I would like to address the remarks Andrew M. made about the IBT on Quebec, the Northern Ireland and the Russian Question. I would also like to point out that these attacks put me in a pretty akward situation since I am not a member of the Bolshevik Tendency. I also want to point out that the Bolshevik Tendency is not responsible for Spartacist Watch and that I don't represent them. I wrote the stuff I did because the I think the ICL is lying about the Bolshevik Tendency and Bill Logan. That does not mean that I agree with each and every one of the Bolshevik Tendency's stances.
First, the Russian Question. From what I understand the Bolshevik Tendency gave the USSR (a bureaucratically degenerated workers' state after the Soviet Thermidor of 1923-24) unconditional military defence and called for worker's political revolution to out the bureaucracy. They had the same stances for the bureaucratically deformed worker's states of East Europe. They also have the same stances for the for remaining bureaucratically deformed worker's states, China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba.
I would also like to point out that the ICL made a number of Stalinophobic flinches.For example, when the Soviet military gunned down the South Korean spy-plane KAL 007 which was in Soviet airspace the Workers Vanguard (9 September 1983) stated that if their were Soviets knew their were civilians on board then, "despite the potential military damage of such an apparent spying mission," shooting it down would have been "worse than a barbaric atrocity" (sited from ICL vs. IBT by the International Bolshevik Tendency). The thing here is, unconditional military defence is quite straight forward. Revolutionaries defend workers' states (countries where the working class holds state power) from capitalist counterrevolution and imperialist penetration, WITHOUT conditions.
There is also, there response to the aborting of Challenger. Challenger was launched to deploy a major new spy satellite aimed at the Soviet Union. When it was aborted the ICL said "what we feel towards the astronauts [i.e. the military personnel and technical specialists who were to set up the military hardware] is no more or no less than any people who die in tragic circumstance, such as the nine poor Salvadorians who were killed by a fire in a Washington D.C. basement apartment two days before." So basically the ICL can't make any distinction between impoverished Salvadorian refugees fleeing a right-wing military dictatorship and military personnel who spy on the Soviet Union. Just like they can't make the distinction between disabled children who fall victim to ablest terror and fascistic bigots who lynch disabled children and then sit back while fascist (i.e. the forces of death, terror and genocide) make their case.
Another point is the U.S. invasion of Lebanon in 1983. If this invasion were succesful it would have given the U.S. a major toehold in the Middle East and could have posed a threat to the Soviet Union. There was then a group (I believe Hamas) which blew up the marine barracks. The ICL demanded "Marines out of Lebanon, Now, Alive!" This is despite the fact that the marines had killed civilian in Lebanon (but no sympathy was given to them let alone solidarity).
And then there is the stand-off in the Soviet Union between the conservative Stalinists (represented by the Gang of Eight) and the counterrevolutionaries (represented by Boris Yeltsin and George Bush Sr.). The ICL refused to side militarily with the former. When Kornilov sought to stage a coup against the bourgeois provisional government led by Alexander Kerensky after the February Revolution in 1917 but before the October Revolution in 1917 in Russia, the Bolsheviks gave Kerensky military defense (without giving any political support). Kerensky didn't move against Kornilov while the Bolsheviks did. This discredited Kerensky's bourgeois government in the eyes of the masses and gave the Bolsheviks a great deal of credibility. This paved way for the October Revolution that same year. Unlike the bourgeoisie (who Kerensky represented), the Stalinist bureaucracy (represented by the gang of eight) was not a homogenous class but contradictory stratum that can have both revolutionary and counterrevolutionary appetites. If a Leninist-Trotskyist vanguard were able to intervene in the Soviet Union, militarily bloc with the gang and smash the Bush/Yeltsin counterrevolutionaries then that could probably have paved the way for worker's political revolution. The ICL refused to do this. After the August 19, 1991 counterrevolution had already taken place. To be fair the ICL was a lot more dignified than most left groups which criminally stood behind the barricades with Yeltsin either morally and politcally from afar or worse yet physically. Also, to be fair to the Spartacist hive mind, it was have been easier to smash an embryonic bourgeois state which was created in Russia in August 19, 1991 then a fully consolidated bourgeois state.
Now onto Quebec. Before 1995, the International Communist League and the International Bolshevik Tendency had the exact same stance on Quebec. They defended Quebec's right to self-determination but didn't call on Quebec to excercise that right. The Trotskyist League (the ICL's Canadian section) even stated:
"As Leninist we adamantly defend the Quebecois right to self-determination including their right to form a seperate state. But we are not nationalists, and we do not advocate such a move unless national antagonisms have grown to such a point that possibility unity between English- and French-speaking workers is decisively blocked. The militant Quebecois working class can and does play a leading role in united class struggles across the country, notably the 1976 one-day general strike and a bitter 1978 CUPW battle. Therefore at this time the Trotskyist League does not advocate the independence of Quebec. In a clearly worded, democratic referendum, we would today vote no."
Spartacist Canada No. 43, 1980
But here the Trotskyist League is slandering the Bolshevik Tendency because they have this very stance today. I read a pamphlet by the BT called Marxism and the Quebec National Question which interestingly enough has more old TL articles making their case then their articles. Anyways they talk about a debate in the 1990s in Ontario between the TL and the BT. The BT brought up numerous instances in the 70s, 80s, and even 90s were class struggle waged by the Quebec working class which sparked class struggle by English-Canadian workers. The ICL doesn't deny that these events took place but still claim that the English-Canadian and Quebecois worker's have been divided to the point that class struggle is impossible since 1972. The TL said that the appropriated demand was Independence for Quebec and has been the case since 1972. Yet they didn't change their own stance until 1995, go figure. The TL has yet to answer several profound questions. How did they come to the startling conclusion that it was necessary to call for Quebec Independence since 1972? How could they have been wrong for over twenty years?
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that national antagonism may reach a point were it may be appropriate to call for Independence for Quebec. I'm not sure if their has been any bi-national class in the late 1990s or the 21st century. This may be due to national antagonism but may also be due to other factors. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the East European workers' states fell. The political consciousness of the proletariat (working class) was thrown back decades and their hasn't been a whole lot of class struggle in this era. Also, it should be noted that apparently, on the eve of the Quebec referendum, the ICL's peerless leader flip-flopped and said that if Quebec seceded that the ICL would oppose the dissolution of English-Canada into Quebec. Such Social-Patriotic drivel is worthy of the NDP, Stopwar or the Council of Canadians.
Finally, on to Ireland. I TL claims that the BT refuses to call for british troups out of Northern Ireland. I did research on the BT's stance on Ireland. The TL assume because I didn't answer him right away that I was guilty. In the tightly controlled world of Jimstown, regarding silence as "proof" of guilt is an effective tactic. Unfortunately for them the real world works quite differently. I had decided to research on the BT's stance on Ireland then state whether I agree with their stance. As it turns out the IBT DOES call for British troops out of Northern Ireland. I should also point out that James Robertson, the pearless leader of the International Communist League (which the Trotskyist League is a section for) has referred to Irish people as stupid micks (mick is derogatory work for Irish people) in "The Logan Regime". He also made this disturbing quote once:
"they had a marital seperation, and I didn't see anything wrong with her, except that I was worried about the babies Irish girls tend to generate."
[Logan Dossier II, p.75]
Comradely,
A dedicated Trotskyist,
Michael G.
No comments:
Post a Comment