/Putin in power, but also keeping the Russian Federation a > Federation, not a mass of fragments. It knows damn well that the > Russian army is a better bet in guaranteeing US oil investments and > the pipelines in the Caspian and Caucasus, than a bunch of Islamic > warlords. More bullshit. As if poor little Russia would defend American interests. In fact the Americans are supporting or were supporting a lot of these regimes just against Russia. Like in Afghanistan and certainly the southern belly of the ex SU. The real action is the conflict between the Germans and Americans and which side the imperialist wannabes wind up in the coming confrontation. The only thing the Americans support is their *own* interests and certainly would block with anybody whether warlord or Russian against the Germans getting influence in the area. And wanna bet that if the Americans get to much influence that we will see a turn in diplomatic relations by the Russians towards Germany? This proves that Russia is hardly a semi colony but a capitalist country with imperialist ambitions and will play all sides of the fence to defend its *own* interests... > > The correct position in this situation is to condemn Russia's > invasion of Chechyna, and recognise its independence, but without > given any support to imperialist intervention including > 'humanitarian' interventions. By making these demands on Russian > workers and troops, there is the possibility that a workers > opposition to the war can join forces with Chechen workers and > peasants against both the new Russian bourgeoisie, and the new > Chechen bourgeoisie. > Dave More bullshit. Certainly we recognize the right to self determination for the Chetchenyan peoples against the imperialist wannabe attack by the Russians. However no support to either side who on the one hand want to create a new imperialist Russia and on the other a pro Islamic capitalist republic. In fact in this war the main enemy is at home! But your line is confusionist and some sort of anti war popularlist in that on the one hand you say that Russia is a semi colony fighting for its right to become a nation against imperialism instead of realizing that Russia has become a capitalist state through capitalist counter revolution and is now on the road of imperialist wannabe. You are trying to put Russia in the slot of China in the twenties rather then seeing that capitalist counter revolution does not equal this but something quite different then we have seen before in history. That is the evolement of the ex degenerated workers state towards becoming once again and imperialist power or take the world down trying.There ain't no way in the world you can justify this line except by adapting Trotskyism or Leninism to the politics of the Mensheviks betwen Feb. and October at best. But then they had the fuedalist relations and czar to lean on. You my friend only have your false conception of and anti imperialist united front and the only thing it will get you is your organization supporting Russian war credits in the future imperialisat war. You are in fact the reverse side of Chrs's arguement in a sense. Chris I believe argues imperialism on Russias part so that he can support his own British humanitarian solution in the coming war while you take the side of the Russian rulers and their imperialisat intentions by covering for them from the left screaming they are a semi colonial country.Both lines are comparible in their social patriotic stance and will mean that you will go tell the workers to die defending someting which is hardly in their interests.Futhermore... Well even Lenin under the czar never did that despite the backwardness of Russia.
