There is a highly unfortunate tendency for debates on the left to take on a heated character. However, there is sadly also a tradition of polemicism that seeks to go even further and delegitimise the person making alternative arguments.
In some of the left groups this is often done by a whispering campaign about such and such a comrade being “unhelpful”, or “oppositionist”.
Most famously the authority and prestige of Leon Trotsky in exile posed a serious threat to the stability of Joseph Stalin’s regime, and the personality of Trotsky was therefore attacked by the most ridiculous accusations of him conspiring with fascists agents, and the technique of “amalgamation” was employed, whereby people arguing different but superficially related arguments were linked through guilt by association. Various “psychological” explanations were argued of why Trotsky might be deluded, seeking to delegitimize his criticisms.
Now whatever your view about Leon Trotsky, this was clearly a campaign of vile slander. Of course the actual historical crimes of Stalin extended further to the inhuman persecution and murders of Trotsky’s family, and ultimately to Trotsky’s cowardly and brutal assassination.
But even at a lower level, the official communist parties did in the past collude in or perpetrate bully-boy tactics to silence and deter their critics. These habits extended into the Trotskyist groups that sought to compete with them, and the regime of Gerry Healy in the WRP was as appalling as any. Although more charming, and without recourse to violence, Tony Cliff was equally ruthless.
Over the recent week or so there has been a very interesting debate on this web-site about the nature of the second world war; that has by and large been informative and relatively good humoured. However, the American Trotskyite Louis Proyect has now used this exchange as the basis of a highly ill-advised and personal attack on me. Louis administers the “Marxmail” e-list, so this ad hominem assault on my reputation serves to raise a doubt about my integrity with a layer of the international left.
Louis speculates that my political positions “might be a kind of knee-jerk reaction against the Socialist Workers Party in Britain. Since Socialist Unity has a deep animus toward these comrades, one wonders if they are simply putting a plus where their chief bogeyman puts a minus.”
Actually I don’t have a “deep animus” to the comrades of the SWP. I almost never refer to them at all, and when they do things I agree with I am happy to praise them. But I have rethought my politics in recent years, in fact this started some time before I left the SWP. It reveals a bizarre sense of entitlement to think that the SWP’s views would only be challenged by someone with a personal grudge.
Now Louis makes the amusing point that he has“been told that Newman was a member of the SWP for a brief time (along with possibly half of the people living in Britain) so maybe we are just dealing with the case of the embittered ex-member.”
Let me put the record straight here. I was an active member of the SWP from 1978 to 1981 and from 1986 to 2004, during which time I was deeply acquainted with the politics of the organisation, as well as wider Trotskyist traditions and other Marxist thought. I am suprised that Louis considers this a brief time, but by inserting the word “brief” he manages to imply that my understanding is somehow superficial, and that I am perhaps a bit of a dilettante. Indeed, why Louis is so concerned about my background and motivations for my arguments is itself a little odd. Why not deal with what I am saying, without trying to investigate my back-story, in order to put me in a pidgeon-hole? I am not bitter, I am a positive kind of guy, active in my union and in political campaigning, but I am prepared to challenge the deeply held intellectual assumptions of the Trotskite left.
The accusations that my politics were motivated by “bitterness” and “obsession with the SWP” started as a whispering campaign before I even left the organisation, because I was a member of the National Executive of the Socialist Alliance; yet publically held a different tactical assessment to John Rees. Other SWP comrades, and ex-SWP comrades have since acknowledged that they were warned off talking to me in that period, and some have since apologised to me for spreading rumours that they now acknowledge to be false. Louis Proyect is simply uncritically repeating factionally motivated and deliberately malicious gossip that some of the more sectarian SWP members engaged in to seek to discredit me during a faction fight.
It is surely clear to anyone who reads the www.socialistunity.com website that I have a reasonably internally consistent political approach. Whether I am right or wrong is neither here nor there, but it is surely obvious that my political beliefs are not crudely motivated by simply being “anti-SWP”. Indeed, the reason why www.socialistunity.com publicises the activities of other left groups more than those of the SWP, is simply that the SWP are less inclined to send me stuff.
But having sought to create doubts about my intellectual good-faith and integrity, Louis then takes a different tack.
“I think the more likely explanation for this softness on Churchill has more to do with the peculiarities of the British culture and historical memory than anything else. Although I can only state this as a kind of speculation, it would seem that Britain never went through the “revisionist” debunking of WWII that the USA did. .”
There is of course a straight forward misrepresentation to contend with here. I have no “softness” for Churchill. He was an appalling racist and Empire loyalist, who had a long history of being a ruthless opponent of the labour movement. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out, Churchill played an indispensible historical role in the military defeat of Nazi Germany, and Churchill’s coalition government simply did preside over a sea-change of social attitudes in Britain that resulted in the progressive Labour government of 1945. Contrary to Churchill’s subjective intentions and motivation, the way his government conducted the war also led to the Empire being substantially weakened, so that withdrawal from South Asia became inevitable.
Now, Louis is also quite wrong that there have been no radical debunkings of the mythology of the war. If Louis wants to read sharp leftist (indeed Trotskyist) critique of the Second World War from a British perspective, then the collection of writings by Ray Challinor “The Struggle for Hearts and Minds” [1995] is a first class demolition, and includes very interesting discussion of the atrocities committed by British imperialism in the Far East. It is quite possible to be aware of these revisionist accounts without agreeing with every argument contained within them. (Even in my own family, my father joined up to fight the fascists, but in reality he was almost sent to Finland to fight the USSR, then he was sent to Ireland to police the IRA, and then to India! It would therefore be hard for me to be unaware that the British war effort was often highly problematic. )
An amusing rebuttal of Louis’s view of British attititudes to the history of the war comes in a review in the Independent of a book that Louis praises “Human Smoke”, by Nicholson Baker. The historian, David Cesarani, writes: “In Britain, we have become used to books debunking Winston Churchill … … But evidence of Churchill’s belligerence, capricious behaviour and penchant for late-night sessions over brandy and cigars seems to have come as a surprise to the American novelist Nicholson Baker”
It would be entirely impossible for any serious student of the British left to be unaware of the different interpretations of the war, especially as the important Communist Party and many of those who looked to it for guidance were deeply divided over the question, and initially opposed the war. Indeed, those of us who grew up in left wing families will have been given the horror stories about Churchill with our mother’s milk.
Louis now uses the discredited technique of amalgamation: “I was treated like a skunk at a garden party by Newman and his supporters, including Paul Fauvet, a signer of the Euston Manifesto ”
Paul Fauvet will be highly surprised to learn he is one of my “supporters”, as he has a totally different world view to me. But because we both disagreed with Louis, and because Paul signed the Euston manifesto ( a “decent left” internet irrelevence) , Louis manages to glue me to the pro-war aims of the Euston manifesto by implication.
Louis goes further, and then argues that opposition to the school of revisionism he subscribes to is associated with Christopher Hitchens because Louis argues such a debunking of the idea that WW2 was a just war would undermine Hitchens’s arguments in support of war in Iraq. Louis then quotes Hitchens at lengths, and says it “could have appeared on either “Harry’s Place” or the Socialist Unity blog—a problem for the left in no uncertain terms.” So despite the fact that I have been a tireless opponent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Louis manages to imply that I am in the pro-war camp with Harry’s Place and Hitchens!
Louis also seeks to quote me out of context, to imply that a wholely commonplace remark by me is somehow evidence of egregious chauvinism: “Newman also chastised me for “prioritising the entirely secondary issue of India…””
Well yes, when discussing the course of the second world war, the Indian theatre was secondary. I have consulted several respected history books of the period, and the general histories rarely mention India at all. Angus Calder’s, “The People’s War” a standard history of the Home Front only mentions India once in the whole 750 pages.
Louis seeks to bolster his argument by talking up Ernest Mandel, a man who never displayed any real understanding of British politics or history. Mandel’s judgement is completely wrong, that
“The British bourgeoisie, on the other hand, was neither demoralized nor defeatist. It had already beaten its own labour movement, first economically in 1926, then politically in 1931–35. At the same time its world position (even if rapidly being overtaken by the United States) was still stronger than Germany’s, although Hitler’s hegemony over Europe clearly endangered the British Empire. Moreover, the British elite were convinced that eventual support from the United States, together with the raw material and manpower resources of the Empire, made continued war against Germany a realistic strategy”
The majority tendency in the British capitalist class – typified by Chamberlain, Halifax, and the other “Guilty Men”, were BOTH demoralised AND defeated by Dunkirk, which totally confounded their expectations, and left them virtually defenceless; and whilst Britain’s “world position” may have been stronger than France’s or even Germany’s, that stronger position was potentially useless faced with the much greater immediate military strength of Hitler. The Chamberlain government could not adopt the Petain solution due to the strength of the British labour movement, and the erosion of the government’s authority that the Dunkirk defeat had inflicted.
Hence the Churchill faction, although substantially and instinctively supported by many Tories, significant numbers of the officer class, and press barons like Beaverbrook was a minority tendency in the capitalist class, that had to find compromise with the labour movement in order to continue the war. Hitler was sincere in offering peace in July 1940, and had Chamberlain been premier, then it might have been accepted.
Nor is Mandel’s assessment about their relationship with the USA correct. Lord Beaverbrook was deeply anti-American, as he regarded them as ineffectual, blundering and untrustworthy, and Beaverbrook considered the USSR a much more important and reliable ally. Churchill clearly preferred doing business with Stalin than with Roosevelt.
Louis seems to place great store on the widely ridiculed pseudo-history “Human Smoke” by Nicholson Baker. This is written by a pacifist novelist with a profound ignorance of both the facts and the discipline of history. Nor indeed will anything that Baker “exposes” about the historical figure of Churchill be news to many British radicals or socialists. For sure, he was the guy who invented poison gas bombing of Iraqi tribesmen, tell us something we don’t know. Churchill was a racist and Anti-Semite – hold the front page!
I don’t want to get into a “blog war” with Louis. I was surprised and somewhat saddened by the personal nature of his attack on me, which I felt both unnecessary and provocative. I think he needs to chill out, and examine why he gets so cross that other people don’t share the same politics as him.
Guido Fawkes on said:
Oh, I don’t know…
Jota on said:
‘Churchill clearly preferred doing business with Stalin than with Roosevelt’ – really? Not clear to me – what evidence?
Harry on said:
This is some repugnant shit from Louis Proyect. Then again, he’s got form. Just ask Yoshie Furuhashi over at Monthly Review about his propensity for stalking those he disagrees with.
He is the political equivalent of a bunny boiler.
David T on said:
“Louis then quotes Hitchens at lengths, and says it “could have appeared on either “Harry’s Place” or the Socialist Unity blog—a problem for the left in no uncertain terms.” So despite the fact that I have been a tireless opponent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Louis manages to imply that I am in the pro-war camp with Harry’s Place and Hitchens!”
Comrade – just a short note to let you know that I stand with you at this difficult time.
Futurecast on said:
Just ask Yoshie Furuhashi over at Monthly Review about his propensity for stalking those he disagrees with.
Isn’t Yoshie a ‘she’?
johng on said:
I think your overstating things Andy. Louis very much disagree’s with you, thats all. And is trying to explain to himself your turnabout on questions of stalinism and, when it comes to the period under discussion, imperialism. Much of what you highlight in relationship to the latter in this piece was not highlighted in your original piece. Indeed in the comments thread you spent some time defending the British attitude towards India during the period in relationship to the Cripps mission and its aftermath, or at least thats what you appeared to be doing. Disagreements or misunderstandings are not slander. Incidently the argument that India, the barracks of British imperialism, and the Jewel in the crown of the Empire, is peripheral to discussions of war and empire because many existing popular histories of the war don’t mention it, is a bit like Wittgenstein’s joke about comparing different copies of the same newspaper to determine whether or not what they say is true.
Louis does not go on to suggest that you are pro-war or in the euston manifesto group or imply your allegence to the same (at least thats not how I read him). His point is that the kind of populist reading you have of the second world war is one often utilised by the same. And therefore he thinks its important that the left mantains its critical facilities in relationship to these kinds of populist treatments.
A fair point for discussion I would have thought.
Mikey on said:
#5, where does it say Yoshie is a man?
I disagree with Andy on a range of questiosn but the approach Louis has taken epitomises everything that is discredited about the way the left is often said to conduct itself. It’s schoolyard sniping and it’s utterly worthless.
non-partisan on said:
I have thought for a while that you (and Mark P by the way) go out of your way to ridicule patronise and generaly treat with contempt any one who disagrees with you, therefore the quote below aimed by you at Loius Project is quite apprpriate for a bit of self-reflection.
“I think he needs to chill out, and examine why he gets so cross that other people don’t share the same politics as him.
Nick Wright on said:
A very necessary piece from Andy Newman. Does anyone share the same narcissistic politics as Proyect? We are all at the centre of our own worlds but mostly even the deifiers of Stalin and Trotsky find it necessary to root some of their analysis of historical processes in a common basis of fact and understanding. Not so Proyect whose take on British (and Empire) affairs is so perverse that he would find it difficult to get a hearing (or an echo) from anyone except psuedonymous bloggers.
Politics is a rough trade and dirty tricks will always have a place – the Biblical injunction that he who is without guilt cast the first stone precludes me from taking too virtuous a posture – but there has been positive changes in styles of work among some forces on the left. But birds of a feather flock together.
When someone says something silly ridicule is appropriate. People who give themselves airs deserve being patronised
Armchair on said:
johng- imagine yourself in the same position. This is appalling and I hope that some of those who (like me at one time) still identify with the politics of Mandel and the FI will publicaly distance themselves from LP’s method.
Andy Newman on said:
#6
[Loius] ” thinks its important that the left mantains its critical facilities in relationship to these kinds of populist treatments. he thinks its important that the left mantains its critical facilities in relationship to these kinds of populist treatments.”
Rubbish JOhn.
Not only did my origonal article about Churchill start with the anecdote about my mum, who had never met anyone who had a kind word about Churchill until 1945, and acknowldegment that he was hated among left intellectuals and working class activists; but you cannot serioulsy say that critical faculties are being used by anyone who praises “Human Smoke”.
Incidently, what about Proyect’s cod psychology and attribution of my views to my “hatred” of the SWP?
How is that helpful?
non-partisan on said:
9* Nick Wright defending the methods LP has used.
Karl Stewart on said:
Andy, I must admit I’d never heard of this Louis Proyect character before the recent WWII debates on SUN and I don’t know anyone else who’s ever heard of him either.
So some obscure and irrelevant Trotsky cultist in the US doesn’t like you – don’t worry about it.
Despite many disagreements with you over several areas – I think you were totally wrong over the bank bailouts for example and your opposition to the new workers’ party idea – this site is by far the best known and most respected forum for discussion on the UK left.
And this is precisely because of articles like those over WWII, which don’t start from a “biblical-Marxist” viewpoint, but which address subjects in an accessible way and spark lively discussion.
As to whether personal attacks have a place in debate, well, whether one likes it or not, feelings often run high on important issues and personal attacks do happen. I’ve done it and you’ve done it too, we’re all only human and people get angry – one might as well complain about the rain.
Why don’t you just reply to him by saying: “And who the fuck are you again?”
johng on said:
Yes Andy you did start off with references to those attitudes but then appeared to want to subject those attitudes to a critique.
On cod psychology I have to be honest and fess up that on that thread, at one point losing my rag, I said ‘surely a dislike of the SWP doesn’t licence this kind of a flip” or a phrase to that effect. Importantly I wasn’t trying to smear you, I was just arguing (and not all amazement is faux).
Perhaps Louis picked up on that. Importantly Louis had always backed socialist unity, particularly in terms of analyses of the failings of the Leninist and Trotskyist left, and I think its unfair to attribute to him some kind of internal SWP plotting (or for that matter to see him as a Trotskyist cultist).
I think the arguments began over his differing with you and some bloggers here about China and then Iran. I seem to recall accusations of “Sino-phobia”, “pro-imperialism” etc, (I discount Noah’s rantings) thick and fast at this point.
I do think non-partisan has a bit of a point here.
Armchair I’m going to re-read Louis piece again (I skimmed it quickly after reading this) because of your comment. But I do think this might be a bit of an over-reaction.
By the way though Andy I do agree that Louis is wrong when it comes to his judgements about the absence of a critical literature on the second world war on the British left.
johng on said:
Oh and I’ve not read Human Smoke and not read much about it (save from some unreadable foamflecked frenzy on Harry’s Place), but at first sight, I don’t know why getting insights from a novelist is a problem.
It isn’t as if Louis isn’t well read enough to make judgements about fiction.
Andrew Coates on said:
Like comrade David T, I stand with you Andy – in solidarity amongst Andrews – in this difficult time.
Someone was rude about me on the Internet once as well.
johng on said:
It should be said that I tend to prefer this kind of a good humoured response to your piece:
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/reassessing-the-prince-william-duke-of-cumberland-nation-builder/
paul fauvet on said:
You’re right, Andy – I am indeed amazed to be considered your “supporter” just because we happen to agree about World War II and anti-fascism.
As for the Euston Manifesto, it’s absurd to call it a “pro-war” document. Some of the signatories supported the invasion of Iraq and others (including myself) did not.
Comrades with a wide variety of views on other matters accept the paramount importance of standing up to fascism. That may involve alliances with imperialist governments and armies, as happened in World War II.
No doubt it would have been much neater for dogmatists such as Proyect if Churchill and Roosevelt had allied with Hitler instead of against him. Had that happened, however, neither Proyect’s blog nor this one would exist.
Proyect has yet to answer questions as to what he believes the British left should have done. Adopt a revolutionary defeatist stance (which would, in reality, have meant working for the Nazis)? Preach an impotent “plague on both your houses” pacifism? Call for British withdrawal from the war and a separate peace with Hitler?
