Tuesday 12 July 2011

A reply to Sian Ruddick on Syria in this week's Socialist Worker

SIAN RUDDICK’S ARTICLE SHOWS BY NOT FOLLOWING A TROTSKYIST METHOD MEANS SHE CANNOT SEE THE FULL ROLE OF IMPERIALISM WITHIN SYRIA! BY ANTHONY BRAIN


It is hard to know from afar all the complexities of Syria. What I read on Wikipedia two months ago which had a daily timeline (with all the reservations about reliability) was that it seemed to me that counter-revolutionary elements were prevailing indicated by their support for counter-revolutionaries within Libya and some of them calling for Imperialist intervention to overthrow the Assad regime. I do not know if there are protests to the left of Assad.


Ruddick is repeating the same methodological errors on Libya as Syria in not seeing the role of Imperialism. These mistakes flow from not applying the Leninist-Trotskyist analysis of why Imperialism partly intervenes within the semi-Colonies to overthrow autumous Bourgeois Nationalist regimes in order to make even bigger super-profits by acquiring greater ownerships of precious natural resources and other sectors of their economies.


On the workers’ states the British SWP which Ruddick is a leader are in conflict with the Trotskyist scientific analysis of contradictions within transitional societies. The logic of “State Capitalism” is to take an abstentionist position on conflicts between workers’ states and pro-Capitalist/Imperialist forces. Due to not recognising the workers’ states and attempts by pro-Capitalist forces to overthrow them can lead to opportunist positions which lead to class lines being crossed. It is not the science of Marxism which determines the SWP’s ziz-zags on these questions but social pressures. Due to the historic lack of internationalism which Stalinist crimes have assisted the main pressures on the SWP leadership are from its middle class composition.


As the Trotskyists around Cannon argued the workers who do not have clear politics of their own carry out someone else’s politics which represent alien class pressures. This is most clearly seen by Dave Crouch supporting the Orange counter-revolutionaries during 2004 in Ukraine. There were some extremely counter-revolutionary elements even of a semi-Fascist anti-Semitic character. Bob Wood in Marxmail documented the role of these elements at the time. It is the only question in knowing Wood since 1993 I have agreed with him. Chris Harman opposed Crouch in supporting the Orange counter-revolutionaries but had a classic “State Capitalist” line of abstentionist neutrality between pro-Capitalist forces trying to deepen Capitalist restoration by supporting concillationist elements within the Ukrainian Bureaucracy to Imperialism and those Bureaucrats who want to maintain the workers’ state due to their privileges being rooted there. The Miners from Eastern Ukraine were in the heart of a fight against the Orange counter-revolutionaries.


As Mandel pointed out since the 1960s “State Capitalist” politics is totally inconsistent which ranges from abstentionist to those who become pro-Imperialist to others who defend workers’ states in practice against Imperialism with examples of supporting NLF/North Vietnam in their war with Imperialism or defending Serbia against NATO bombing during 1999.


There are three other examples of the British IS/SWP leadership having contradictory positions on the workers’ states. Peter Sedgewick on 5th August 1966 wrote a letter to Labour Weekly (Socialist Worker’s predecessor – available under Sedgewick on Marxist Internet Archive) entitled “Victory for the Vietcong: Is it the right slogan” trying to undermine Ian Birchall’s left turn of supporting the NLF against Imperialism. This letter was so Stalinphobic that he raised objections to carrying Red Flags in case it was confused with Stalinism. The title of the letter showed an adaptation to Imperialist language in calling NLF V.C.!


On the question of how to build a united front for unconditional withdraw of Imperialist troops from Vietnam it was sectarian to base the VSC campaign as its main slogan; victory for the NLF! Before the American SWP supporters set up the tendency within the International Marxist Group in 1970 I am told by comrades who went through this experience that John Steele convinced them that it was Ultra-Left for the VSC to make victory to the NLF the basis of that campaign. He convinced them that they should base the anti-War campaign like the American anti-war movement by calling for immediate American withdraw of its armed forces from Vietnam! and end British complicity with America’s war with Vietnam!


