STATEMENT ON CHRIS BROOK’S ARTICLE ON AWL ADOPTING 2ND INTERNATIONAL POSITIONS.
Brooks has made a useful contribution in tracing why Revolutionary Marxists oppose Imperialist interventions in colonies/semi-colonies. He traces the predecessors of AWL-type politics of supporting Imperialism in practice back to the Second International while it was being reformised by Social Democracy. An important point made by Brooks is how Imperialism is dividing and ruling Shiites; Sunnis; and Kurds in Iraq.
Brooks seems to making moves back towards Trotskyism. Ten years ago he split from the ISG arguing against building a Leninist-type revolutionary organisation. What happened after 1989 was contradictory. One negative effect was how the Liberal Bourgeois ideology against Marxism destroyed many on the left including former Trotskyists.
Due to the mistakes of Imperialism with NATO’s war in Serbia Capitalist restorationst dangers were lessened in Russia with the wing of Russian Stalinism opposing Capitalist restoration being strengthened. Clinton conned the masses that a Third World War was not possible with NATO’s attack on Serbia in 1999 by being quite sophisticated in his propaganda of Russia being finished as a major power.
After September 11th the Neo-Cons overplayed their hand threatening a whole number of countries aggressively. This alerted the world and American masses that this adventurism if implemented could cause such a world war. They defied the world masses by attacking Iraq. The price paid by American Imperialism is an upturn in world revolution and increase in radicalisation within the Imperialist countries.
This is why I am not convinced with Brooks’s sweeping statement that Colonialism effectively weakens class consciousness. His formulation on this question conflicts with the end of that article where he correctly calls for implementing Permanent Revolution. The Trotskyist theory of Permanent Revolution starts from Lenin’s theory of Imperialism and Trotsky’s strategy that class conflicts are fought more sharply in Colonies/Semi-Colonies due to lack of manoeuvrability of Bourgeois Nationalists. Socialist revolutions are more favourable in these countries objectively with Capitalism tending to break as Lenin formulated it “in its weakest link”.
The Neo-Con adventures has led to a link between Colonial fights against Imperialism tied up with anti-War movements within the Imperialist countries. These two sectors of world revolution are linking up. It is not fully rounded with the masses within Imperialist countries understanding why they should support Colonial struggles against Imperialism. This is why a revolutionary party and international is needed. On a mass level millions in the Imperialist countries accept the demand for US withdraw from Iraq. It is very positive they accept this demand because a mass movement is building around this clear anti-Imperialist demand.
The Workers’ States have linked up with the colonial revolution with Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies opposing a whole number of Imperialist interventions. Trotsky is growing in influence due to the rise of world revolution. What we are witnessing is the biggest upturn of world revolution since the end of both world wars. Revolutions broke out at the end of those wars because millions rose up against Capitalist barbarism. It is the threat of a Third World War which is a causing a similar development as billions don’t want to be annihilated in nuclear suicide. Trotskyism can gain a mass base under these objective conditions maturing.
There are a layer of ex-Trotskyists who cannot be salvaged. The future Trotskyist cadres will be built out of new forces; those who broke from a rounded Trotskyist programme reconsidering and moving back towards Trotskyism; and winning millions who will break from Social Democracy and Stalinism. This is why I object to Brooks characterising Trotsky as old-fashioned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