Or fight to end the nightmare of fascism with whatever allies were available, including Churchill and the faction of the ruling class that supported him?
ANIN on said:
Louis has a belligerent persona no doubt and he can be very insightful
I agree with him about your bias and this is particularly evident over the SWP
Perhaps you need some deep regression hypnosis to undo your denial in this area.
In a past life you may have been a Stalinist Mortgage Broker….
You also follow GG rather to closely imho and never criticise him
On the other hand and looking to the future you do a great job rubbing the socialists against each other to see
what happens and I like that you are prepared to slaughter any sacred cow aand allow no area to be out of bounds
All humans like familiarity and tend to attack anything they think is too different.
Socialists have been reacting, long to each other like this for a long time
See for example
http://www.againstthegrain.org/tag-directory/first-international
“The First International was founded in 1864, but a decade later the anarchists, led by Mikhail Bakunin, and the socialists, led by Karl Marx, rancorously parted ways — and anarchism and socialism have since been uneasy allies and often outright antagonists. Yet at a moment when capitalism is unraveling, as Andrej Grubacic argues, perhaps it’s time to see what common ground can be found between the two most potent tendencies within the radical left.”
I really think the left has to ask why is it impossible to discuss without splitting, projection and attacking
what sort of structure and practises of communication can be employed to ensure we learn from
one another rather than just want to trash and kill each other…..
there are ways to achieve this
Never before in the field of Socialist blogging
has so much junk been written by so many
for so little reason
We will fight them on the internet, on the email and in the chat rooms,
we will blog on
we will never shut,
up despite the fact we have no idea what the fuck we are talking about
or why we attack difference
we will never surrender
chjh on said:
I have to say non-partisan has a point at #8 (though I wouldn’t agree with the way he puts it). Mark P, Noah, Nick Wright, and Andy himself, have been regularly personally abusive in the way that Andy criticises. There’s an old saying about motes and beams that applies here, I think.
johng on said:
Paul perhaps the alternatives you lay out are not exhaustive? There was for example Trotsky’s position of military but not political support, on the basis that the bosses were not to be trusted in the fight against fascism as their goal was to re-partition the world up between them, a goal which might on occassion intefere with the war against the Nazis.
This position was not universally adhered to by Trotskyists, but it is one option you don’t mention. One feature of the radicalism associated with the second world war was deep distrust of a divided ruling class which itself had a history of fascist sympathies. This led to a highly politicised response to the war from large sections of the population, particularly in Britain.
Trotsky’s position could perhaps have been used to push for greater rank and file control in the army, popular commitee’s etc. Given the popular atmosphere of the time (caught quite well in some of Orwell’s diaries, although it seems to me he ends up lurching in the wrong direction when he refers to Churchill as a ‘British Lenin’ in this atmosphere) this may not have been quite as abstract an orientation as it now might seem.
Its also true that whilst the close of the second world war saw the defeat of fascism it also saw the re-partitioning of the globe, and in some parts of the world, the continuation of war. In Vietnam the guns finally stopped firing in 1975.
Their second world war lasted a long time.
Andy Newman on said:
#15
Human Smoke is not a work of fiction, it is a collection of anecdotes and press clippings, purporting to be history.
johng on said:
Just read this review and I think its probably my next buy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/books/review/Toibin-t.html
neprimerimye on said:
The point here is that Proyect has a long history of personally vilifying those he disagrees with. Although I despise the views Andy has advocated on this blog with regard to both WW2 and current politics his own actions are in this respect totally unlike tose of Proyect.
I note in reply to johng that the distinction that Bolshevik Leninists make between political and military support for a particular side in an armed conflict is not one commonly made by any other political current. Hal Draper expaned on this point in his writings I believe. Sad to say I forget the reference.
Louis Proyect on said:
God, what a blizzard of words over a supposed “slander”. I don’t know anything about Newman’s past membership in the SWP except what Richard Seymour told me. I surmised that he was only in the group briefly because he seems to have retained nothing he learned there. A sieve would have absorbed more of the abc’s of Marxism.
With respect to the awful Eustonites, I don’t consider Paul Fauvet, who was a respectable radical journalist in a previous lifetime, to be a “supporter” of Socialist Unity politics in general. His cranky presence here should disabuse anybody of that notion. It should have been clear that he was a supporter of Newman’s position on WWII and that is all. I apologize for allowing such a confusion to take place.
Getting back to the real problem, there is still that regrettable blind spot about Empire. After angrily claiming that I quoted him out of context on India, he attempts to put his views into the real context:
>>Well yes, when discussing the course of the second world war, the Indian theatre was secondary. I have consulted several respected history books of the period, and the general histories rarely mention India at all. Angus Calder’s, “The People’s War” a standard history of the Home Front only mentions India once in the whole 750 pages.
Louis Proyect on said:
continued:
>>Well yes, when discussing the course of the second world war, the Indian theatre was secondary. I have consulted several respected history books of the period, and the general histories rarely mention India at all. Angus Calder’s, “The People’s War” a standard history of the Home Front only mentions India once in the whole 750 pages.
johng on said:
I’m aware that louis can be a bit abrasive but then so can Andy. The distinction between the military and the political simply suggests that it is possible to take part in a conflict without supporting the politics or the aims of those who lead it. Such was the relationship of Lenin to Kerensky at one time, and there could be a host of other examples. I don’t think its that outlandish although the terminology may be.
Louis Proyect on said:
Don’t know why my reply can’t get through, but you can read it in its entirety here. Just go to the bottom under “UPDATE”:
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/winston-churchill-nostalgia/
Nick Wright on said:
chjh makes point about abuse
“Mark P, Noah, Nick Wright, and Andy himself, have been regularly personally abusive in the way that Andy criticises. ”
That is four names of people whose real names and identities are known unlike some serial abusers.
I think there needs to be a distinction here between robust debate in which ideas, and sometimes the presentation of them, can be ridiculed; and criticism of behaviour and language that goes beyond this. I think Proyect has gone beyond even this. A public campaign of denigration is different from a hot exchange in debate.
The use of labels can get in the way of understanding and clarity in debate and blame can be spread fairly evenly on this. For instance, I am wearied by the number of times I have been asked to explain my personal complicity in events which took place before I was born. I only wish I could follow the example of the exemplary comrade in the Cork branch of the Communist Party of Ireland, proud of his trade and membership of the industrial butchers union who proudly introduced himself as the actual “Stalinist butcher’.
It may be time to reserve the use of the term Trotskyist/ite to people who devote themselves to a lifetime of personal dedication to the deification of the old bureaucrat himself and listen more carefully to what actually existing ‘trots’ are saying. Some of which doesn’t sound very ‘trotty’ to me.
And maybe the same privilege could be extended to the other way, even to dreadful social democrats like that Andy Newman.
Alfie on said:
What exactly is the purpose of this article? Except to repeat the well worn, hackneyed old recording of worthless debates of the past from the idolisers of Trotsky and their stereotyped characterisations of the former Soviet Union, the Second World War and Stalin.
This is 2009 yet these stupifying debates grind on, no wonder the left in Britain is so backward and bereft of ideas.
Andy Newman on said:
Louis’s reply in full
jp on said:
Human Smoke is an excellent book. It has been criticized for not placing its anecdotes ‘in context,’but that is exactly the point.
It is the popular narrative – the adopted context – of ‘the good war’ that allows us to trivialize, explain away and justify the resultant “human smoke.” The narrative needs shattering to reexamine factors which have for so long been predigested.
Like a narrative of Rosa Parks-Martin Luther King-Obama currently justifies the slaughter and subjugation which characterize the American imperial project.
Proyect was wrong, though, to speculate on the personal motivations of Newman. Louis, please stick to the arguments.
Andy Newman on said:
Oh good grief Louis.
Let us look at the Bengal famine.
Firstly, while it is pernicous to play the numbers game, you claim that “the “good guys” caused the death of more Indians in pursuit of war aims than the number of Jews killed by Hitler. “
The bengal famine actually killed roughly two million people. There is no mileage to be gained by exagerating.
In Eastern Europe tens of millions of people died due to the war, including widespread famine.
To select one incident of famine being used as a deliberate wespon of murder, remember that in 1944 the Nazis deliberatly blocked all foodstuffs being transported to Western Holland as a form of collective punishment for a rail strike, and this left some 18000 dead.
The Bengal famine was not deliberate, but the result of callous incompetence, and an inaccurate model of economic understanding. Small consolation to the dead, but an important moral and political difference. My own maternal grandmother died of malnutrition in England in 1936, due to similar faulty economic theories. She was 26 years old. That dodn’t mean that the British tory government was as bad as Hitler, although I am sure it seemed like it to my granddad, my mum and her siblings.
Nor is it as straight forward as you make out in your simplistic statement that the rice went to British soldiers.
There was the loss of Burma to Japan, which had been a major rice exporter to Bengal, and then a major cyclone, and an outbreak of a disease in the rice plants. The crop was down, and there were less imports.
The British and Indian armies did buy a lot of rice, but the main cause of the famine seems to have been an unregulated market, so that the percieved drop of rice availability led to hoarding, price rises, putting rice out of reach of the poorest. the hoarding was mainly carried out by more prosperous bengalis.
There was undoubtedly racism and incompetence in the government that led to a slow administrative response; but the famine was arguably more due to faulty economic theory, which made the government slow to intervene to lower prices.
(The slander incidently, is your seeking to attribute my political beliefs and views to an obsession with the SWP.)
paul fauvet on said:
Johng remarks that “Trotsky’s position could perhaps have been used to push for greater rank and file control in the army”.
Trotsky’s actual practice as a military commander during the civil war was in favour of tough, heirarchical discipline, as the Kronstadt mutineers discovered. Far from “rank and file control”, Trotsky recruited former Tsarist officers, much to the horror of many orthodox Bolsheviks (including Stalin).
What would “rank and file control” of an army mean? Taking votes on when to advance and when to retreat? Electing the officers? Trotsky had the virtue of taking military matters rather more seriously than Johng does.
I see that Louis Proyect thinks I was “a respectable, radical journalist in a previous lifetime” – but all this means is that he agreed with articles I wrote on southern Africa in the 1980s, and now he disagrees with comments I’ve posted on this blog. I shan’t lose much sleep over that.
Louis Proyect on said:
Andy: The British and Indian armies did buy a lot of rice, but the main cause of the famine seems to have been an unregulated market, so that the percieved drop of rice availability led to hoarding, price rises, putting rice out of reach of the poorest. the hoarding was mainly carried out by more prosperous bengalis.
This is virtually the same excuse made by British nationalists when the subject of the Irish potato famine comes up. Disgusting.
prianikoff on said:
Andy Newman’s views on this question are not dissimilar to George Galloway’s, or to many CP-B fellow travellers.
In June 1941, after the German attack on the Soviet Union, the CP’s Political Bureau immediately declared support for the war against Nazi Germany.
But it continued to demand the replacement of the Churchill government by a ‘People’s Government’.
This line was only changed, following pressure from the Comintern, to a call for unity around the Churchill government.
This also meant supporting that government taking legal action against workers regarded as “sabotaging the war effort”.
– a position that Paul Fauvet has also supported in these debates.
Andy Newman on said:
#35
sigh
Louis.
The British ruled India in 1942, they were therefore responsible for the economic policy.
The government did not ban exports, not did it seek price regulation, nor did it seek to lower the price of rice through inflating supply. It therefore created a free market in rice through conscious decision.
The motivation was partly an ideological predisposition towards classic economic liberalism; but the complaceny was also due to racism and inertia.
Contrary to your earlier claims the famine was NOT caused by the rice supply being diverted to British soldiers. The army did buy a lot, but it seems to have been the perceived shortage of rice, rather than the actual availability of rice that prompted hoarding.
There were a number of measures that could have been taken, and eventually the famine was alleviated (I think by Wavell) by importing rice to lower the price. Much earlier intervention could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives – perhaps through price regulation, rationing, or whatever. Perhaos there should have been a ban on exports, but taken entirely on its own that measure might have just relocated the famine to Ceylon that had been dependant on Burma for rice supplies.
In the context of shortage, or perceived shortage, then hoading will cause inflation, and in the case of basic foosstuffs such inflation will artificially create famine. The more prosperous people are acting economically rationally by hoarding, as they are protecting their own future ability to buy food against the risk of further inflation.
that is why government intervention was necessary, and the failure of intervention indirectly created the famine. It was preventable, but was not prevented laregly due to a poor understanding of economics, as well as incompetence and arrogance on behalf of the Indian government (the British). The free market creates spiralling inflation in conditions of absolute shortage – and the solution needed state intervention. But dogmatists of the free market are not always able to understand the plain evidence of the market failing.
This seems to me to be a rational and materialist explanation of the famine. I do not see why it is “disgusting” to provide such an explantion.
So the question is, does such tardy state intervention to avoid famine equate with the deliberate mass murder of millions of people. For you clearly it does, in which case all governments are potentially Nazis in your eyes, if they make economic mistakes.
Anonymous on said:
Andy, I really like that picture of you on Louis’ post. You look a bit like Herr Flick from Allo Allo. Or that Gestapo guy from Raiders of the Lost Ark whose face melts of at the end when the ghosts come out of the arc and the one guy says “Ze Beautiful!”
bill j on said:
Sigh…
The bit that makes me laugh most about Andy Newman’s post, and let’s face it, its pretty funny throughout, is the beginning where he seeks to invoke Trotsky in his support.
How apt.
STEELCITYRED on said:
Andy maybe he in pay with the CIA ,better still ask him ,other wise till him to shut up
Dora Kaplan on said:
(the famine) was “not prevented laregly due to a poor understanding of economics, as well as incompetence and arrogance on behalf of the Indian government (the British)”
It wasn’t a poor understanding of economics. Parliamentary records indicate that British administrators knew precisely what they were doing in India.
The imposition of the ‘Manchester economics’ was a deliberate policy, with intended beneficiaries and victims. It wasn’t a question of ‘poor understanding’ any more than the contemporary misery caused by structural adjustment is the result of the intellectual shortcomings of multinational corporations.
These aren’t ‘mistakes’ The masters of policy understand the consequences of their policies only too well. it’s just that the fate of the victims doesn’t matter.
Does this make these actors morally comparable to States that ‘deliberately’ murder? I would say it does.
Mick on said:
You guys continue bickering about Trotskyites, the SWP and other fantastical bollocks. I’m a bit upset though that I have spent money on ‘Human Smoke’ which I never realised was a collection of non-contextual cuttings.
It’s sitting on a pile to be read after Dallek’s excellent “Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power” and Mark Mazower’s “Hitler’s Empire”.
Mick on said:
BTW: What I find interesting is that you place great reliance on Conservative and Zionist historians when (justifiably?) taking down ‘Human Smoke’.
Ken MacLeod on said:
Andy, you needn’t worry about your reputation being trashed before the Marxmail audience, since anyone who follows that useful list for any length of time will be well aware of Louis’s style of personal argument. He learned the habit in the American SWP (I guess, since they are and always have been masters of the art) and can’t seem to shake it off. It’s best to ignore it – you’ll never get a retraction or apology out of him anyway, and he does a lot of good work, so you might as well just treat his occasional attacks as part of life’s rich tapestry. It’s like being one of Begbie’s mates in Trainspotting.
Louis Proyect on said:
Thanks for comparing me to Begbie in Trainspotting, Ken. I was waiting for somebody to step in and elevate the conversation. Nicely done, old stick.
Derek Wall on said:
Ken’s comment seems to be the most measured here ‘ It’s best to ignore it – you’ll never get a retraction or apology out of him anyway, and he does a lot of good work, so you might as well just treat his occasional attacks as part of life’s rich tapestry’
Can we all move on from this as Ken suggests?
Armchair on said:
So let me get this right. This Louis c..t chucked a glass into a crowded pub and some wee lassie got cut up?
Jim on said:
The truth is the truth and you can’t just ignore it! Or call it slander get a grip!
Armchair on said:
Jim- so did you see him do it? Don’t grass on him for fucks sake or you’re fucking deed!
Jim on said:
#49 Armchair I don’t understand your last post, are taking the piss or what?
Karl Stewart on said:
Jim, I think Armchair is indeed taking the piss.
The high priests of the Trotsky religion practically beg for it don’t they?
Jim on said:
#51 That’s good then I’ll go to the shop get some beers and toast everyone’s good health!
Karl Stewart on said:
So, the Trotsky cultists would travel back in time to condemn the German communists for failing to beg the social democrat leaders for an alliance – regardless of the killings of communists by social democrats.
The social democrats are not to be criticised for these killings, but the communists are to be condemned for objecting to it?
Then, the Trotsky cultists would take us back in time again to a few years later, after communists have addressed their mistakes in Germany and worked out an anti-fascist strategy, and condemn this anti-fascist strategy, regardless of the fact that it was, ultimately, to prove overwhelmingly successful.
So, according to these “high priests,” not uniting against fascism was wrong and an error to be condemned, but uniting against fascism was also equally wrong and also an error to be condemned?
Hmmmm…and one wonders why the Trotsky religion has never succeeded in achieving anything, anywhere, ever??
Why do people still worship??
Steve on said:
And Karl, why do they then ignore Trotsky’s writings on fascism and set up a Popular Front – Unite Against Fascism?
CRACK MASTER on said:
The victor, inevitably, scripts history. Historians’ labour unearths the
virtues and valour of the vanquished describing the plight of ‘people’
caught in the crossfire. The victor, however, does not stop at authoring
‘official’ history of any one event alone but seeks to re-write all
history to consolidate its current hegemony. Following the collapse of
the USSR and in the present conjecture of the global capitalist
recession, the West seeks to reinterpret World War II’s history by
equating fascism with communism.