The British SWP leadership had two contradictory lines on the Capitalist inroads into Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states. From 1992 to 1999 they argued it was an abstentionist line of saying it was just one form of Capitalism replacing another. Then under pressure of the anti-Globalization movement they did a left turn of opposing the inroads for setting back those economies. There were differences between Alex Callinicos and Lindsay German on the Russian-Georgian war of 2008. German had an abstentionist line of seeing it as “Inter-Imperialist”! Callinicos saw the decisive military victory of Russia over Georgia as a major blow to Imperialist attempts at world dominance. Pragmatically he moved to the correct analysis due to the pro-Russian sentiment even among Muslims the SWP were working in a united front within Stop the War Coalition due to them standing up in particular to American Imperialist attempts to dominate the world. That line by Callinicos contradicts “State Capitalist” theory and Russia is “just another Imperialist power!” which he normally argues.


The British SWP and their predecessors have this range of positions with considerable vacillations depending on social pressures. Since 1971/2 there has been a bureaucratic centralist leadership except when there is a falling out among their central leadership clique for example when John Ress lost the leadership there was some democratic debate as several cliques had to win the maximum numbers to several organisations in embryo. This is what happened when the Healyite leadership of the WRP imploded during 1985. Outside of that situation dissent is not tolerated within the SWP.


Trotskyism analyses through applying the law of Uneven and Combined Development all the contradictions within semi-Colonial countries the contradictions of Imperialist super-exploitation; Bourgeoisie and semi-Feudal elements while maintaining Imperialist dominance competing sectional interests between those coming into conflict with Imperialism or comprador Bourgeois elements fighting them on behalf of Imperialism; oppressed nationalities/religions/tribes; and the urban middle/rural middle classes; and the working class potentially fighting for our programme of Permanent Revolution. Ruddick’s methodology of seeing every upheaval in North Africa and Middle East as the same is in conflict with the Marxist method of Dialectical and Historical Materialism which sees contradictory forces fighting it out for different class or fractions of classes’ interests.


Most of the Middle East upheavals are anti-Imperialist as the working and middle class are going into struggle against Imperialist super-exploitation which is rapidly pauperizing them. In Libya and Syria Imperialism are trying to overthrow autumous Bourgeois Nationalist regimes which stop Imperialism totally dominating these countries. Trotskyists distinguish between pro-Imperialist attempts to attempt political counter-revolutions overthrowing autumous Bourgeois Nationalist regimes and movements challenging them from the left which opens space for the workers to fight for Socialist revolutions. If there was a serious threat of Socialist revolution in Syria Imperialism would pull back and close ranks behind the Assad regime to crush it.


Ruddick is still under the Petty-Bourgeois Democrats pressure when she makes an implied criticism that Clinton did not call for the removal of Assad. The reason Clinton did not do this is Imperialism is losing the Libyan war and cannot afford to upset an even more powerful Bourgeoisie in Syria. I read in the Chinese news agency called Xinhua that the pro-Imperialists are talking about a shadow government. In Ruddick’s article she mentions outbreak of strikes but admits it is not massive numbers. She is wrong to argue that if the opposition in Syria wins it automatically weakens the Israeli Ruling Class. It depends on whether the pro-Imperialists or autumous Bourgeois elements or workers can begin to fight for power win out. Imperialism threatening the Assad regime has forced the Bourgeois Nationalists to go further against Imperialism by attacking Israel from the Syrian border and protesting outside the American and French embassies.


At the end of her article Ruddick correctly argues for Imperialism to keep out of Syria. This reflects the anti-war pressures which are deepening with Imperialism so far losing the Libyan war. There has been 50%+ opposed in Britain to the Libyan war. This is because the workers are being attacked at home and not being offered a considerable less of the Imperialist loot. It is an indication of a mass radicalization which began to take on anti-Imperialist character in opposing the war on Iraq. It is Imperialism which threatens world peace. The more Imperialism is weakened by the workers’ states and Colonial revolution strengthens tendencies towards Socialist revolutions within Imperialist countries.

No comments: