Ask A Red: The IVth International

[innonimatu]

Helping murder the lawful president of another sovereign state and being "invited" to invade it seems like imperialism to me. But I'm a strict "sovereignist".

At least one mujahedin leader evolved to become a possible unifying and positive leader for afghanistan, who would surely have been far better than any of the foolish marxist afghans who destroyed the country trying to quickly modernize it by force. But he was murdered at a most convenient time.

To be fair I'm not sure that those marxist afghans deserve the adjective fools. With hindsight upon them rests the major portion of the responsibility for the destruction of the country, theirs was the choice of provoking a series of destructive internal and international conflicts that wiser men would have avoided. The worse thing is, they probably thought that they were just emulating the earlier chinese and russian revolutions. And they may have been right. Even the international situation seemed propitious to their intentions at the time: the USA still reeling from the defeat in Vietnam, India more closely aligned with the USSR, Iran hostile to the US, China neutral. The only wild card was Pakistan, and the Indians were pressuring them to such a point that they should have had more to worry about than Afghanistan. But it was that very pressure that threw them into the alliance and intervention that would unmake communist Afghanistan.

If the fight for power takes the form of a violent revolution, do the ends justify the means? That can be legitimately debated over, if one admits that there are always costs, always conflicts, even in not carrying out a revolution (meaning: inaction may be worse than action). But the means are certainly not justified when failure to achieve them is very likely. Afghanistan was one of those cases where a communist revolution (coup, really) became a complete disaster for the country and its population. How easily its authors should have predicted it, I don't know. But considering that most ended up dead I don't think they expected it to turn into a disaster.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Perhaps, but I would not support a pan-Islamic movement posing as a national liberation front, whihc is what that movement was. I would also not support a CIA-backed proxy war against the USSR. I still would also not call it imperialism.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It was not imperialism by any stretch of the definition -- and you should look that word up -- any more than my mowing my neighbr's lawns was an invasion.

I was referring to Hoxha who propagated exactly that take on the Afghan war

 

[innonimatu]

Intervention in Afghanistan would not be imperialism by any communist definition of imperialism. The purpose was not to exploit the country for economic benefit, not to suppress suppress its nationalities (though forced modernization and secularization kind of did that, there's more to a nationality than language and land).

But organizational needs dictated a top-down command structure that centralized decision-making in Moscow. And that is enough to call it imperialism according to other definitions. That was the issue many eastern europeans eventually had with the Warsaw Pact being controlled from Moscow. And it was also an issue often raised by western european regarding US hegemony within NATO. Even when economic aid was actually given (be it soviet fuels or the american Marshall Plan) it was pointed out by many people that such aid was a way of buying consent to participation in an unequal alliance... imperialism could then be found almost everywhere, if one wanted to find it. And wanting to find it depends on political convenience.

Imperialism is certainly one of the most abused words ever.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So, who here would support the Afghan mojaheds against Soviet social-imperialism?

Not I. And I do not agree that it was imperialist to send one's army to help another government who requests it! That's exactly what the PDPA did.

Helping murder the lawful president of another sovereign state and being "invited" to invade it seems like imperialism to me. But I'm a strict "sovereignist".

Those things happened in reverse order. The President was done away with after the Soviets entered the country, he wasn't killed as a pretext for "helping," the PDPA genuinely asked for Soviet help, which the Soviets were reluctant to give until it looked like the Afghan socialist government really might fall to these lunatics.

At least one mujahedin leader evolved to become a possible unifying and positive leader for afghanistan, who would surely have been far better than any of the foolish marxist afghans who destroyed the country trying to quickly modernize it by force. But he was murdered at a most convenient time.

Do you mean the Northern Alliance leader who was murdered the day before the World Trade Center attacks?

Nearly all of the mujahedin who were driven to rebel against the Afghan socialist government or desert the army did so out of religious reaction to the strongly secular nature of the PDPA government, as well as the perceived atheist policy (it was not, in fact, atheist, pro-atheist, or anti-religious in any way, except in the ways that secularism is). So they can be more or less safely disregarded as conservative religious reactionaries.

If the fight for power takes the form of a violent revolution, do the ends justify the means? That can be legitimately debated over, if one admits that there are always costs, always conflicts, even in not carrying out a revolution (meaning: inaction may be worse than action). But the means are certainly not justified when failure to achieve them is very likely. Afghanistan was one of those cases where a communist revolution (coup, really) became a complete disaster for the country and its population. How easily its authors should have predicted it, I don't know. But considering that most ended up dead I don't think they expected it to turn into a disaster.