In 2004, to deflect rising global protests against the US military
occupation of Iraq, on the 50th anniversary of the landing of the Allied
troops at Normandy, all North Atlantic Treaty Organisation leaders
assembled to project themselves as the champions of the victory over
fascism liberating Western Europe. They deliberately concealed the fact
that for every allied soldier who laid down his life, fighting fascism,
there were 40 Soviet soldiers who laid down their lives. Over 20 million
Soviet soldiers and people lost their lives. In 1,418 days of war, the
Soviet Union lost nine lives every minute, 857 every hour and 14,000
lives a day.
On the 70th anniversary of fascist Germany’s attack on Poland (September
1, 1939, 4.40 am), which started the World War II, a similar attempt is
being made to once again distort history. This is necessary for the
advanced capitalist powers to seek to prevent the growth of socialist
ideas and Left politics, as currently seen in various countries of Latin
America, in the wake of the worst capitalist economic recession since
the Great Depression. Today, the US has an unprecedented seven million
people unemployed. The European Union is faring no better. Under these
circumstances, it is imperative for them to decry the glorious role of
the Soviet Union and, by implication any socialist alternative, in the
defeat of fascism.
The Economist says “the Kremlin should admit that Stalin was Hitler’s
accomplice before 1941â€. The reference here is to the 1939
non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union. They
conveniently conceal the fact that rejecting the Soviet Union’s
proposals for a united front against fascism, both Britain and France
had entered into similar pacts with Germany earlier. If Prague today is
a ‘museum city’, it is because Hitler moved in there as in much of
Eastern Europe that was ceded, by spineless Western powers, in the
Munich pact of 1938. Hitler’s defeat alone liberated these areas. This
is now being ‘reinterpreted’ as Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe post
WW-II!
The London-based Economist must surely know that the Guardian, published
from the same capital city, on January 1, 1970, when the secret foreign
office archives were made public after the statutory period of 30 years
said, “the cabinet papers for 1939, published this morning show that
World War-II would not have started that year, had the Chamberlain
government accepted or understood Russian advice that an alliance
between Britain, France and the Soviet Union would prevent war because
Hitler would not risk a conflict against the powers on two fronts.â€
Why the Western allies did not agree to the Soviet proposal is
chillingly articulated by the then US Senator Harry Truman who later
became both the Vice-President and the President. The day after Hitler
attacked the Soviet Union, he said: “If we see that Germany is winning
we should help the Russians and if Russia is winning we should help the
Germans and that way let them kill as many as possible.†(The New York
Times, June 24, 1941). It was precisely for this reason that the landing
of the second front was delayed by more than two years, despite giving
assurances to Stalin that this would be opened in 1942. This was based
on the hope that Hitler would destroy socialism and reintegrate
one-sixth of world territory back under the capitalist order.
“The greatest military march in world history,†as Hitler declared,
advanced 600 kilometres into the Soviet Union within a fortnight.
Winston Churchill wrote in his memoirs: “Almost all responsible military
opinion held that the Russian army will be soon defeated and largely
destroyed.†Soon the world was amazed when Moscow admitted its losses
after nine weeks of war as including 7,500 guns, 4,500 planes and 5,000
tanks. A British war journalist observed: “An army that could still
fight must have had the biggest or the second biggest supply.†The
182-day battle at Stalingrad, the most heroic and decisive in the defeat
of fascism changed the tide. The subsequent Soviet counter-offensive saw
the fascist military might collapsing. Retreating German soldiers, in
Istra near Moscow, wrote on the walls “Farewell Moscow we are off to
Berlin,†the Soviet soldiers wrote below, “We will get to Berlin too.â€
This they did. The red flag unfurled atop the German Reichstag on April
30, 1945. Not the US or Britain or France but it was the Soviet Union
that lowered the fascist flag.
Such distortion of history to restate the “eternality of capitalismâ€
comes in the wake of the global recession that is throwing up the
possibilities of anti-capitalist socialist alternatives. Truth is
sacrificed at capitalism’s altar to prevent the Left’s advance.
Karl Stewart on said:
Good point Steve, there is no essential political difference at all between the anti-fascist strategy worked out by the world communist movement way back in 1935 and the essential political strategy of subsequent broad anti-fascist movements such as the ANL, ARA, UAF Searchlight etc.
“Anathemitising” the fascists and then building the broadest possible consensus against them remains the best possible strategy against them.
Armchair on said:
Karl- don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Trotskyism has played a positive role which I will deal with in more detail when I’m sober.
As a cult/religion it is clearly useless, as are so many of its adherents (mentioning no names)
Jim- good health to you mate!
Louis Proyect on said:
So, the Trotsky cultists would travel back in time to condemn the German communists for failing to beg the social democrat leaders for an alliance – regardless of the killings of communists by social democrats.
—
I don’t know about that but it probably would have been a good idea for the CP not unite with the Nazis in Saxony around a referendum to unseat an SP legislator. Generally speaking, Stalin’s recommendations to CP’s around the world from the late 20s onward were fucked up but go ahead and feel nostalgia for them if it makes you feel good. Some people have the same sort of thing for Busby Berkeley movies.
Jim on said:
#57 Armchair your a star, a red one if you like – shine brightly?
The photo of Andy on Louis’s blog reminded me of Captain George Mainwaring that pompous— patriotic—local bank manager who was the leader of fictional seaside town of Walmington-on-Sea home guard during WW2 lol.
And whilst I’m on it were is Mark P I would have thought he would of had something to say about all this? I thought I saw him down the Old Kent Road today trying to sell tee-shirts out of an old suitcase, I may have been mistaken!
Karl Stewart on said:
Hey Louis, but the communist movement analysed these mistakes over 70 years ago and worked out a specific anti-fascist strategy which defeated fascism.
The problem is you disagree with both the anti-alliance policy of the early 1930s and the anti-fascist strategy of 1935-1945 too. You seem to be arguing that WWII should not even have been fought.
In the US, the anti-WWII line is only supported by far-right politicians such as Pat Buchanan and in the UK only by maverick conservative historians.
Whereas communists learned from mistakes, drew the right conclusions and worked out new strategies which worked, you don’t seem to have any strategy at all.
Louis Proyect on said:
In the US, the anti-WWII line is only supported by far-right politicians such as Pat Buchanan and in the UK only by maverick conservative historians.
—
I did not realize that Howard Zinn was “far-right”. Too bad that the Brits are still mired in social patriotism and have not produced a class-conscious historian of that stature.
Vengence of History on said:
Erm Louis have you not heard of EP Thompson or Christopher Hill.
Google ‘em you might find it interesting
Louis Proyect on said:
I am very familiar with the CP Historian’s School, which included Hill, Thompson, Hobsbawm, Dobb et al. I actually mentioned them in the post that Andy has taken exception to:
>>I could not help but think that the low profile kept by Britain during the Vietnam war might have reduced the irritant factor that led young American historians to examine past wars ruthlessly, as Karl Marx would have put it.
I also wondered if the continuing prestige of the British CP historian’s group might have also played a role. Except for Herbert Aptheker, there were no American historians who had the prestige and influence of an Eric Hobsbawm and company. Although none of these historians were blind followers of the CP, they were unlikely to challenge nostrums about the “good war”.
Vengence of History on said:
Sorry I’m very confused. What exactly are your trying to argue?
Can you explain how “Brit” historians ( I prefer Limey btw) like these demonstrate social patriotism as you call it?
Louis Proyect on said:
What am I trying to argue? That Britain did not have the equivalent of William Appleman Williams, Howard Zinn, Gar Alperovitz, Gabriel Kolko and perhaps dozens of other non-Stalinist radical historians who came to prominence during the Vietnam War. Proceeding on the basis that a war prosecuted in the name of “New Deal” values (LBJ was a solid New Dealer), they dug into the roots of American foreign policy and came to the conclusion that WWII was not a “good war”. As far as I can tell, the consensus among radical historians in Britain, who were either CP’ers or under their influence, agree with Christopher Hitchens and Andy Newman, namely that a “revisionist” treatment of WWII is out of line.
Vengence of History on said:
As somebody who has family living in Eastern Europe during WW2 I can agree that there is no such thing as a “good” war and wars are fought for many different reasons
However the reason that the war was necessary was that the NSDAP regime not just wanted to but started the murder various diverse groups such as Jes , Gays , Roma etc
Had they not been militarily defeated they would have slaugher the lot with little or no remorse.
Thus the war was a war for humanity fought by sh*ts
Louis Proyect on said:
Okay, let’s just leave it like this. Your position falls within the British consensus but eschews the rah-rah language of Andy’s posts. Just as long as we understand that it differs from that of Zinn et al and the Trotskyist left in Britain, at least we will have clarity even if agreement is out of the question.
Noah on said:
Louis has made clear here that he does not regard WW2 as having been a ‘good war'; and on his own blog he has clarified further:
“I am asked if Britain should have fought Germany. Emphatically not. No capitalist power should ever fight another capitalist power since it will be the working class that is victimized.”
It’s worth considering what the likely consquence would have been if the UK & USA had refrained from taking part in WW2, on the same side as the USSR.
The Soviet Union would have fought Nazi Germany entirely alone; thus considerably increasing the likelihood that the Soviet Union would would have lost, & the territory of the USSR becoming part of a vast fascist empire.
Apols if saying this makes me somebody who is ‘personally abusive’ or a ‘ranter’, but Louis’ position is not a pretty one.
Louis Proyect on said:
Well, the best way to have preempted a Nazi (or Anglo-American imperialist) attack on the USSR was to have advanced working class power, the earlier the better. But by 1940 the die was cast. In reality the USSR was made more vulnerable by the very popular front policies that are being hailed here. The failure of the Popular Front in Spain, due in large part to Stalin’s counter-revolutionary intervention and the government’s hostility to class-based demands, made Hitler’s job easier. France was a total fuck-up as well. Not to speak of Stalin’s squelching of anti-fascist agitation when the non-aggression treaty with Hitler was in force. And turning the clock back to the “Third Period”, the ultraleft madness that declared war on the “social fascists”, we get the original fuck-up that allowed Hitler to take power. That is what is so sick about all this nostalgia for Stalin here. Most sensible people understand that the Left today has to focus on the problems we are facing in the 21st century and that the “Russian questions” are best left to the sidelines. That is why there is so much interest in the NPA in France. It has tried mostly successfully to transcend the sectarian framework where groups try to establish their lineage with Trotsky or Stalin. I had thought that the inclusion of articles by Murray Smith here, if memory serves me correctly, indicated that the Socialist Unity bloggers understood what was needed. But after reading all the sorry attempts to refurbish the reputation of Stalin here, I can see I was sadly mistaken.
Vengence of History on said:
Here is where I think/hope we are talking at cross purposes
I doubt that many here would defend stalins brand of realpolitique. Though I’ve heard a couple of defences which are of interest.
The points i think here are:-
a) The main enemey of humanity (not just the class) was at the time the NSDAP. It would have been great if the Germans themselves had removed them but they did not. Thus it was necessary to remove the regime by force. By the way I have no intrinsic issue with regime change. Vietnam getting rid of Pol Pot comes very much to mind.
b) British historians who like Zinn may have had direct experience of WW2 realised that these pople had to be stoped – by ANY means necessary including wearing His Maj’s uniform
Sweet FA to do with social patriotism
Louis Proyect on said:
Sweet FA to do with social patriotism
—
I don’t much about the CP in Britain during WWII but social patriotism certainly describes the CPUSA which:
1. Backed the Nisei concentration camps.
2. Backed Hiroshima and Nagasaki
3. Backed a no-strike pledge
4. Supported the Smith Act prosecution of the SWP leaders for opposing WWII
5. Opposed a March on Washington for equal rights for African-Americans
Not a pretty picture.
Noah on said:
Louis, I don’t agree with your argument above, ie (if I get you right), that misguided policies by the USSR and the communist movement were the (or a) key factor in the causes of WW2.
But that’s really beside the point in terms of your position that Britain & the USA should not have participated in WW2. Because whatever right or wrong policies etc had been involved, Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union; and your position seems to be that the USSR should have fought Nazi Germany alone, without the USA & UK as allies.
Louis Proyect on said:
The key factor behind WWII was the same as WWI, imperialism.
Capitalism gained a new lease on life when Joseph Stalin managed to liquidate Soviet Marxism and impose Stalinist leaderships on CP’s around the world.
And you have to throw social democracy into the mix, with its own class-collaborationist methods. Of course, with the uncritical attitude toward the British Labour Party here, another reason to be disappointed. Lenin likened communist support for Labour as a rope around the neck of a hanging man. But don’t let Lenin get in the way of your nostalgia for Attlee and company.
Vengence of History on said:
Erm no it wasn’t it was the desire of the NSDAP to murder millions of perfectly ordinary people that was the main cause of WW2 – though yes there were many other factors. at it was for that reason they were fought
If you cannot see the quantative and qualatative differnce between the two wars then there is nothing more I can say
Jim on said:
Officers, at the rear 5 miles behind the front line enjoying tea and crumpet, whilst the working class poor were at the front doing the actual fighting, that’s how it was in WW1 and WW2 in fact in all wars that are inherently, materialistic fought for economic reasons which means that with 11 millions dead WW2 was no different.
Vengence of History on said:
Ah so that’s okay then because all war is terrible we should just have surrendered to the Axis
I assume that this is not what you are saying but sadly it sounds rather like it
Jim on said:
Oh and then there’s the “Axis of evil” a term I’m sure know was coined by United States George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address 2002 in order to describe governments that he accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. Bush’s presidency was marked by this notion as a justification for the War. Still many differences with WW2 but still the same a Capitalist War all the same!
Andy Newman on said:
#69
“after reading all the sorry attempts to refurbish the reputation of Stalin here, I can see I was sadly mistaken.”
Louis. it really si the mark of an intellectual lightweight to resort to misrepresenting your opponents arguments and then refuting straw men of your own creation.
Stalin’s position, articulated in Britan mainly by Palme dutt was that the war between britan and Gemany was an inter-imperialist rivalry, and that only the invasion of the USSR gave Britain’s war, as an ally of the USSR a progressive nature.
The view that Britain’s war against fascism inherently had a progressive aspect was not stalin’s but that of the minority on the CPGB leadership, big hitters like Harry Pollitt, John Campbell, Bob Stewart and Willie gallagher MP.
It escapes me how arguing a position different from Stalin.s and being highly critical of Stalin amounts to attempts to “refurbish his reputation”
John Wight on said:
Louis Proyect’s interventions on this thread illustrate perfectly why Trotskyism has never been more than an intellectual pastime, practiced in the main by disaffected intellectuals, which has failed to have any meaningful impact anywhere in the world.
For all his bluster, he’s yet to come up with a coherent argument, any argument at all, in fact, as to what the ‘correct’ position of British socialists and communists should have been during the period covered in the original article – i.e., when the nazis had occupied Europe and were poised to invade Britain, and when they were also well into the process of liquidating communists, socialists, trade unionists, gays, and of course later, six million Jews.
He then slates the British Labour government, under Attlee, which only set in motion the most socially progressive transformation to take place in any western industrialised nation, then or since, when it came to power in 1945.
Yes, WW1 and WW2 were both inter-imperialist wars. But unlike WW1 there was no chance of turning WW2 into a civil war for the simple reason that communism in Germany had been well and truly crushed.
So what should the British CP and the working class have done in his opinion? Should it have used the opportunity provided by the threat of nazi invasion to call for the overthrow of the British government – revolution in the colonies, etc. – on the basis that the working class had no interest in whether or not it was ruled by a capitalist parliamentary democracy or fascism.
Louis seems to have fallen for Howard Zinn’s, it has to be said, poor attempts at lumping WW2 in with WW1, Korea and Vietnam, etc. I’ve read Zinn’s analysis a few times in his otherwise superlative ‘People’s History’ and on each occasion been left unimpressed.
The barbarism of nazism was something new in human history. As such it produced a unique confluence of circumstances whereby for a brief period, 1939-1945, the interests of the British ruling class and the British working class in resisting and defeating this threat were inextricably linked.
Andy Newman on said:
~73 Louis, how sily your are:
“Lenin likened communist support for Labour as a rope around the neck of a hanging man. But don’t let Lenin get in the way of your nostalgia for Attlee and company.”
You really like hanging on to your safe and comforting truisms, supra-historical moral absolutes, divorced from a concrete analysis of material reality.
To which we might reply: “Grau, theurer Freund, ist alle Theorie, Und grün des Lebens goldner Baum.”
The Attlee government was a hugely significant advance for working people in Britain, and there is no possibilty of advancing to socialism without first exploring the potential for radical and transformative change within the paramaters of the existing system.
Louis Proyect on said:
Louis seems to have fallen for Howard Zinn’s, it has to be said, poor attempts at lumping WW2 in with WW1, Korea and Vietnam, etc. I’ve read Zinn’s analysis a few times in his otherwise superlative ‘People’s History’ and came away unimpressed.
—
I assure you that Zinn’s reputation will remain unscathed.
Louis Proyect on said:
The Attlee government was a hugely significant advance for working people in Britain, and there is no possibilty of advancing to socialism without first exploring the potential for radical and transformative change within the paramaters of the existing system.
—
That reminds me. Why haven’t you written any Valentines to Obama since February? Has reality slapped you in the face, poor boy?
John Wight on said:
‘I assure you that Zinn’s reputation will remain unscathed.’
On this, at least, we are in agreement.
Andy Newman on said:
The American comedian Rich hall has proved enormously sucessful in Britain, with his comedy persona being a none too bright American hick bewildered by his complete ignorance of British culture and history, and therefore the unintentional humour of his naive observations.
I never realised before that Hall had stolen his act from Louis Proyect.
This is priceless comedy: #65
So in other words, every expert who has made a detailed study of the historical evidence has come to a different conclusion to Louis.
Louis admits at #71 that he is arguing based upon personal ignorance conceding that he” don’t much about the CP in Britain during WWII but social patriotism certainly describes the CPUSA “
Ahh. yes it is a curious intellectual trait of Americans to assume that every one elses expereince must be the same as theirs. Britain was different because: i) the imminent threat of Nazi invasion; ii) the labour movement participation in government; iii) the defeat of the capitalist class over Dunkirk; iv) the radicalism unleashed in the anti-fascist nature of the preparations for national defence; v) the widespread and deep communist influence and agitation in the armed forces; vi) the fact that there was a native tradition in support of a popular war against facsism, with figures like Bevan and Crips, as well as the Pollitt/Campbell wing of the CP.
But Louis can ignore the histroical facts because he is armed with the supernatural tool of “trotskyism”
Louis provides more knockabout humour, with his observation at #67 “Just as long as we understand that it differs from that of Zinn et al and the Trotskyist left in Britain, at least we will have clarity even if agreement is out of the question.”
Ignorance is indeed no defence. Louis simply assumes that British Trotskyists took the same position as him, but if he consulted Richardson and Bornstein’s history of Trotskism in Britain during the war, “War and the International”, Louis would learn that broadly the majority of British trotskyists supported the military defence of Britain against Nazism.
Andy Newman on said:
#69
“the best way to have preempted a Nazi (or Anglo-American imperialist) attack on the USSR was to have advanced working class power, the earlier the better. But by 1940 the die was cast.”
ho ho. The gags keep coming!
The answer to what socialists in Britain should have done faced with the actual historical circumstnces of threatened Nazi invasion, is that they should have had a revolution years earlier.
If only they had thought of that. Pop in the time machine, and with the benefit of perfect hindsight, change the past. simples.
In the scary atmosphere of 1940, with factories working around the clock, every man woman and child carying their gas mask at all times, the children taken from the families and evacuated to strangers, air raid shelters in every garden, people giving up their pots and pans and the railings being taken from outside houses for the metal, and trenches being dug in the public parks. What audience would a trot have got arguing that there was no difference between the nazis and the British government, and if only british owrkers had had a revolution years ago, they wouldn’t be in this mess.
Andy Newman on said:
Years ago, when I worked on the ferries, a guy who crewed part time with me was a semi-professional chess player.
He had a rare level of honesty in his self-assessment, and he said that his trouble was that he was a “book player”, where he could respond with the correct move to any situation that he recognised, and he had a huge knowledge of past games that allowed him to be good by drawing on the expereince of past masters, but he found it very difficult to think for himself to analyse novel situations, which meant he could only be as good as his memory, and he could only be good against other book players.
This is also sometimes a problem on the left particularly with those who quote the old grey-beards, who think that a quote from lenin about one specific historical conjuncture offers guidence in a superfically similar, but in reality quite distinct later historical conjuncture.
I am only saying.
Andy Newman on said:
#75
“Officers, at the rear 5 miles behind the front line enjoying tea and crumpet, whilst the working class poor were at the front doing the actual fighting, that’s how it was in WW1 and WW2 “
Rubbish.
The casualty rates of officers in both WW1 and WW2 were proportionately higher among officers than other ranks. Remember the relatively high proportion of officers in combat positions in the RAF, and that during the first two years of the war the RAF were losing aircrew at a phenomenal rate (incidently, Nicholson baker can stick in his pipe the fact that more RAF aircrew than german civilians were killed in this period)
Andy Newman on said:
It gets even funnier if you read the comments on Louis’s blog
Louis says: “Given the insignificant size of Marxism in 1940, any opposition to WWII had to be propagandistic in nature. “
But this was not the perspective or the experience of british trotskyists. While they stayed marginal, the opportunity given to them by the CP’s amibivelence about strikes, and the state banning of the Daily Worker gave the various trot groups who eventually coallesced into the RCP the opportunity for real but small scale intervention and organisng in the labour movement. the fact that they did not take a propagandist view, is what allowed them to grow.
Socialist Appeal had a print run of 27000, and John haston was even interviewd in the daily Mail, and as we know he did do relatively well in the Neath by-election. Trotskyists had limited infleunce in engineering apprentices strikes, and in the campaign of squatting the tube station as deep shelters.
But hey, why bother finding out the facts of what actually happened in britain, when you can extrapolate from what happened in the USA? Indeed why let facts get in the way of your opinions?
johng on said:
Well whatever else might be said the above is the first unstereotyped comment I’ve seen about the dreaded “Trots” from Andy in many a long year.
Interestingly there was enourmous tension between the European Trots and the Americans in the aftermath of the second world war, Duncan Hallas believing that the Cannonites played a fairly awful role in foisting sectarian idiots onto a movement that had had real potential during that period.
The American SWP had also played a larger role but had an enourmous suspician of anyone with an independent base was to play havoc, foisting various sectarian monstrosities on the French, and the beloved WRP on the British:
This was Duncan Hallas’s account:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1973/xx/fidecline.htm
Louis Proyect on said:
if only british owrkers had had a revolution years ago, they wouldn’t be in this mess.
—
I don’t blame the workers. I blame Stalin who killed all the experienced Marxist leaders in the USSR and imposed his reactionary perspective on the world Communist movement. How sad that people would want to somehow breathe life into this rotting corpse today. Come to think of it, we are not dealing with a corpse. The maggots finished it off decades ago. Why young and not so young radicals like Andy would want to put Humpty-Dumpty back together is a profound mystery.
bill j on said:
“But hey, why bother finding out the facts of what actually happened in britain, when you can extrapolate from what happened in the USA? Indeed why let facts get in the way of your opinions?”
Looks who’s talking.
Karl Stewart on said:
Wow, he really does think we shouldn’t have fought WWII,
I’ve never heard anyone on the left ever say that before, whether they come from the social democrat, orthodox communist or dissident communist traditions.
What a peculiar individual this Mr Proyect must be.
And once again, who the fuck is he?
Andy Newman on said:
#89
“Well whatever else might be said the above is the first unstereotyped comment I’ve seen about the dreaded “Trots” from Andy in many a long year. ”
Jock Haston was an entertaining figure, in the interveiew the daily mail gave him, they asked him where the RCP got the money to print Socialist Appeal, and he replied that Dr Goebels flew over every night and personally dropped money down his chimney. Taking the piss out of the “trotsky-fascist” slander. Fortunately the journalist got the sarcasm, and reported it as a joke.
Andy Newman on said:
#90
“I don’t blame the workers. I blame Stalin who killed all the experienced Marxist leaders in the USSR and imposed his reactionary perspective on the world Communist movement. ”
But Stalin himself had very limited direct influence on the CPGB.
The CP’s “big chance” was the general strike of 1926, where the somewhat unhappt advice of the Comintern came not from Stalin, but Zinoviev, shortly before Zinoviev became trotsky’s ally in the United Opposition.
Armchair on said:
billj- yah boo sucks.
Louis Proyect on said:
And once again, who the fuck is he?
—
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/about-louis-proyect/
I am the moderator of the Marxism mailing list, where my various articles first appear. For information on how to subscribe to the list, go to http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism.
I first became active in socialist politics in 1967, the beginning of my 11 years in the American Trotskyist movement. Despite my profound respect for Leon Trotsky as a Marxist thinker, I view the Trotskyist movement as such a sectarian mistake. Throughout most of the 80s, I was active in the Central American solidarity movement, first with CISPES and then with Tecnica, an organization that sent computer programmers and other skilled professionals to Nicaragua. The project eventually took root in southern Africa as well, where it worked with SWAPO and the ANC. More recently I have given workshops on the Internet to community and union groups.
I have been strongly influenced by the example of The Socialist Union, a group led by Bert Cochran and Harry Braverman who left the Trotskyist movement in 1953 in order to create an alternative to the sectarian “vanguard” model. For six years they published a magazine called The American Socialist and worked to regroup the left. Marxmail is a conscious attempt to link up with their traditions.
I have also created a small archive of the writings of James M. Blaut, who died in November, 2000. Jim was an outstanding scholar and revolutionary whose contributions to our movement are best commemorated through his work.
My articles, many of which appeared originally as postings to the Marxism list, have appeared in Sozialismus (Germany), Science and Society, New Politics, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Organization and Environment, Cultural Logic, Dark Night Field Notes, Revolutionary History (Great Britain), New Interventions (Great Britain), Canadian Dimension, Revolution Magazine (New Zealand), Swans and Green Left Weekly (Australia).
I am also a proud member of the NY Film Critics Online.
Louis Proyect on said:
But Stalin himself had very limited direct influence on the CPGB.
—
It doesn’t matter. Stalinism shaped all Communist Parties, a function of having hegemonic control over the USSR.
johng on said:
And Trotsky’s writings on the General Strike are a direct criticism of Zinoviev’s position, hardly a deviant position from Stalin at the time…
However perhaps it would be best to respond like Jock Haston. We need a bit more of that. But seriously have’nt we all more important fish to fry at the moment then a long debate about who offended who?
Jim on said:
#87 “The casualty rates of officers in both WW1 and WW2 were proportionately higher among officers than other rank.”
Bomber Command Andy, had more non-ranked and NCO personnel as gunners and navigators.
It is true, like the cavalry in WW1 the officer class of the RAF mostly drown from the sporty bloodthirsty ruling class manning the fighters were not expecting the combat conditions that drained the few. So Sergeant Pilot or Flight Sergeant was introduced for the duration of the war, drawn from the working class and at the end of WW2 they were all offered commissions but many refused having seen what it was all about being a tosser. I’m also informed by my dad who was in the RAF in the 50s for 16 years that anyone above Wing Commander would be unlikely to fly combat missions.
How you come to the conclusion that the casualty rates of officers in both wars were higher just makes no sense. It’s a bit like saying that the casualty rate amongst officers in both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is higher. It has always bean the case that the working classes are the cannon fodder for the capitalist war and the officer class have never been charged to look after the interests of workers in uniform but rather to keep them in line and as in the first world war famously with a revolver in hand stand at the back, nothing has changed. So its rubbish back to you.
Vengence of History on said:
#92 Karl to be honest I don’t actaully think these guys would in reality have opposed oposition to fascism in WW2. I rather suspect they are still stuck in the university bar where making statements like these were considered the epitome of cool by their fellow spotty oiks. The weekly worker is a good example ofthis in th UK
Vengence of History on said:
Louis – loved your bio
Esp the bit about NYC Film critics
Francis King on said:
Seems perfectly clear to me: Andy, as a former Trotskyist who has abandoned the faith and, worse still, now shows sympathy with some of the standpoints of orthodox communism, is clearly guilty of the sin of apostasy. That sort of thing cannot possibly be dealt with through rational debate. Nothing short of anathema will suffice.
prianikoff on said:
John Wight’s arguments at #79 are highly misleading;
The Trotskyist “Workers International League” grew on the basis of its politics during the Second World War. The recruits it made were largely industrial workers and many of them came from the CPGB.
Whereas, the CPGB tended to recruit mainly middle class Popular Frontist types.
Many of these left active politics after 1956, when the Trotskyists once again recruited industrial workers from the CPGB.
The W.I.L’s implantation in the wartime industries meant they were able to argue for a policy of workers control over production.
The CPGB completely went over to the British employers during the War, inciting the Tories and police to crack down on the Trotskysists in industry.
They even produced a pamphlet called “Clear Out Hitler’s Agents”, which argued that Trotskyists shoud be treated ” as you would an open Nazi”.
The true record shows how the WIL tried to implement the 1940 Manifesto of the 4th International in Britain. This rejected “the grotesque pretension of doing away with .. militarization through empty pacifist protests….a Bolshevik strives to become not only the best trade unionist but also the best soldier.
..At the same time we do not forget for a moment that this war is not our war”
The situation in the Royal Ordnance Factory in Nottingham illustrates this.
It was a particularly important arms factory, producing guns and spare parts, some of which were destined for Russia.
The employers were trying to step up production using dilution of the workforce and “flexibility”, which meant destroying AEU agreements.
The CPGB enforced the employers line through its influence in the union.
But they were opposed by the popular W.I.L convenor Pemberton, who managed to defend union conditions and implement a policy of workers control.
In this period, all the production targets were met.
This is by no means an isolated example, but reflects the growing mood of militancy amongst the working class DURING WARTIME.
As the Historian AJP Taylor pointed out:
“Between 1943 and the landings in France on June 6th 1944, there were as many strikes as in the worst period of the first war”
The closing years of the war certainly meant that socialism was on the agenda in Britain, France, Italy and Greece – not to mention the situation in Eastern Europe.
Andy Newman on said:
#100
“How you come to the conclusion that the casualty rates of officers in both wars were higher just makes no sense.”
I haven’t “come to the conclusion”, it is a statistical fact. My knoweldge of it comes from some decent research from an article by Ted Crawford, that doesn’t sem to be on-line
Andy Newman on said:
#90
Worth going ack to this:
“I don’t blame the workers. I blame Stalin who killed all the experienced Marxist leaders in the USSR and imposed his reactionary perspective on the world Communist movement.“
This is a classic “crisis of leadership argument”, but in fact it is simply religious faith on Louis’s part to assume that had a different political line been adopted by the CP’s that were marginal in most European countires, that this would have materially affected the outcome and prevented war.
Jocelin H on said:
A good british socialist bloke during WW2 should have waited until he was drafted along with his neighbors and workmates and then joined his unit. He should then have spent his time aiming high and talking with his comrades about what fighting for democracy and freedom really meant. He should have explained why the British re-armed Greek fascist militas and attacked the Greek partizans. He should have explained why allied troops faced down Yugoslavian patizans in Trieste. He should have denounced the British bosses for plotting to keep their empire and for plotting against the British workers and veterans. In short he should have sought every opportunity to pursue class politics.
A simple thing, apparrently hard to understand.
ps It’s pity to see Ken MacLeod, a good sci-fi author, running with the hounds, back-slapping and otherwise indulging the resident group-think.
pps Louis’ harsh characterisations can at least be argued with, which is more than can be said for many of the comments made against him – particularly irritating are the passive- aggressive “oh that cra-ra-zy trotskyite” type comments made to the audience – as if Louis wasn’t right here in the room with us…)
John Wight on said:
#104 – ‘The closing years of the war certainly meant that socialism was on the agenda in Britain, France, Italy and Greece.’
-
The latter three, yes, but not in Britain. Communist parties throughout Europe emerged from the war with a huge amount of credibility and prestige as a result of their role in providing the backbone of resistance to the Nazis within their respective countries. In France, in 1945, the Communist Party was the most powerful and only coherent political organisation in the country. It controlled a variety of front organisations and most of the major unions within the CGT. The French CP owned its own bank and also a shipping line. It published 12 daily newspapers throughout the country and an astonishing 42 weekly journals.
Comparative influence and prestige was enjoyed by its counterparts in Italy and Greece, terrifying their respective ruling classes and the Americans in the process, who feared a Communist Europe and took steps to thwart it, via the Marshall Plan, funding and supporting right wing nationalists in Greece, and helping to rig a general election in Italy.
Nothing like the aforementioned existed in Britain, where a tradition of reformism reached its zenith with the election of the Attlee government in 1945 and the implementation of the welfare state, undoubtedly influenced largely by the need to nullify the threat posed by the popularity of collectivist ideas and the spectre of the Soviet Union.
The examples you’ve cited of Trotskyist activity in Britain during the war years can hardly be described as major, can they, not when we take into account that the entire working class had been mobilised in the war effort.
prianikoff on said:
#107 The influence of the Communist Parties certainly increased during wartime. But nowhere were they able to make a transition from a wartime “Peoples Front” line to actually taking power.
Only in countries where the CP’s had abandoned such a position and disentagled themselves from the right wing nationalists (China and Yugoslavia) did this happen.
Greece was a negative example, in which Churchill sent in British forces to smash the ELAS uprising and Stalin complied, forcing Tito to do likewise.
In Vietnam, the Stalinist Vietminh went as far as conducting a massacre of the Vietnamese Trotskyist leadership who tried to organise a mass uprising against the reoccupation of their country by French Imperialism.
No doubt the Stalinist apologist Wight also dismisses this as “hardly major” too.
Just as he regards Stalin as having “mass support” despite the fact he continued to carry out a wave of internal repression in the USSR in 1936-7.
Why exactly did the “popular” Stalin need to do this?
The only significant Soviet historian to have written about this in detail in recent years was Vadim Rogovin and his conclusion was that there was widespread opposition to Stalin’s policies at the time.
But this opposition wasn’t unified because of the severe conditions of repression existing under Stalin, Yezhov and Beria.
Stalin lived in fear that this opposition under the influence of Trotsky, whose writings were very influential at this time, but was struggling to build an international organisation under the conditions of severe repression produced by the combined effects of Stalinist and international bourgeois repression.
The entire record of 1930’s Stalinism, from Germany in 1933 to the German of Invasion of 1941 was a series of blunders and defeats. There was indeed a crisis of leadership and the victories of the Western Allies and USSR in 1945 only postponed it.
Krushchev’s “Secret Speech” in 1956 hastened the breakup of Stalinism, but was only a partial de-Stalinisation and the final denouement only occurred after the “period of Stagnation”.
Fixating on the high point of Stalinist success in 1945 and ignoring everything else is a dishonest methodology.
prianikoff on said:
para 3 should read: “…Stalin lived in fear that this opposition would unite under the influence of Trotsky, whose writings were very influential at this time.
But he was struggling to build an international organisation under the conditions of severe repression produced by the combined effects of Stalinist and international bourgeois repression.”
Andy Newman on said:
Incidently, we can see the difference between WW1 and WW” by comparing the expereince of countries occupied by the Germans.
WW2 saw the industrial scale murder of jews, partisan resistance, and hundreds of thousands of volunteers from countries like Norway, Denmark France, belgium, the Baltic states and Holland to the waffen SS, recruited on the specific and explicit premise that it was a pan-European war against bolshevism and Jewry. (See Leon Degrelle as the archytype)
WW1 saw no such developments.