Personally, I think that if they have the chance to end colonial, imperial, or capitalist power in their country, then they should take it. Such was the thinking behind repudiating the Provisional Government in Russia, for example. The Bolsheviks were not sure that such a nadir of inter-class relations would ever come about again, and so they chose to reject the existent liberal-Fabian government of Kerensky and take things as far as they could "get away with," even though the April Theses (the bulletin-essay-thing which Lenin wrote to codify his position) were essentially a Trotskyist repudiation of classical Marxist determinism.

Such a revolt will more likely than not fail to create a socialist society, but on the off-chance that it might, it would all be worth it, and even if it doesn't, it can still join the anti-imperialist bloc, and engage in a good bit of nation-building. The latter is the most likely path for a successful Afghan socialist uprising.

I obviously do not agree that a progressive agenda being carried out by a socialist or communist party in power itself constitutes socialism.

(though forced modernization and secularization kind of did that...)

Which is one of the reasons that I don't lose any sleep over backwards cultures being severely attenuated or even obliterated by modernization. There's room for respecting the diversity of cultures, and there's tolerating and protecting the useless or counterproductive. It is protecting honey bees and penicillin versus protecting panda bears and smallpox.

 

[Ironsided]

Happy May Day friends. I hope you have a good one. This is the first May Day in a long time where I was not seriously hung over and I had time to visit a few speeches around town which were all good but at the same time left me a little wanting for more and better. I googled Olof Palme speeches and I want to share this one on this day because I think it’s so awesome. It’s about being referred to as a socialist in an uninformed and demeaning fashion.

The speech was given during the election campaign in 1982, in the final debate on SVT. I was a baby at the time but I think it still holds a lot of truth to it and it’s nice to feel the path you are walking has been tread in the past and will be tread in the future.

My translation is not perfect but it’s the best I can do. Here is a video of the real speech in Swedish with no subtitles unfortunately.
My clarifications in [brackets].

“Fälldin [Leader of the right wing coalition] have been nagging at me that I should explain why I am a socialist:”

…and I am a democratic socialist, with pride and with joy. I became so when I traveled India and saw the terrible poverty although some were incredibly rich, when I traveled and saw an even more humiliating poverty, in a sense, in the United States, when I at a very young age, came face to face with the bondage and oppression and human persecution in communist states, when I went to the Nazi concentration camps and witnessed the death lists of socialists and trade unionists.

I became so when it dawned on me that it was social democracy that broke ground for democracy in Sweden, when it dawned on me that it was social democracy lifting the country out of poverty and unemployment after the 30's policy crisis. And, when I was able to join in and work for ATP [Supplementary pension] and got to stand up for “the privileged socialist campaigns” where ordinary workers wanted to secure their old age, for it was what you were referring them to then.

I became so during many years of collaboration with Tage Erlander where I learned what democracy and humanism is, and with friends like Willy Brandt, Bruno Kreisky and Trygve Bratteli, who risked their lives in the struggle for human dignity.

But more importantly, I am certified in my belief when I look out over the world, when I see wars and the arms race and the mass unemployment and inequality between people.

I am certified in my belief when I in our own country sees injustice increase, unemployment grow, and speculation and racketeering grab around us.

When I see how the right wing policies in country after country drives people into unemployment smashes security but still does not solve the economic problems, and when I look into the future of what the bourgeois apparently have to offer in which workers must become poorer and the rich richer, where the social security becomes more fragile and the yachts more abundant, where solidarity becomes weaker and egoism stronger, where the strong can help themselves and the weak must delicately take what’s left over, spoon in hand.

For sure I am a democratic socialist. I am so with pride over what this democratic socialism has done for our country, I am so with joy because I know that we have important work to do after these years of right wing misgovernment, and with confidence, because now people know what happens to jobs and security and stability when the right wing forces are in control of government.

I'm so, in a way, with an amused smile, because I know that the modern Swedish history is full of valuable reforms which you have first described as evil socialism but now fight tooth and nails to get credit for, now that people have had experience of what they mean in practice.

Sure, Mr. Fälldin and Mr. Ullsten, I am a democratic socialist, like Branting when he instituted universal suffrage, like Per-Albin when he fought the unemployment rate in the 30's and instituted “folkhemmet” [basically the welfare state] like Erlander when he built our social security and ATP. For it is about solidarity and concern about each other among people.
And what are you, Mr. Fälldin, really? "

 

[ReindeerThistle]

@Pupzhaze: Happy May Day to you as well. Thanks for the speech citation.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Thanks a lot for that PupHaze and Happy Labour Day to you as well as messieurs aelf, Cheezy the Whiz, Innonimatu and ReindeerThistle whose contributions to this thread have generally been excellent.
I haven't had the opportunity to participate, but I can see that my name has been brought up a couple of time. I also want to try to address certain issues, and I intend to try to post one typical Sergeant Cribb monologue one of the coming days. Unfortunately me chronical conditions makes it impossible to be more concrete, but just stay tuned.

 

[Eukaryote]

I have a question: How do communists usually feel about Keynes?

Also, how do you feel about horseshoe theory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I have a question: How do communists usually feel about Keynes?

Also, how do you feel about horseshoe theory?

Not a big fan of Keynes, but I had a Marxist Leninist friend who ran a bookstore and put Keynes and John Kenneth Galbraith under "Science Fiction."

As for horshoe theoy, the closest two things I can think of is the fact that I ama Red State Republican whose only vote ever cast for President was for George HW Bush (Bush 41) -- and now I'm a Marxist-Leninist.
Also, in the US, Democrats and Republicans are pretty much two wings of the saame Partu. It wa in fact Nixon who cozied up to China and it was Carter who gave all those tax breaks to the oil companies, y'know.

 

[Eukaryote]

Is there any consensus among communists on how to view Keynes?

Also Reindeer Thistle, why would a communist be a Republican?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Is there any consensus among communists on how to view Keynes?

Also Reindeer Thistle, why would a communist be a Republican?

The question is more"Why would a Republican be a Communist. The answer is that the core values of the GOP, which my family has been a part of for 158 years, are the reason I think socialism is whatfor what is best for America as a transition to Communism is for the world. America was built by rebellion and the tradition of making your own way, but the systm only allows a few people to do that, while leavong the majoriry behind. I took an oath to defend the Constitution as thee Law of the and, but U see the current government structure violate it alll the time. Jefferson, quoting or.araphrasing the more progresive and anti-slavery Thomas Paine, said that when the government can no longer rule in the manner is has been, it is the duty of the citizeney to rebel.

And when mny toil while few repose and reap the profit, it's time for a change.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Also, how do you feel about horseshoe theory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

I think it's laughably stupid.

I don't even like the left-right spectrum any more. There's too much overlap and too many unique ideas in each ideology, it promotes oversimplification, and false association of ideologies. We should just learn different ideologies, and how people and groups think and feel about different issues.

 

[Eukaryote]

How do communists generally feel about Stalin. My understanding is that Stalin is considered a traitor to the cause and that he is not considered to be a true communist. Is this accurate?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

How do communists generally feel about Stalin. My understanding is that Stalin is considered a traitor to the cause and that he is not considered to be a true communist. Is this accurate?

Speaking as a Marxist-Leninist, Stalin is one of my revolutionary heroes. The Chines, Vietnamese, Cuba -- also Marxist-Leninists -- read him and incorporate hi into rhier body of theory. He also wrpte the book on "Marxism amd the National Question." All historic figures are viewed from a class perspective, and most of what you will find is written by or endorsed by Stalin's class enemies the rractionaries working for capital. When I say endorsed, I also mean that Stalin's criuca from the left while not "class" enemies, have free reign at teir criricism, while his supporeters are always cenapred or vilified.

See Bruce Franklin's Intro to his "The Essential Stalin" for a rare umcensored view.

 

[Tahuti]

What do you guys think of market socialism?

most of what you will find is written by or endorsed by Stalin's class enemies the rractionaries working for capital.

I wonder what Traitorfish will think of this...

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I m writing things like this to find out. I miss Traitorfish. He keeps me honest.

As fot market socialism, it is really a tacticalretreat into capitalism --it won't have to be pemanent. See my earlier posts on this thread.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

How do communists generally feel about Stalin. My understanding is that Stalin is considered a traitor to the cause and that he is not considered to be a true communist. Is this accurate?

This was actually asked just a few pages ago.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12306351&postcount=175

My opinion of Stalin is multifold.

First, he was one of the most capable statesmen in history, and an extremely impressive person. He rose from the absolute barest of poverty, born into an abusive family and a terrible childhood. He first sought the Georgian Orthodox priesthood, but later turned to the communist party, which he worked his way up the ranks of to become a prominent editor of Pravda before the Revolution, and political commissar to a cavalry regiment during the Civil War, and the to a division during the Polish-Soviet War. He then was elected head of the Communist Party, and jockeyed his way through throes of adversaries to become of such high standing that he was able to destroy party democracy and cement his power through what was left of that democracy by filling staff with people loyal to him. He led the country through economic and social upheaval such as had never before been seen in history, and then through the most dangerous period to Russians in their history, the Second World War, when their foe quite literally sought their absolute extinction. Even the Mongols did not pursue that end. He then navigated the post-war peace to create security for Russia such as had never existed before.

It is not particularly productive to engage in counterfactual postulations, and we cannot know how any of this might have unfolded had Stalin not been at the helm. Perhaps it might have gone better, perhaps it might have gone worse. We know, for example, that opponents of Socialism in One Country sought the internationalist end. Perhaps they might have antagonized the West in such a way that either the Soviets went to war, or were invaded, before they were capable of dealing with the imperialist threat, and the Revolution's gains were smothered? Perhaps industrialization might have been slower and the Soviets would not have been ready in June 1941? Who knows. I have my opinions, but they are just that. The fact is the Stalin led these things to success. Of course, these things were mostly not his ideas, they were stolen from other people, so it's not as if the Five Year Plans, or forced collectivization, or many other things would most definitely not have happened had Stalin not been head honcho.

However, I also think Stalin did more to harm the future of the USSR than anyone else. Even if we postulate that all that he did was necessary, what we are left with in May 1953 is a communist party full of people completely and utterly afraid to think for themselves. This unimaginative generation proved unable to continue the Permanent Revolutionary trend forward, and continue to guide the Soviet economy through the capitalist phase toward socialism. They all thought in the same way they had learned was safe: which was what happened in the 1930s. And so they continued to act as if they were in that time, even though that was no longer appropriate for their socio-economic situation. All too few people were able to think outside the tiny box they had become accustomed to, most notably Khrushchev. I am firmly convinced that had his reforms been faithfully enforced, and had they not been undone by Brezhnev and the power behind his throne, then things might have gone much better for them through the 70s and 80s, and the troubles of those times might have been avoided. Maybe even the forces that led to dissolution. But that didn't happen, The Reformer was forced into retirement by people unable or unwilling to think for themselves, and that is a situation that Stalin created.

I also, of course, must speak about the deportations and purges. As I have said before, purges have a purpose. A purge, contrary to popular connotation, is not a mass execution of dissidents. It is the discharge from an organization of unwanted elements. There is no question that purges needed to happen in the 1930s. Lots of people had risen to power during the Civil War and NEP who were not communists, and who bore no allegiance to socialism, who could have easily become imperialist agents. They were not politically reliable, and should have been removed from their posts. But did they deserve to be executed or sent to Siberia, and their families too? Absolutely not. And there were quite obviously a great many people who were good communists and good people who met grisly ends in those years. To be a student of Russian history, and to be a champion of the October Revolution, and see so many of the people who made the Revolution, and the Soviet state, be discarded like so much rubbish by that which they had worked so tirelessly to create, is heartbreaking. In fact, as a communist, to hear people defend such actions in my own party, is terrifying. And the deportations are indefensible.

So overall, I think Stalin did more harm than good. There is unquestionably very much good that he did, and that he presided over, but as I have said above, most of that were not things which only Stalin could have gotten done, in only the way that he did it. And as I have shown, his policies and style of rule created long-lasting structural problems which may very well have led to the end of the USSR decades later, and which even during his own time placed the USSR in very precarious positions at times. I think the worst crime of all, however, is the betrayal of one's friends, and even if all else had succeeded, the fact that he destroyed his comrades to do it is unforgivable, and as I said, an active deterrent toward joining the communist movement, and something that lurks in the back of my mind always, as I see people today rush to defend every ounce of his existence.

I think Stalin is best understood as a unique historical persona, whose persona ought to stay historical. I do not think anyone should seek to emulate Stalin any more than I think anyone should seek to emulate Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan, even though one might marvel at their incredible achievements and their lives.

 

[Vylinius]

What do you guys think of Animal Farm?

 

[Eukaryote]

ooooh that's a good question.