John Wight on said:
#108/109 – Stalin’s priority after the war was the creation of a buffer zone by which to negate the possibility of another invasion of a country which had suffered immeasurably at the hands of the Nazis.
The SU was in no position to push revolutionary struggles beyond its own borders, given the stance taken by the US and its possession of the atomic bomb, which it had demonstrated it was willing to use.
Or maybe the SU should have just gone ahead and risked nuclear war and got it over with.
So, again, Trotskyist illusions of Permanent Revolution, when tested in the real world, are found wanting.
The prestige enjoyed by the Red Army for its role in defeating the Nazis, and of Communist partisans and resistance fighters throughout occupied Europe, has been attested to by even the likes of Antony Beevor, who could hardly be described as a fellow traveller.
It’s not a case of being a ‘Stalinist apologist’. It’s a case of preferring an analysis of historical events rooted in materialism, rather than subjectivism.
Louis Proyect on said:
The SU was in no position to push revolutionary struggles beyond its own borders, given the stance taken by the US and its possession of the atomic bomb, which it had demonstrated it was willing to use.
—
I guess that explains accepting the division of Vietnam, supporting the creation of the state of Israel, and opposing the FLN in Algeria.
Jim on said:
#104 “I haven’t “come to the conclusion”, it is a statistical fact. My knoweldge of it comes from some decent research from an article by Ted Crawford, that doesn’t seem to be on-line.”
A statistical fact that you are simply unable to back up very telling of your knowledge. You have lost the arguments both you and your compadres GG, Mark P in all the recent threads about World War 2 but are the last to admit it!
Armchair on said:
#113 Jim- In fairness, I think you are also under some obligation to provide evidence of your contention.
#99 Additionally, I have spoken to my dad, who was s flight-sergeant in bomber command during the second world war, and his recollection is that all aircrew were of at least sergeant rank. He is also adamant that he was never offered a commission.
Louis Proyect on said:
From http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/ruminations-on-wwii/
The build-up to Pearl Harbor began two decades prior to the attack when, in 1922, the U.S., Britain, and Japan agreed that the Japanese navy would not be allowed more than 60 percent of the capital ship tonnage of the other two powers. As resentment grew within Japan over this decidedly inequitable agreement, that same year the United States Supreme Court declared Japanese immigrants ineligible for American citizenship. This decision was followed a year later by the Supreme Court upholding a California and Washington ruling denying Japanese the right to own property. A third judicial strike was dealt in 1924 with the Exclusion Act which virtually banned all Asian immigration. Finally, in 1930, when the London Naval Treaty denied Japan naval hegemony in its own waters, the groundwork for war (and “surprise attacks”) had been laid.
Upon realizing that Japan textiles were outproducing Lancashire mills, the British Empire (including India, Australia, Burma, etc.) raised the tariff on Japanese exports by 25 percent.
Within a few years, the Dutch followed suit in Indonesia and the West Indies, with the U.S. (in Cuba and the Philippines) not far behind. This led to the Japanese (correctly) claiming encirclement by the “ABCD” (American, British, Chinese, and Dutch) powers.
Such moves, combined with Japan’s expanding colonial designs, says Kenneth C. Davis, made “a clash between Japan and the United States and the other Western nations over control of the economy and resources of the Far East and Pacific…bound to happen.”
Armchair on said:
#115 I don’t think that many people would argue that the struggle between the US etc and Japan was not largely about imperialist rivalry.
However I find it strange that you lump in China with the western imperialist powers, when it was itself the subject still in significant areas of imperialist domination and not even yet properly formed as a nation state for that reason.
Are you also suggesting that China thereby in some way had some responsibility for provoking the subsequent Japanese invasion?
Ken MacLeod on said:
Jocelin H says: It’s pity to see Ken MacLeod, a good sci-fi author, running with the hounds, back-slapping and otherwise indulging the resident group-think.
How am I ‘running with the hounds’ in advising Andy not to get too wound up about Louis’ criticisms? Way back in the 90s on a certain newsgroup Louis and I used to go at each other hammer and tongs. I was very much at fault. Louis offered to call off the flamewars, several other people including me agreed, and that was pretty much that. Louis is a quite acerbic online arguer, but I still like him. You just have to take the rough with the smooth.
On the main argument on this thread, I think my views are clear enough from this.
prianikoff on said:
#110 re WW1 vs WW2
As Brian Pearce once pointed out, even in World War One, there were situations where “defeatists” were the counter-revolutionaries.
e.g. in August-September 1917, when German troops had taken Riga and were marching on Petrograd, the former Tsarist generals in Kerensky’s High Command were counter-revolutionary defeatists who wished to see Petrograd taken. The rank and file troops in this sector, especially the Lettish brigades, who were strongly influenced by the Bolsheviks, were “defencist” and fiercely resisted the German offensive.
Lenin was also critical of “revolutionary chauvinists”, such as the SR types who wanted a revolutionary offensive
Similarly, a large section of the ruling class leading up to WW2 were “counter-revolutionary defeatists”.
They would have been happy to see a quisling pro-Nazi government in Britain, France and the rest of Europe.
The correct policy in Britain between 1939-5 might therefore be described as “revolutionary defencism” i.e. supporting an anti-fascist war by revolutionary means.
Similar criteria apply to the Resistance movements in Europe.
The correct interpretation of Trotsky’s Proletarian Military policy would have been along those lines.
But giving political credibility to the Wartime Coalition government, as the CPGB did, was more like the Bolsheviks calling for support for the Provisional Government!
After April 1917, they had a strategic line of bringing it down.
They never used such a slogan, even though they were prepared to defend the Provisional Government against Kornilov’s putsch.
In other words, revolutionary Defencism and the United Front tactic were means to gain a popular base for a socialist government.
Whereas the class collaborationist “Peoples Front” line erected a barrier against it.
Jim on said:
#114 Armchair with respect, the reality being that in both wars the social composition of the officer corps had widened somewhat albeit temporarily, when the ideals and notions of leadership as taught in the public schools of the ruling class ethos and loyalty to king, country and especially the will of a ruling class. When that ran to drip-dry drought, provision was made of the working classes ‘well’ to swell considerably the officer ranks. One other point is that unless officers lived of the unearned income of the workers before the war, then they are members of the working class. As for your dad was he a Sergeant Pilot flying spitfires and the like?
Nick Wright on said:
Proyect is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us bloggers, becomes intolerable in a normal human being. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Proyect and appointing another in his stead who in all other respects differs from comrade Proyect in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc
J B Malone on said:
The Greek uprising is an interesting case: Churchill, with Stalin’s full support was able to destroy the anti-Nazi resistance and restore former collaborators to power.
In Churchill’s words: “Do not hesitate to act as if you were in a conquered city where a local rebellion is in progress. . . . We have to hold and dominate Athens. It would be a great thing for you to succeed in this without bloodshed if possible, but also with bloodshed if necessary”
As for Stalin’s alleged mass support, the research done by Antony Beevor is interesting. He estimates that Soviet authorities executed around 13,500 of their own soldiers at Stalingrad – equivalent to a full division. This perhaps explains why documents from the German archives (Sixth Army ration returns) indicate that up to 50,000 Soviet citizens fought on the German side – despite the even worse brutality of the Nazis.
Andy Newman on said:
#113
It is from unpublished research, I have the original paper somewhere, I will see if I can dig it up, and quote the sources.
Andy Newman on said:
#115
Louis, it is not a question under dispute that the war in the far east was an anti-imperialist rivalry, notwithstanding the alliance of the western imperialists with the national liberation movement in China.
What is in dispute is whether the war in Europe was also simply an interimperialist rivalry. Yet, whenever you are challenged upon the historical specifics of British or European experience, you retreat to an example from the USA or Asia.
Britan’s war was different; and recall that the USA was only brought into alliance with the USSR due to a pre-existing military alliance between Britain and the USSR at the time that the USA entered the war; and America entering the European war not through choice, but Germany and Italy declaring war upon it.
Andy Newman on said:
#119
Jim what you are arguing here, which is by the way correct, contradicts your earlier false argument when you said ““Officers, at the rear 5 miles behind the front line enjoying tea and crumpet””
Louis Proyect on said:
From: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2004/07/21/howard-zinn-you-cant-be-neutral-on-a-moving-train/
After WWII begins, Zinn decides to enlist into the Air Force as a bombardier even though his navy yard job would have provided an exemption. In the final weeks of the war, he and his fellow airmen are given orders to bomb a small French town where German soldiers have been spotted. Not only is the fighting virtually over, they are ordered to drop an early version of napalm on the town, which kills many citizens as well as “enemy” soldiers. From 30,000 feet, it is very difficult to avoid “collateral damage.” This traumatizing event turns Zinn into a pacifist. Unlike the Communist Party that always viewed the war as a crusade against evil, Zinn would begin to question WWII and eventually all wars. He should be seen as part of an important pacifist tradition that also included Pacifica network founder Lew Hill and David Dellinger, who went to prison for refusing to serve in the military. In many ways, such figures were all-important in helping to shape the New Left.
Noah on said:
J B Malone #121: “Churchill, with Stalin’s full support was able to destroy the anti-Nazi resistance… etc”
What do you mean ‘with Stalin’s full support’? Did Stalin send Britain tanks or financial aid to help the UK fight the Communist-led partisans in Greece?
Then you cite Antony Beevor’s claim re: the number of executions within the Soviet Army at Stalingrad, apparently as an argument against the ‘allegation’ that Stalin had mass support.
It’s hardly news that there were lots of people executed in the USSR during the Stalin period. That can be construed as evidence that there were plenty of people who were actively opposed to the Communist Party’s position, and / or as evidence that lots of ‘innocent’ people were shot, irrespective of their political or other activities; and also, particularly in the appalling conditions of the struggle against Nazi occupation, that extremely harsh discipline was imposed- whether necessarily or otherwise.
But none of the above amounts to an argument against the proposition that Stalin had mass support.
PS- I have my copy of Beevor’s ‘Stalingrad’ here. Which chapter are you citing from?
Louis Proyect on said:
Good War Myth: 60 Years is Enough
By Mickey Z.
05/12/05 “ICH” – – As we pass yet another decade since the official end of WWII, well, you know what that means: anniversary mania. In the midst of our current war vs. evil, America is yet again celebrating the original “good war.” More than just a good war, in fact, corporate media shill Tom Brokaw deemed WWII “the greatest war the world has seen.”
But the US fought that war against racism with a segregated army.
It fought that war to end atrocities by participating in the shooting of surrendering soldiers, the starvation of POWs, the deliberate bombing of civilians, wiping out hospitals, strafing lifeboats, and in the Pacific boiling flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts.
FDR, the leader of this anti-racist, anti-atrocity force, signed Executive Order 9066, interning over 100,000 Japanese-Americans without due process…thus, in the name of taking on the architects of German prison camps became the architect of American prison camps.
Before, during, and after the Good War, the American business class traded with the enemy. Among the US corporations that invested in the Nazis were Ford, GE, Standard Oil, Texaco, ITT, IBM, and GM (top man William Knudsen called Nazi Germany “the miracle of the 20th century”).
And while the US regularly turned away Jewish refugees to face certain death in Europe, another group of refugees was welcomed with open arms after the war: fleeing Nazi war criminals who were used to help create the CIA and advance America’s nuclear program.
US General Curtis LeMay, commander of the 1945 Tokyo fire bombing operation, summed up: “I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal. Fortunately, we were on the winning side.”
full: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8815.htm
John Wight on said:
So, Louis, given that your aforementioned post, with regard to the fact that secitons of the international ruling class were happy to investment in the German economy under the Nazis, is correct, and given that Chruchill’s primary motivation in fighting the war was the preservation of an Empire responsible for the super exploitation of those economies it controlled is also correct – what in your view should have been the position of the CP, socialists, and class conscious workers in Britain between 1939 and 1945?
Noah on said:
Re: #125.
Louis Proyect, you entitle your blog ‘The Unrepentant Marxist’.
Yet the shining example you provide for us to follow is that of someone who, according to you, is a pacifist.
Like Andy said, the gags keep coming
Louis Proyect on said:
I don’t understand why I am kept asking the same question when I have made it crystal clear that I would be opposed to Churchill’s war, just as I would have been opposed to Asquith’s war.
However, I would have supported the USSR against a Nazi invasion.
I should add that the Stalin fans would be just as outraged by my position on defense of the USSR, which would have entailed a struggle against Stalin who had shown himself totally incapable of leading such a defense. After beheading the officer corps, suppressing anti-fascist agitation, relaxing defenses along the Western borderlines, and antagonizing peasants who became open to Nazi appeals (at least, at first), he should have been removed as leader of the USSR. I understand that will outrage his numerous admirers here, but that’s that.
The same thing applies to Spain. The best way to undermine Franco would have been to deepen the class struggle in Spain even though the Stalinists accused the POUM and anarchists of aiding Franco.
Frankly, I grew inured to these kinds of “soft on Hitler” smears when I was a mere stripling in the Trotskyist movement in the 1960s. Back then I could understand the nostalgia for Stalin since the USSR was still a formidable power and young radicals enjoyed identifying with winners like the CP rather than the isolated Trotskyites. But here we are in 2009, with Stalinism dead as the proverbial doornail. And Andy Newman, Calvin Tucker and John Wight still wave pom-pom’s for the disgusting gravedigger of the Russian Revolution. Amazing. Just amazing.
Louis Proyect on said:
Yet the shining example you provide for us to follow is that of someone who, according to you, is a pacifist.
—
Yes, I’ll stick with Howard Zinn and leave Sir Winston Churchill to you. Who can account for some peoples’ tastes.
bill j on said:
Yes it is incredible. Especially when this lot seem to think they’ve discovered something new in their love of Churchill and Uncle Joe. As if the only reason socialists ever opposed these two was due to their ignorance, lack of intelligence, or insufficient interest in the works of Andy Newman.
I say to them lot keep ploughing your lonely furrow. It makes it much easier to discredit the rest of your terrible right wing politics.
Francis King on said:
Louis Proyect: “The best way to undermine Franco would have been to deepen the class struggle in Spain…” How, exactly, would that have helped? Has there ever been a case in history where disorganisation and conflict in the rear has increased military effectiveness at the front?
johng on said:
To see the development of workers power as mere disorganisation is disengenuous in the context of a war against fascism: one of whose key aims is to smash that power.
Louis Proyect on said:
How, exactly, would that have helped?
—
Land reform would have given peasants the will to fight for something they felt that belonged to them.
Decolonization of Morocco would have given Franco’s Moroccan troops a reason to oppose him.
Workers control of industry would have increased workers motivation to resist Franco.
The CP not only opposed such measures. They murdered Andres Nin who advocated them.
Noah on said:
@ John Wight #128.
Louis Proyect has clarified on his own blog that his opinion is that the workers in the UK should have opposed the UK’s participation in WW2 on the same side (from 1941 onwards) as the Soviet Union. As he puts it:
“I am asked if Britain should have fought Germany. Emphatically not. No capitalist power should ever fight another capitalist power since it will be the working class that is victimized.”
That’s perfectly clear. But what Louis has refused to engage with is what would have been the consequence of Britain, & also the USA, refusing to fight Germany (had the workers taken this position and been successful in changing UK policy). Ie, that the Soviet Union would have been left isolated in its struggle against the Nazi invasion.
As nobody can credibly deny, that would have greatly increased the likelihood of a fascist victory; with the result that the territory & people of the USSR would have become part of a vast Nazi empire.
Oh, and by the way. Louis Proyect asserts that in such circumstances as WW2, the consequence of participation by a capitalist power in warfare is: “it will be the working class that is victimized.”
That claim, which seems to be the result of a merger between scholastic ‘marxism’ and pacifism, is disproved by the actual events- in two ways:
1) The participation of the US and Britain on the same side as the USSR in the war against Nazi Germany assisted the Soviet people (including and especially the working class) to defend the achievements of socialism and prevent them being enslaved by the Nazis.
2) Among the most important effects of US & UK participation in WW2 in alliance with the Soviet Union was a massive improvement in working class living conditions and a major reduction of inequality; in both countries wages and trade union power increased drastically, and people gained social benefits including pensions and educational opportunities. In the UK, key industries were nationalised and the NHS was created.
Not dissimilar changes took place in continental Western Europe.
Contrary to Louis Proyect’s assertions, a main effect of the military alliance between the UK / USA and the Soviet Union was a massive improvement in the conditions of the working class in the major capitalist countries.
Francis King on said:
Louis argues, quite unambiguously, that the Spanish Republic needed more class struggle in the course of the civil war. Struggle presupposes resistance – it takes at least two to struggle, after all. I cannot for the life of me see how the expropriation of the owners behind the Republican lines could have taken place without even greater chaos in an economy which was already in dire straits. Louis may well be right in that, had the workers already controlled industry, and had the peasants already owned the land, they may have felt they had more to defend. But Franco did not wait for that happy state of affairs to come about before he rebelled. From the summer of 1936 the task was to defend the republic as it existed, and that required discipline and organisation.
Louis Proyect on said:
As nobody can credibly deny, that would have greatly increased the likelihood of a fascist victory; with the result that the territory & people of the USSR would have become part of a vast Nazi empire.
—
This is so absurd.
Given the limited political imagination of the Stalin supporters here, their biggest fear is that radical and socialist parliamentarians in Britain would have had sufficient power to determine whether Britain went to war or not in 1939. In fact, if the left had had such power, the course of human history would have been profoundly altered. A revolutionary left in Britain would have been able to accelerate the class struggle throughout Europe and helped to realize Marx and Lenin’s original vision of world revolution. Instead, the tail-ending of Anglo-American imperialism led directly to the Cold War with Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech. With the no-strike pledge of WWII, no wonder American workers shrugged their shoulders when HUAC went after the CP.
I imagine that the irresistible impulse to identify with British Stalinism in 1940, with its tail-ending of Churchill and the British ruling class, can be explained by a certain “maturing” of individuals, as a kind of retreat from their impetuous Trotskyite youth. In Andy’s case, the British SWP. In John’s case, the Workers World Party. How they must rue the excesses of their youth. Here’s WWP leader Sam Marcy on WWII, btw:
But while Churchill’s analysis was faulty at best, his class attitude, his class loyalty, and that of all the imperialist politicians was unambiguous. It was mortal hatred of the Soviet Union and all the revolutionary movements, as well as of the working class at home and the hundreds of millions of oppressed who suffered the yoke of colonialism. He and his class unfailingly knew which side they were on. He showed it very clearly when as chancellor of the exchequer (1924-1929) he lowered the workers’ standard of living, and then, when the trade unions responded with the first and only great general strike in Britain in 1926, his rabid editorials in the British Gazette led the government assault that broke the strike.
While it might have been difficult for Churchill to arrive at a sociological appraisal, that never prevented him from taking a class position on the Soviet Union, on the British general strike, and above all on British colonialism. The bourgeoisie always know where they stand when it comes to the practical, day-to-day struggle. Their class bias in relationship to the socialist countries is merely an extension in foreign affairs of their position in the domain of domestic politics.
full: http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/sampere/perehtml/intro.htm
Louis Proyect on said:
From the summer of 1936 the task was to defend the republic as it existed, and that required discipline and organisation.
—
I invite the Tucker brothers, John Wight, and Andy Newman to offer their verbal assent to this reactionary nonsense.
Francis King on said:
LP: “I invite the Tucker brothers, John Wight, and Andy Newman to offer their verbal assent to this reactionary nonsense.”
And I invite you to provide a reasoned, calm, intelligent refutation of it.
Armchair on said:
Louis- it could also be argued that “deepening the class struggle” would have resulted in the pro- Franco sections of the ruling classes in various countries becoming more influential and helping to isolate the Republic even further.
Moreover, it would almost certainly have been accompanied by more actions against the Catholic church, which, while entirely understandable, was a major factor in reducing denying support to the Republic amongst significant sections of working class people in such places as Ireland and the USA.
I am not justifying Stalinist reppression in Spain by the way, although I am sure I will now be depicted as another fan of Beria etc.
Jim- my dad was a navigatior. He was fortunate just to miss out on an operational mission, given the casualty rates, having trained in Lancasters in Canada.
Noah on said:
Louis Proyect #131: “I’ll stick with Howard Zinn and leave Sir Winston Churchill to you…”
Sorry Louis, but that’s an utterly ridiculous attempt to escape the critique of your position. There’s no way that one must – or should – equate or ‘choose’ between Zinn and Churchill.
Churchill was an imperialist politician who played the role, for a few very important years, of allying the UK with the Soviet Union in its struggle against Nazi occupation.
For all Churchill’s many appalling deeds, his role in that war should be objectively examined, and its positive aspects should be explained & understood.
Zinn is a historian who has done some very useful work.
But, like anybody else, his conclusions can and should be subject to examination. And as you say, he is a pacifist- ie, not a Marxist.
No doubt Howard Zinn had his own very good reasons, eg his terrible wartime experiences, for arriving at his views. However, that does not mean that his idealistic opinions should be immune from criticism.
Noah on said:
Louis Proyect.
Your #138 post is nothing but a repetition of my point to you- ie that the successful adoption of your ‘pacifist’ position by the worhers in the USA and UK ‘would have greatly increased the likelihood of a fascist victory; with the result that the territory & people of the USSR would have become part of a vast Nazi empire’, ‘trumped’ by an assertion on your part that “This is so absurd.”
And you follow this by some quote or other from an article, the content of which has no bearing whatsoever on whether the participation of Britain and the United States in WW2 assisted the Soviet Union in defeating the Nazi invaders.
In other words, it’s a non sequitur.
Louis, please either engage with the issue, or admit that you are wrong.
John Wight on said:
Louis:
Land reform would have given peasants the will to fight for something they felt that belonged to them.
Reply:
Great, land reform in the midst of a civil war for survival. The perfect way to guarantee already scarce food supplies from the countryside no longer reached beleagured cities and towns.
Louis:
Decolonization of Morocco would have given Franco’s Moroccan troops a reason to oppose him.
Reply:
Eh…I believe Morocco was under the control of the fascists, Louis. And those Moroccan troops were among the most fanatical of Franco’s troops, consumed with the desire kill communists and republicans for their anticlericalism.
Louis:
Workers control of industry would have increased workers motivation to resist Franco.
Reply:
How so? Workers control of industry, with no central govt, no centralised production, in the midst of a civil war, would undoudbtedly have ensured the Republic lasted months rather than the three years it did.
All of the assertions you’ve made above are nothing but a retread of ultraleft nostrums mechanically applied, as with your historical analysis of the role of the British left during the Second World War, without giving any thought to the objective material conditions which prevailed at the time and in either event.
Louis Proyect on said:
Glad to see John Wight speaking up on the need to smash the wreckers and splitters in Spain. How now, Tucker brothers? And Andy Newman?
Louis Proyect on said:
Louis, please either engage with the issue, or admit that you are wrong.
—
I am engaging with the issue. Let me repeat. I would have been opposed to Churchill’s war. Furthermore, the cause of socialism was undermined by the pact between the imperialists and Stalin. When you look at it in military terms, the USSR threw the Nazis out pretty much on their own. In fact, you can argue that WWII in Europe was pretty much a Nazi-USSR conflict. US aid began arriving in 1942 long after the Nazi invasion had begun to come a cropper. The Soviets were able in fact to build up a powerful military response to the Nazis totally on their own. But let’s say that imperialist aid had an effect of reducing the Nazi effectiveness by 10 percent. The political costs for that aid far outweighed the gains. It meant that Stalin sold out the Greeks and laid the groundwork for bourgeois rule in France, not to speak of giving the nod to the creation of the state of Israel and the sell-out of Vietnam.
While you are on a roll, John Wight, maybe you can defend Stalin’s sell-out of the Palestinians and the Vietnamese. I am really impressed with your gifts for Stalinist logic.
John Wight on said:
Louis, you’re a fool. Attempts to slander and smear people in order to obfuscate the issue, repeatedly setting up straw men, is pretty tiresome, not to mention juvenile for a man who, according to the resume you posted earlier, has been in socialist politics since 1967. You’re now like a drunk in a pub who refuses to leave after closing time.
Last orders was called quite some time ago. There’s a cab waiting for you outside.
Careful you don’t stagger and fall on the way out.
Louis Proyect on said:
Careful you don’t stagger and fall on the way out.
—
That still doesn’t answer my question. How do you justify Stalin’s sell-out of the Vietnamese and the Palestinians? If you’ve swallowed the kool-aid on Spain, then surely you can use Palestine and Vietnam as a chaser.
Francis King on said:
Demagogy works great when you’re addressing an audience of your followers and admirers. But it tends to fall a bit flat when you are dealing with an audience of sceptics…
Nick Wright on said:
Louis Proyect would have, by his own words ” supported the USSR against a Nazi invasion”, principally, it seems from his own words by methods “which would have entailed a struggle against Stalin.”
But not by opening the Second Front.
John Wight on said:
And here he is, calling on reinforcements from his own list, which, ironically, he runs with the dictatorial zeal of a regular man of the people.
‘While I am anxious to keep this kind of discussion off of Marxmail, I am
having a big debate with a group of Stalin supporters here over WWII. It
has now begun to touch on the Popular Front in Spain and other ancillary
questions.
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4616#comment-152774‘
The drunk has now left the bar and is shouting and screaming outside, hoping to draw a crowd.
So sad.
Jim on said:
#124 Andy’
Jim what you are arguing here, which is by the way correct, contradicts your earlier false argument when you said ““Officers, at the rear 5 miles behind the front line enjoying tea and crumpet””
To use the word ‘false’ against me here is as good as saying I’m a liar; which I’m afraid is not acceptable or satisfactory to me and underlines the desperate situation your in. Who are you to put up a post supposedly about ‘PERSONAL SLANDER SHOULD HAVE NO PLACE IN DEBATE’ and then more or less call me a liar?
You do more harm than good to unity, its time you went!
Louis Proyect on said:
So sad.
—
Let me try this again:
“At the beginning of 1947 a very strange coalition had come into being over the Palestinian question – the USA, the USSR and the Zionists. They all supported the partition of Palestine.”
full: http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast-old/stalin_and_zionism.html
So, John, explain to me why Stalin had to do this. I ask because you have obviously become such an expert at defending his policies, you surely must have an explanation for this. And I would hope that the Tuckers and Andy can chime in on this.
Armchair on said:
#152- Jim, I think you should first establish if Andy IS calling you a liar.
To me a false argument is an incorrect one, but not necessarlly dishonest.
Vengence of History on said:
Sorry to chime in
Louis can you tell me who are the Stalin supporters here?
Obviously we can discuss certain , how shall I put it now, logics after you have replied
Andy Newman on said:
Jim #152
I most definitly did NOT call you a liar, I said you were wrong.
Bhaskar on said:
Anyone who downplays the relevancy and effect of the Bengali famine and Churchill’s imperialist policies as “secondary” deserves to be personally slandered, which Louis Proyect did not do by the way.
Shane Mage on said:
Andy Newman accuses Louis and also Nicholson Baker of historical ignorance. From someone capable of writing “The Chamberlain government could not adopt the Petain solution due to the strength of the British labour movement, and the erosion of the government’s authority that the Dunkirk defeat had inflicted,”
when everyone knows that Churchill had already taken over on May 10, 1940, that really takes the cake!
Jim on said:
#154 Armchair thank-you for your wisdom much appreciated!
But I make my own interpreations of what I read and between the the lines. I’m sure that Andy is man enough; he can speak for himself, if he’s not calling me a ‘liar’ then say so!
Andy Newman on said:
“I’m sure that Andy is man enough; he can speak for himself, if he’s not calling me a ‘liar’ then say so!”
*sigh*
see #155
Jim on said:
#154 OK Andy I will except that you meant wrong and not false, a very big difference!
“You do more harm than good to unity, its time you went!”
I take that back, it was the wrong thing to say, sorry.
But I still stand by my position and disagree with you on the whole question of WW2
Noah on said:
Louis Proyect #146: “The Soviets were able in fact to build up a powerful military response to the Nazis totally on their own.”
Totally on their own, and under the command of…?
Methinks you are implicitly praising the Soviet system, & its leader JV Stalin, a little bit too much.
In reality the USSR had great need, and correctly took full advantage of, the support of its capitalist allies.
And you add: “let’s say that imperialist aid [to the USSR] had an effect of reducing the Nazi effectiveness by 10 percent.”
The USA’s entry to the war, and the UK’s continued involvement, did not merely reduce the Nazi effectiveness. It significantly enhanced the USSR’s effectiveness- its ability to carry on fighting, and eventually to defeat the fascist invaders.
From late 1941 onwards, my country and yours provided very important supplies to the Soviet Union, ranging from army equipment and planes to food.
You say: “US aid began arriving in 1942 long after the Nazi invasion had begun to come a cropper.”
Sure, the Soviet people inflicted many hugely important defeats on the Nazi invaders during the early period of the war. But it was not until the battle of Kursk in August 1943 that the course of the conflict turned decisively in favour of the USSR.
Of course, the USA & Britain had their own imperialist agendas- one effect of which was the long delay in opening the ‘second front’ in Western Europe.
But nevertheless, material solidarity from the US and Britain was of great assistance to the Soviet Union’s war effort.
Yet you claim: “The political costs for that [Western] aid far outweighed the gains.”
Really? The gain was the definite fact of the Soviet Union’s survival, and the defeat of the Nazi empire.
It takes quite a lot to outweigh a gain like that.
Armchair on said:
#159 At the risk of overdoing the referee bit, Andy it is quite possible that Jim hadn’t seen 155 before he pressed the “SUBMIT COMMENT” button.
Btw Jim sorry to interfere.
Armchair on said:
#162 Jim and Andy – I just proved my own point!
Louis Proyect on said:
It takes quite a lot to outweigh a gain like that.
—
I see that Noah Tucker is skilled in the art of evasion. I bring up what happened in Greece and France and he ignores it. I can’t blame him, nor John Wight for that matter for pretending that Stalin did not screw the Palestinians. Trying to put the best face on Stalin’s policies is a Sisyphean task.
John Wight on said:
#153 – Earlier I mentioned the need to take into account the objective material conditions of any given situation when extrapolating an analysis. For the record am I not, nor have I ever been, an uncritical supporter of the Soviet Union. Stalin’s brutal methods are not ones I support, even with the benefit of historical hindsight, but neither am I about to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. The twists and turns of Soviet foreign policy revealed the contradictions of a socialist state surrounded by a hostile economic bloc committed to its destruction.
But for every minus sign there’s a plus sign, Louis. For example, who supplied the weapons and training without which the North Vietnamese would never have been able to defeat the US? Who came in to save the nascent Cuban Revolution from certain economic collapse after Eisenhower cancelled US purchase of its sugar crop?
Who supported, armed, and trained national liberation movements throughout Africa? Who provided the impetus for the formation of the welfare state, healthcare, a living wage, and other concessions won by the working class throughout the industrialised world?
All we’ve had from you throughout this thread – after being exposed over your ultraleft posturing vis-a-vis WWII – is a chorus of anti-Soviet hysteria, as you continually throw up links to articles in a desperate attempt to support your position.
As for the partition of Palestine, the Soviet Union did not partition the country, Louis. That was the work of the UN.
The Soviets saw the creation of Israel as offering the possibility of socialist state in the region that might lessen British influence.
This, again, is one of those events where pragmatism took precedence over principle. It often happens in the real world, Louis. Lamentable, yes, criminal, yes. The SU was a progressive advance in human history despite Stalin and not because of him.
Noah on said:
Louis Proyect #153: “So, John, explain to me why Stalin had to do this [ie presumably, support the recognition of Israel]”
Louis, are you waving or drowning? Irrespective, you seem to be thrashing about in the direction of any subject under the sun except the one under discussion.
But anyway. If I can ascertain any relevant sense whatsoever in your post, it would be that you think that Joe Stalin’s ‘sell-out’ to imperialism (in order that the USSR would not be defeated by the Nazis) involved some kind of promise to support the future creation of the zionist state.
On the other hand, that’s totally contadicted by the content of the article which you link to, which alleges:
“As for Stalin, he wanted to use the Jews in Palestine against British imperialism, and to establish a point of support for the Soviet bureaucracy in the Middle East.”
Either way, Louis. Attempt to change the subject, cite random articles from the web, resort to whatever & wherever as you may. But your admixture of dogmatic ‘marxism’ and pacifism has been comprehensively exposed as idealistic claptrap.
Noah on said:
Ho ho ho. As John Wight noted at #151, Louis Proyect felt he had to call in an airstrike.
And soon after there arrived in the skies… the intellectual might of the the Aerial Bombers from the USA’s Marxmail List, Shane Mage and Bhaksar.
Wonders will never cease.
David Walters on said:
Well this is interesting. I’m carrying on the almost exact discussion on apst on usenet. Hmmm….
My view, politically, is generally closer to Louis on the *political* role the USSR and Stalinism played. It was, factually, counter revolutionary both before and, after
WWII. The deafening silence about the 1945 betrayal of the national liberation struggle of the Vietnamese people is deafening. We get a “oh…but the supported North Vietnam later…” WTF? You mean AFTER N. Vietnam was set up as a result of the DEFEAT of the1945 revolution??? Defening.
But I disagree with Louis on part of the military situation of WWII. First, yes, it was a “Russian war” without a doubt. The carried the bulk of the war on their shoulders, most of the casualties, destruction, etc. But it the British carrying on the war and not being knocked out completely screwed the pooch for Hitler. The *entire* war against Russia was predicated on Britain not fighting back. They did and because of this, and the ultimate threat of US entry into the war on the side the British required that almost 10% of the Wehrmacht and an even larger double digit number of German figters were tied up in occupying France and the Low countrie, and protecting German industry from British, and later, early 1942, US bombing of German industry.
The Battle of Moscow was December 1941. Stalingrad was the winter of 1942. Both were fought, and won by the Red Army, with the *enough* of the German’s best troops in Western Europe, being shipped to Africa (again the British)and focused, enough, on the West as to contribute to the defeats of the Wehrmacht. We can argue about whether this made the big difference and not Hitler’s own mistakes in both campaigns (which there were, it was Hitler’s to loose, for sure). For example…
Hitler did NOT throw the whole South Army against Stalingrad. He through against Stalingrad AND Baku. He split his army. Why? Lots of debate around this by military historians. The fact is he did. Had he not, Stalingrad probably would of turned out different. By the time of STalingrad, 10s of thousands of tons of military supplies were entering the USSR.. *unmolested* from the Japanese into Vladivostock. Every Russian historian notes the importance of this cargo (and that which made it’s way via Iran and Murmansk).
So, taken together, the idea that the USSR would of survived a totally pacified, occupied or otherwise neutral UK and the USA is a leap of faith I’m *glad* we never had to face.
DW
Louis Proyect on said:
David, I did *not* say that British involvement did not help the USSR. I said that whatever impact it had in undermining the Nazi invasion was more than offset by the diplomatic agreements between the Big Three that led to the French resistance being integrated into the Gaullist state and the Greeks getting sold out altogether. That’s not to speak of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences that helped consolidate capitalist power in Europe and the rest of the world. That’s what the popular front against fascism amounted to, a deal concluded between the imperialists and the bureaucracy that helped create the conditions for a new round of imperialist blood-letting–this time led by the USA, a country that Earl Browder decided was no longer imperialist in 1942. You can’t make this stuff up.
bill j on said:
“But for every minus sign there’s a plus sign, Louis.”
I suppose this is a contemporary variant of every cloud has a silver lining.
On the one hand Stalin killed the leadership of the army two years before the war. Cloud.
On the other hand it meant that the Soviet people could carry out astonishing acts of self sacrifice as their backs were really up against the wall. Silver lining.
On the one hand Stalin could suppress democracy and crush all opposition. Cloud.
On the other hand it meant Stalin could get on with building “really existing socialism.” Silver lining.
On the one hand the Stalinist bureaucracy could abolish the USSR in 1991 and oversee the restoration of capitalism and social counter revolution. Cloud.
On the other hand Yeltsin could allow “elections”. Silver lining.
There’s really no limit to this philosophy now is there?
David Walters on said:
Ah. OK, in this I agree, in a political sense. The agreements you note are all real, counter revolutionary and resulted in the cold war and the world we live into today, which is no more USSR or Comecon and leaving Cuba as the lone revolutionary voice in the world today (N. Korea and Vietnam notwithstanding).
But…to say that the other scenario would of been *better* is simply highly unlikely. If that other scenario was the same Stalinist Russia and all the other forces the same as they were, that is, the a pacifist working class movement or *isolationist forces* in the UK and USA preventing them from waging war against Germany. Is that the counterposition? If it is, I’m glad it turned out the way it did, blemishes and all.
But I was not counterpoising the “other” scenario where a militant and revolutionary wave hit the Western allies and fomented revolution that changed the dynamic. For that to of occured either the French or Spanish revolutions would of have to of been succesfully. By the end of 1936 in France and 1937 in Spain, after the Comintern sabotaged working class movement for power, this was off the table, don’t you agree?
Noah on said:
@ David Walters. Your factual info re: WW2 is most interesting.
However. Please explain how the USSR ‘betrayed’ Vietnam in 1945.
So far as I know, the Soviet Union didn’t have any military troops in Vietnam. And I’ve never heard of any of the Vietnamese revolutionary leaders claiming that the Soviet Union betrayed them.
Where the USSR had a military prescence in 1945, generally they tried to use the leverage & influence which that entailed in order to prevent armed resistance to the left-wing forces coming to power. Eg, N. Korea and much of Eastern Europe.
But anyway, do give your account re: Vietnam and the Soviet betrayal.
Louis Proyect on said:
David, I am really not into “what if” scenarios. My more general approach to these questions is to understand 1939 as the product of unresolved contradictions produced by the failure of socialist revolution following 1917. My political emphasis has been to figure out ways to transcend the mistakes made by revolutionaries of an earlier generation that led to this failure, including mistakes by Trotsky. Frankly, I had little interest in speculating on alternative courses history might have taken in 1939 because that is not what I consider a good use of my limited time and energy. But when I saw a post here extolling Sir Winston Churchill, I could not remain silent. I think my record of posting here is rather clear. I generally keep it to a minimum.
It is really unfortunate that Newman, the Tuckers and John Wight have made in investment in refurbishing the image of Stalin and Churchill since it undercuts the “Socialist Unity” and “21st Century Socialism” project that claim to be dedicated to. Stalin belongs to the 20th century and we should leave him there.
That’s about all I have to say on this subject and am signing off for the time being.
Andy Newman on said:
#157
There was a bit of short hand in my argument. The Chamberlain appeasers lost power after the Norway debacle through the manoevering of the Labour party, and the big public campaign from the pro-war left, for example the Left Book Club, the “Cato” pamphlet, etc, had shown that the government did not have the support of the wider labour movement, and this led the anti-appeasement section of the Capitalist class, not only Churchill, but also Beaverbrook, Leo Amery and a significant section of the officer corps to realise that the war could only be won by a coalition government, and major concessions to the labour movement on the Home Front. Significanatly, these concessions extended to prioritisation of the anti-fascist nature of the war.
The fall of Belgium, Holland and the treachery of Petain followed hard on the heels, and were a decisive body blow to the appeaser wing of the capitalist class, and the Tory party, that effectively ruled out any Petain? Quisling type move in Britain.
The difference was immediate, Churchill formed a coalition government on May 10th, on 14th May, Sir Anthony Eden announced the formation of a million strong peoples militia. National defence was not only the main priority, but was democratised.
Jim on said:
An article penned by George Orwell in 1939 on Democracy in the British Army raises a number of questions that are worthy of concideration in this debate that seems to have been raging for a lifetime. The section from the article that I’ve cut and pasted below has given me new food for thought in regard to who ran the war and who’s real interest did the British ruling class have in mind throughout it’s duration if not its own.
“Democratising” an army, if it means anything, means
doing away with the predominance of a single class and introducing a less mechanical form of discipline. In the British army this would mean an entire reconstruction which would rob the army of efficiency for five or ten years. Such a process is only doubtfully possible while the British Empire exists, and quite unthinkable while the simultaneous aim is to “stop Hitler.” What will actually happen during the next couple of years, war or no war, is that the armed forces will be greatly expanded, but the new units will take their colour from the existing professional army. As in the Great War, it will be the same army, only bigger. Poorer sections of the middle-class will be drawn on for the supply of officers, but the professional military caste will retain its grip. As for the new Militias, it is probably quite a mistake to imagine that they are the nucleus of a “democratic army” in which all classes will start from scratch. It is fairly safe to prophesy that even if there is no class-favouritism (as there will be, presumably), Militiamen of bourgeois origin will tend to be promoted first. Hore-Belisha and others have already hinted as much in a number of speeches. A fact not always appreciated by Socialists is that in England the whole of the bourgeoisie is to some extent militarised. Nearly every boy who has been to a public school has passed through the O.T.C. (theoretically voluntary but in practice compulsory), and though this training is done between the ages of 13 and 18, it ought not to be despised. In effect the Militiaman with an O.T.C. training behind him will start with several months’ advantage of the others. In any case the Military Training Act is only an experiment, aimed partly at impressing opinion abroad and partly at accustoming the English people to the idea of conscription. Once the novelty has worn off some method will be devised of keeping proletarians out of positions of command.
Andy Newman on said:
#173
Louis: “That’s about all I have to say on this subject and am signing off for the time being.”
Having tried every diversion, used every obfuscation, and released a shoal of red herrings. Louis runs away. Exposed, and soundly thrashed in the argument. His arguments have amounted to abstract moral positions, ultra left windbaggeery, attempts to change the subject, straw men, misrepresenttaions, and hot air.
But his call for reinforcements at #151 is interesting, where he describes those of us who disagree with him as a ” group of Stalin supporters “
And at #173 misrepresents our arguments, as “refurbishing the image of Stalin and Churchill “
Louis for reasons only known to himself feels it necessary to both misrepresent the arguments of his opponents, and also to seek to anathamatise those he disagrees with. No one at any point has defended Stalin. But it is necessary according to Proyect’s method of arguing (ably supported by Bill J) to pretend that anyone who criticises Trotskyism must be a Stalinist. Such is the nature of religious faith. Where there is God, there must also be the Devil.
What is remarkable is Louis’s willingness to engage in a debate about British politics and history, entirely using analogies from American politics. Instead of disucussing the politics of Harry Pollit, Proyect refers to earl Browder!
For exmple, he describes the position of describing Briatins war against Nazi germany as being Stalin’s. This is not true.
Stalin, and his British factotum Ranjit Palme Dutt, considered Britain’s war with germany as only an inter-imperialist rivalry until the nazi invasion of the USSR. the argument for supporting the war came from a native British tradition, including the most experienced members of the leadershiup of the CP – Pollitt, Campbell, Stewart and Gallagher; and the most significant lefts outside the CP, Bevan, Cripps, Strachey and the Left Book Club.
Louis seems incapable of appreciating the difference between British and American politics, where this issue never arose as the USSR was already at war with the nazis at the time that America entered the war,
For example, to oppose the formation of a coalition government, as Proyect does, is to oppose the replacement of the pro-appeasement wing of the capitalist class with those who would would prioritise national defence. So proyect’s position would have been to oppose replacing the fifth columnists, and ironically to strengthen the wing of the capitalist class who wanted to prioritise the defence of Empire over anti-facsism.
Louis continually calls on the authoity of British trotskyists, while never saying which ones he is refering to. The most significant torts in Britain at the time, the Haston-Grant tendency did not take Louis’s position.
Indeed there were pacifists and ethical socialists like Jimmy maxton who opposed the war throughout, but this was (depite marxist sounding language from Maxton) due to a sincere and naive oposition to all violence under any circumstances – not Louis’s position.
In fact the person who argued the position closest to Louis Proyect’s was Palme Dutt.
Louis’s decoupling of the war of Britain against the Nazis, and the USSR’s war against the nazis defies the actual historical record, where British industrial and military aid over the Arctic convoys was decisive in sustaining the Soviet army and economy in the first few months of war, not to mention the enormous moral impact of the fact that the USSR was not fighting alone.
David Walters on said:
@Noah. The USSR and the Comintern, the latter totally subordinated to the former, and such as it ‘was’ in 1943, per request of FDR, et all, dissolved itself, but existed as the ‘world communist movement’ ordered the VCP not to take power, not to lead the anti-colonial revolution. When the Japanee surrendered, the VCP ordered all anti-japanese forces to lay down their arms and “welcome” the British in. Anyone who opposed this, suchd as he mass based Trotskyist party there, were massacered and wiped out. The VCP refused to play an independent role, unlike the CCP, which conintued on it’s course for power.
Noah on said:
John Wight #151, re: “…[Louis Proyect’s] own list, which, ironically, he runs with the dictatorial zeal of a regular man of the people.”
Indeed. Louis runs a strict regime on his ‘Marxmail’ list, imposing a system of penalties involving temorary and permanent bans for contributors who defy his orders.
Andy is a regular softie by comparison.
Louis’ internet discussion group is rather boring nowadays, since he has banished the most prominent and interesting dissident (Walter Lippmann), for the crime of making too many contributions in support of Cuba and China.
But Andy, being the tolerant English eccentric that he is, will never ban Louis Proyect from this list, whatever repulsive & repetitive nonsense Louis comes out with.
Andy Newman on said:
#175
Orwell was disproved by events then, wasn’t he.
Andy Newman on said:
#177
“But Andy, being the tolerant English eccentric that he is, will never ban Louis Proyect from this list, whatever repulsive & repetitive nonsense Louis comes out with.”
It is true. There are one or two people that I have banned, but more because of the malicious and sometimes spitfeul spirit of their contributions, rather than their content.
Party hack on said:
How come the Greek Communist Party (KKE) has never accepted the analysis of British and American Trotskyists about the Soviet Union’s so-called “betrayal” of the revolutionary movement in Greece in the 1940s?
Weren’t the Greek Communists the ones who were actually there at the time, attacked by British military forces and fighting the monarchists and other reactionaries in the misnamed civil war? Did not they – rather than our Trotskyist super-revolutionaries in Britain and the USA – not bear the consequences of any Soviet “betrayal”?
Given that experience on the ground in the country concerned counts for nothing as against the book knowledge of British and American Trotskyists, haven’t the Greek Communists read about their own betrayal by Soviet Stalinism?
The Yugoslav, Chinese, Albanian, Cuban, Italian and other parties all found it possible to criticise and – in some cases break from – the CPSU So why not the Greek Communists?
Ditto the “North Vietnamese”, whose cause has been taken up by their new-found British and American Trotskist sympathisers on this thread. Why don’t the “betrayed” Vietnamese share the anti-Soviet hatred vented here? I know they were only the ones struggling and fighting in Vietnam – but why should that qualify them to know anything about the subject? They obviously lack the clarity that comes with distance – hence the certainty and superiority with which British and US Trotskyists promounce upon everyone else’s revolutionary process around the world.
Andy Newman on said:
Incidently.
The lies and slanders keep coming as well as the gags. I note on Louis’s website this comment:
“When Andy says, “I was an active member of the SWP from 1978 to 1981 and from 1986 to 2004″, what he means is that he had dropped out of the party by about 1996, but then came back of sorts when he saw a factional row brewing in – and about – the Socialist Alliance.”
I didn’t drop out of the SWP in 1996, I moved to swindon! and therefore had too adjust to the rather different political circumstances of a smal industrial town. We then made a sucess of the Socialist Allaince in our town, because that model of politics made sense, whereas the propgandist routine of the SWP didn’t. And I was invited by the SWP to go on the national executive as they saw me as both credible within the Socialist SAlaince – as someone who had done the work – and reliable as a long term member.
So subsequent attempts to rewrite history and make out I am someone interested in or motivated by faction fights are just part of the whispering campaign of lies that the SWP deploys about it ex-members.
Jim on said:
#180 Andy don’t get personal – just a friendly word to the wise – don’t go there!
Andy Newman on said:
Jim
There is nothing personal in pointing out that a 1939 article by George Orwell was proven wrong by subsequent events.
J B Malone on said:
Incidentally, that’s a great old euphemism for a purge: He’s gone to Swindon! It’s like Siberia, but the food and weather are worse.
(Not suggesting Mr Newman was purged or making any personal comments – apologies to Swindonintes, Swindonese, Swindonesians…?)
Noah on said:
@ David Walters. I asked you to explain re: your remark about the alleged “1945 betrayal of the national liberation struggle of the Vietnamese people”
Presumably meaning that the Vietnamese were supposedly ‘betrayed’ by the Soviet Union.
Your reply at #178 indicates that all you have to go on is your opinion that there was a tactical disagreement in 1943 about wether that was the right time for the Vietnamese Communists to attempt to take power.
Oh, and according to you, the majority among the Vietnamese revolutionaries shot some trotskyists and other dissidents, who presumably would not accept the agreed line.
But anyway & irrespective of that. In what way is that a ‘betrayal’ by the USSR or anybody else?
When the Vietnamese Communists took power and defended their revolution against the French and then the Americans, the country which supplied them with the military means to do so was the Soviet Union.
That’s not betrayal. It’s solidarity of the best kind.
Jocelin H on said:
Ken@117. Harumph. I think better advise to Andy would have been that making a choice to be personally hurt and offended during an internet discussion is often just a debating tactic, and that he should expect any apology because he did not deserve one.
Jim on said:
#148 That’s fine Andy you do that. But keep the personal digs out of it and I’ll do the same as far as your concerned and we’ll have no problem.
David Walters on said:
@ The Vietnamese CP didn’t take power in 1945, did they? Even though there was no occupation army and the British had to be *allowed* to come back in to Vietnam until the French could organize their Overseas Departments again. No, there little things like Dien Bien Phu and a huge civil war againsgt the French after the cold war heated up and the *agreemenet* to give Vietnam back to the French, supported by the USSR, couldn’t hold anymore.
Vietnamese CPers who objected either were purged, killed or both. They live in aworld of denial, just like the Greeks did (most of whom were actually killed since they didn’t do what they were supposed to do). They were more loyal to the USSR and it’s diplomatic ‘revisionism’ than they were to liberating their own country from the French until it was convenient to the USSR. That is what you are loyal to. It’s what the Greeks broke with and if you go to Greece, and talk with former CPers, they will tell you EXACTLY what I’ve said. The remaining Greek CPers after *being cut OFF from military support* from Yugoslavia and the USSR (while providing guns to the Zionists in Palestine) were a smashed entitity. The resurgent post 1964 CP (approx) was a shadow of it’s former self, but their ownly identity was…the USSR. BTW…Greek CPers in the “Interior” group, no problem denoucning stalin and USSR.
D.
Bhaskar on said:
Marxmail is boring now because Walter isn’t CCing his [CubaNews] stuff to the list 10 times a day?
That’s something new.
David Walters on said:
@Noah. First, if you actually talk to the scads of EX-CPers in Greece you will find a huge amount of resentment for the fact that Stalin and the USSR *sold out* their struggle. The USSR never made counter-claims by the Brits as to what kind of gov’t was to exist there after the War and the USSR kept it’s promise by not supporting the communist revolution there. Good one that. Oh…while also selling arms to the Zionists in Palestine.
Secondly the Vietnamese were told, as a matter of historical record, and their ACTION allowed the British to land to take possession Vietnam for the French. The VCP *sold out* to the USSR on this too. The only place I know of where Vietnamese communists understand this are those in exile in Paris. The rest are dead and/or purged. The “North Vietnamese Gov’t” that exists does so after Dien Bien Phu and after Stalin’s “Peaceful Coexistence” degenerated into US and Europe’s moves against Russia and the launching of the Cold War. A “tactic” indeed…it lead to 30 years of unending suffering and civil war by the Vietnamese masses.
Lastly, Andy, I would agree with the statement you have in your blog as a fact: “Nevertheless, as I have pointed out, Churchill played an indispensible historical role in the military defeat of Nazi Germany…” I agree. Statically anyway. I argued why not just the British but US involvement was critical, even though few historians would disagree over the fact of USSR/Red Army victories provided the overwhelming force to defeat Germany and the Nazi threat of European wide Fascism.
The problem, as far as I discern, is that Louis has a very traditional orthodox Trotskyist position, even though he’s not a Trotskyist and, I am an orthodox Trotskyist but I have this highly revisionist view of WWII for a revolutionary Marxist. But I do so fully aware that the Trotskyist *analysis* of WWII is spot on: it was an inter-imperialist war and I’m siding with one imperialism over another.
I can’t speak for Louis but I suspect he counterpoises this line I have with the Trotskyist one of “Class war, Not Imperialist war” as an old IS button used say. I think it was 100% correct during the rise of the French and Spanish mobilizations and revolution to have this perspective. Through 1939 the Trotskysts world wide maintained the “No to War” slogan and, in the US, through at least Pearl Harbor. AT that time, in effect, we, Trotskyists, were arguing as consistent Leninists, that the working class has no stake in “the coming war”. This mean, in *effect* we were arguing that Britain should not declare war on Germany after September 1939 and the US should stay out of it. Consistent, yes. Correct, no. If the British lost the Battle of Britain and were forced to sue for peace, Russia, IMO, would likely of lost the battle against the Nazis. I gave my reason above in another comment.
David
prianikoff on said:
#187 “…according to you, the majority among the Vietnamese revolutionaries shot some trotskyists and other dissidents, who presumably would not accept the agreed line.”
David Walters is right on that.
Noah, I’d suggest you do some reading on some of the points you bluster on about before spewing nonsense on the internet.
The episode in 1945, in which the Vietminh massacred the leaders of the Vietnamese Trotskyists has been well documented in Ngo Van’s “Revolutionaries they could not Break” (Index) It’s a historical fact.
The fact that the VCP, 30 years later, managed to unify Vietnam doesn’t rub it out.
This was done not just due to the limited support they had from the USSR, but the mass solidarity movement in the West and the anti-War mood amongst the US troops.
It was a crime in the same category as the supression of the POUM in Spain, or Stalin’s purges in the 1930’s and a direct result of Stalinist Popular Frontism.
In this case, the wartime alliance with Anglo-French Imperialism that put workers power or the anti-colonial revolution on the back-burner.
This didn’t stop the US SWP, or the British IMG and IS giving their full solidarity to the Vietnamese strugge.
Re. Your equally ill-informed views on Stalin’s “popularity”, I’d suggest you try reading the series by Vadim Rogovin starting with “Stalin’s Year of Terror”.
Unlike you, Rogovin actually lived all his life in the USSR and lost family members in the purges.
Hope this helps.
prianikoff on said:
#182 Party Hack writes: “How come the Greek Communist Party (KKE) has never accepted the analysis of British and American Trotskyists about the Soviet Union’s so-called “betrayal” of the revolutionary movement in Greece in the 1940s?”
They’ve got too much to hide.
This is an excerpt from a very good article by Pierre Broué, which exposes how Churchill and the Stalinists jointly sabotaged the Greek Civil War.
“In October 1941 a secret organisation, the Military Organisation for Liberation (ASO), was formed within the Greek army in the Middle East. Its aims were simple, even over-simple. They were to send Greek units to the front, to fight in Greece alongside the Resistance, and to oppose the infiltration into the army in Egypt of those sympathetic to Metaxas, who wanted to restore their regime in Greece at the end of the war. The Metaxist cadres demanded that cadres sympathetic to the ASO be removed by large-scale discharges from the army. The officers due to be dismissed from the Second Brigade were arrested and replaced. The mutineers stood firm in the face of threats. The First Brigade supported them. The government submitted and accepted that the Metaxist officers should be isolated, on the one hand to prevent events from running out of control, and on the other hand to prepare a fresh attack. Over the next few months military directives caused the units to be dispersed, the rebels were punished by disciplinary training, and finally the subversive elements were weeded out and the officers who had been isolated were brought back into key positions.
The second mutiny was more serious and significant. The demands of the officers under the influence of the ASO were evidently more political than before. Under the pressure of the men, the Committee for Armed Coordination presented a petition, signed by the majority of the Greek soldiers, as soon as the real provisional government of the Greek resistance, the PEEA, was formed in Greece. It demanded that a real government of ‘national unity’ be formed on the basis of the proposals of the PEEA. The initiative came neither from the EAM and ELAS nor from Greece, but quite simply from the ideas which the soldiers formed of the situation in their country and the conditions in which they could really ‘fight Fascism’.
On the same day, 31 March 1944, the delegates of the soldiers and the mixed committee demanded to be received with their petition at the Soviet Embassy. The ambassador closed the doors on them. They found no echo or promise of support except from the left wing of the British Labour Party. In Egypt, however, they enjoyed the sympathy of the Egyptian population, who were always close to the Greek workers. There was a series of meetings and demonstrations in Alexandria and Cairo. On 4 April the Egyptian police intervened on the side of the Greek Government in Exile and the British, and arrested some 50 militant workers and trade union leaders, in particular the leaders of the Greek dockers. The British High Command, for its part, disarmed two regiments and sent 280 ‘ringleaders’ to concentration camps. Then on 5 April it disarmed the unit attached to the High Command of the Greek army and interned the mutineers. By now the mutineers had their backs to the wall. The First Brigade arrested its Metaxist officers, reorganised its command, and refused to hand over its arms as a prelude to internment. The movement spread to the navy, to the destroyer Pindos, the cruiser Averoff, the Ajax and several more. The crews elected a mixed committee of men and officers to take conunand. The British Ambassador to the Greek Government in Cairo, Reginald Leeper, telegraphed to Churchill: `What is happening here among the Greeks is nothing less than a revolution.’26
Churchill directly and personally took control of the repression. The arrival of King George II was a symbol as well as a provocation. The support of the Egyptian youth for the mutineers was a promise. On 13 April Admiral Cunningham announced that he had decided to put down the rebellion by force, and if necessary to sink the Greek ships in the very roadstead of Alexandria. The mutinous land formations were surrounded, deprived of water and starved out. On 22 April a successful raid was made on the Ajax by the leading Metaxist, Admiral Voulgaris. The other ships lay under British guns and surrendered. General Paget launched his tanks against the First Brigade, and it also surrendered. Within a few days, some 20,000 Greek volunteers on the Army of the Middle East found themselves in concentration camps in Libya and Eritrea.27
The Greek army in the Middle East no longer existed, and its place was now free for the formation of specially prepared shock troops, technically equipped and politically trained for the civil war following the ‘liberation’.
We must note that British censorship suppressed reports of this episode in the press. It was not a minor episode, in fact it was very significant, which no doubt explains the violent response of the British authorities. It exposed the myth about `national defence’ and ‘national unity’. The 20,000 volunteers wanted ‘defence’ and `unity’, but their leaders did not, and they crushed them. The incident exposed the lie about the ‘war against Fascism and for freedom and democracy’. The Greeks considered Metaxas to be a detested Fascist dictator. Churchill’s policy aimed at restoring the rule of the forces upon which Metaxas had been based.
Trotsky’s remarks in 1940 about the war became concrete. The Greek soldiers in the Middle East wanted to fight, arms in hand, against Fascism. They therefore demanded officers whom they could trust, allied themselves with.the labour movement, and formed their own soviet-style organisations. This was precisely along the lines which Trotsky had developed when he wrote that the defence of their ‘democracy’ could not be delivered over to the likes of a Marshal Pétain. The mass movement born out of the war expressed itself along these lines, and did so, as Trotsky had forecast, in the army, that central section of militarised society, no less important than in the factories.
The talks in Moscow and the bargaining which followed them led to the agreement with Stalin that Churchill would have a free hand in Greece. The KKE and through it the EAM were ultimately to place the noose around the neck of the extraordinary mass movement in Greece itself, after contributing politically to the repression of the mutineers.
After the April 1944 crisis, the Government in Exile in Cairo was entrusted to George Papandreou, who helped to develop the anti-Communist movement. Under his pressure the leaders of the EAM and ELAS signed on 30 May 1944 the Lebanon Charter, which denounced ELAS ‘terrorism’, the indiscipline of the mutineers (many of whom served sentences for it), left open the question of the monarchy, and agreed to a single command of the Greek armed forces and to the re-establishment of order ‘alongside the Allied troops’ at the Liberation. The EAM and ELAS were unhappy at this, and for several weeks bargained and demanded ministerial posts and a change of prime minister.
However, a Soviet mission, led by Colonel Popov, arrived and put an end to these ill-tempered grumblings. The KKE and the EAM unconditionally entered the government. When the German forces left Athens on 12 October 1944, the KKE called on the Greek people to ‘ensure public order’. It also ensured that Papandreou came to power. He arrived with the British forces, at a time when the ELAS exercised real power all across the country.
Churchill was to provoke the Resistance when he ordered that General Scobie, the commander of the Allied forces, to maintain the military formations of the collaborators as `security battalions’ and to forbid them to be purged, and to ensure that on 2 December the Papandreou government could disarm the ELAS forces. A demonstration against the disarmament of the ELAS in Athens on 3 December was fired upon by the police. This assault in Syntagmata Square upon the biggest demonstration in Greek history left dozens dead and hundreds wounded. Thirty-three days of armed fighting followed in Athens between the forces of order grouped around Scobie and those of the local Resistance.
At last Churchill carried through his plan to crush the Greek revolution. He announced that he was intervening to prevent a ‘hideous massacre’, and to stop what he called the victory of ‘triumphant Trotskyism’ – with a grin of complicity in the direction of Stalin.28 From 3 December onwards those ELAS units whose leaders had decided not to surrender their arms were paralysed by the orders not to fire on British forces, who, as Churchill put it, were there by the `goodwill’ of Roosevelt and Stalin. The andartes in Macedonia, the shock troops and the forces in the mountains were ordered to stay put and let the fighters in Athens be exterminated. The heroism with which they fought could not prevail against the policies of leaders who had made up their minds to lead these fighters into the surrender that was demanded by Moscow.
The Varkiza agreement of 15 February 1945 provided for all Resistance forces to be disarmed, but the ELAS forces in Athens had not submitted to this. The forces in the countryside had not moved to support them. This time Aris Velouchiotis understood the magnitude of the KKE’s betrayal. He was attacked in the KKE’s journal Rizospastis on 12 June. On 16 June he was assassinated, and his head was publicly exhibited in the villages on 18 June. How many other Resistance fighters fell at tha time under the fire of the British and of the counter-revolutionary formations which the Germans had created in Athens and the British in Cairo? Nonetheless, several more years of Stalinist treachery were required to exhaust the fighting potential of the Greek revolution.”
full article.”
http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/backiss/Vol3/No4/Brouww2.html
prianikoff on said:
#144 John Wight
“Great, land reform in the midst of a civil war for survival. The perfect way to guarantee already scarce food supplies from the countryside no longer reached beleagured cities and towns.”
As I recall, land reform was a major plank of the Russian Revolution and the Mexican Revolution, come to that.
Large estates were broken up and divided into smaller plots by the peasants.
This isn’t necessarily more efficient, but did guarantee support for the central government throughout the Civil War period.
“Morocco was under the control of the fascists… And those Moroccan troops were among the most fanatical of Franco’s troops, consumed with the desire kill communists and republicans for their anticlericalism.”
If the Republican government had issued a declaration of Morrocan Independence and made it widely known, it would have undercut support for Franco, both in Morrocco and amongst his Morroccan mercenaries. That’s not hard to see .
“Workers control of industry, with no central govt, no centralised production, in the midst of a civil war, would undoudbtedly have ensured the Republic lasted months rather than the three years it did.”
I’ve already posted an example of wartime workers control at the Royal Ordinance Factory in Nottingham, organised by the Trotskyist W.I.L. Rather than disrupting arms production, all the production targets were met. The bosses generally never left their offices in this period and the stewards made all the decisions about staffing and workrate, while defending pay and union organisation.
“All of the assertions you’ve made above are nothing but a retread of ultraleft nostrums mechanically applied”
What’s mechanical is the rigid mental straightjacket that Wight has wrapped around his cranium. This causes him to seperate the democratic and socialist revolutions into two rigidly fixed stages.
Any attempt to carry out any of the socialist tasks, prior to completing the democratic ones, is viewed as the direst heresy. History disproves it.
Francis King on said:
To say that the chaotic process of land seizure by peasants in the Russian revolution was “not necessarily more efficient” is a bit of an understatement. Agricultural production plummeted between 1917 and 1921. The quantity of grain willingly sold to the state fell even further, in part because the equalisation of land holdings led to an increase in subsistence, rather than commercial farming. The Soviet government had to resort to requisitioning as its main means of getting foodstuffs for the cities and Red Army. Consequently sowing and production fell still further. By 1920 civil war between peasants and Soviet officials had erupted in the countryside around Tambov, and huge swathes of Russia were gripped by famine – a famine which in parts of Russia continued until 1925.
I still cannot see how emulating this example would have helped the Republican side in the Spanish civil war.
Andy Newman on said:
#192
a clip from a journal called “revolutionary history”, but the approach to “history” here is to offer opinion as fact, and not to present the historical context, nor the considerations of the different protaganists.
The Greek mutiny in Egypt actualy divided ELAS/ELAM, becasue the issue was not so straightforward.
The Armed Forces Unity Committee of the Greek forces in the Middle East had demanded that there should be a national government formed, and a guarantee of a plebicite over the monarchy as a precondition for allowing the King to return to Greece. Six of the thriteen officers were arrested, but then released after demonstrations by the Greek forces; but the crux of the matter was a tactical consideration. The Greek First Division had been given orders to embark for Italy, but they instead insisted on going to Greece. And there was a genuine debate of whether the political difference between the Greek troops in Egypt over the monarchy justified disruption of the war effort; and in particular, although the first army were going to Italy, the “Mountain Brigade” camped at Berg-al-Arab did not join the mutiny because they were actually due to be imminantly despatched to Greece, and thought that the mutiny jeopardised their prospects.
It is worth noting that the Communists only had quite limited infleunce in the Greek army in Egypt, indeed almost all left-wing or liberal soldiers had been left behind when the army was evacuated from Crete in 1941; the debate and tactical disagreement was among the Greeks themselves, about the relative importance of the question of the monarchy, and whether or not it was vital that thr First division went to Greece or Italy.
Once the british heavy armmoured brigade engaged the Greek First Division, the Mountain felt itself forced to declare in support of the mutiny, the result of which was the suppression of the Mountain bridgade as well , and no Greek forces from egypt being sent to Greece.
Now certainly, this was a betrayal by Churchill, and the perfidy from the British at every step. But I don’t see any way that the communists had any share of the blame. Indeed, the suppression of the Greek mutiny literally conincided to the very day with a clamp down on left wing activity in the British army, with Leo Abse being arrested and Henry Solomons being transferred out of theatre.
Andy Newman on said:
#194
Indeed, Francis.
Added to which, land reform would have pushed the richer peasnats into supporting the fascists.
Now in fact, this is obvioulsy a question where there is a genuine strategic disagreement, and it is thereofre not a “betrayal” to come to the conclusion that “deepening the class struggle” would have been a mistake; and as we cannot run the film of history aain to see how it would have turned out dfferently, I am alsowa astounded at the confidence shown by those who think if there had been a revolution in the rear then France wuld have inevitably lost.
Andy Newman on said:
#188
I have never said that I was “pesonally hurt and offended”, nor that I wanted an apology.
I have raised this issue just to expose Louis Proyect’s method.
Jim on said:
In particular Andy your conduct and personal behaviour has been some what lacking to say the very least for a moderator of this ‘Socialist Unity’ blog site. Whatever the behaviour of some posters have been, I would have thought that yours would have been well above the sectarian differences, squabbles,intolerant and views of others, instead your own sectarian narrow-minded cherished opinions have got the better of you; and in the process exorbitantly damaged this otherwise excellent beneficial blog site. This so-called expose method of yours is not what I would expect to find on a site that claims to be for socialist unity. Its high time that you and your co-moderators short thing out!
Andy Newman on said:
#198
Jim
You are of course welcome to set up your own web-site if you feel that you can do better.
irishmarxist on said:
Reading this thread and other related ones. I think that this is evidence of the dividing line between reformists and revolutionaries.
The reality is that once you begin to play big power politics you are inevitably tied to compromise over the fundamental class-politics.
British imperialism was every bit as sordid and malevolent as German Imperialism. They just did most of their killing earlier and the German’s were trying to play catch-up. As an Irish marxist, I find it hugely obnoxious that the English left fails to understand its own need to purge social-imperialist tendencies.
The reality is that the British working class had a significant labour aristocracy element (as Lenin correctly identified) and this underpinned social imperialism. The fact that modern day British socialists can ascribe ‘secondary’ status to a starvation in Bengal in much the same terms as their imperialist liberal predecessors did (repeatedly) in Ireland and India over the past centuries is completely abysmal.
Anyone who has read Lenin will know that he ‘bent the stick’ to counter tendencies he felt needed particular attention. I would suggest that British comrades need to seriously consider ‘bending the stick’ when it comes to justifying mass murderers like Churchill. Even your language gives you away – I could quote repeatedly instances of social-imperialist mindsets – like the way someone’s father ‘policed’ the IRA – in their own country.
For a nation whose wealth is built and maintained on the blood of the third world, I think the British need to be very careful about standing over or justifying any of their past glories. The mass murderer Winston Churchill in particular.
Unity with these ‘socialists’ is impossible.
It is to the credit of the Trotskyists in the UK that they have maintained isolation from this imperialist subtext. It is to Proyect’s credit that he has exposed this and it is evidence of the strength of the US left – thanks no doubt to the difficult types who inhabited the US SWP – that they are capable of being so self-critical. A self-criticism that I as an Irish marxist have always sought in vain from the mainstream British left. Atlee a reformist – tell that to the people of India or Vietnam!
Andy Newman on said:
#202
“It is to the credit of the Trotskyists in the UK that they have maintained isolation from this imperialist subtext.”
To be fair to them, they have managed to maintain isolation from any mass audience or influence as well.
Jim on said:
#199 Yes Andy your arrogance is unbeliverable and knows no bounds, as if you was the sole owner and accountable to to no one; as you move to the right of the left on your jaunt to nowhere that insignificant place were you can regurgitate the crap that you advocate on this blog. Newman your not even a Socialist in my book but a political opportunist with illusions that you somehow know what’s good for the working class, well I have news for you – you don’t, they wouldn’t give you the time of day in the real world that is!
Andy Newman on said:
#204
Jim, actually on this blog, I am accountable to no-one.
chjh on said:
Really? The Anti-Nazi League, the campaign against the poll tax, and the anti-war movement were all mass movements, and I seem to remember Trotskyists playing rather a large part in all three