Histomat: Adventures in Historical Materialism

'Historical materialism is the theory of the proletarian revolution.' Georg Lukács

Sunday, October 09, 2016

International Socialism 152 out now


The new issue of International Socialism is now online, and as a British-based Marxist journal unsurprisingly making sense of Brexit and its repercussions is of central importance, with pieces including topical pieces including The ideology of Europeanism and Europe’s migrant other by Céline Cantat. Other pieces include Martin Empson on food, agriculture and climate change, Mike Gonzalez on two new books on Cuba and its revolution, historical pieces by Hungarian Marxist GM Tamas on the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 on its 60th anniversary, Talat Ahmed on colonial troops in the First World War and John Newsinger on a forgotten Wobbly leader Marie Equi. There are also many other book reviews, including Michael Roberts's review of Anwar Shaikh's Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises and Alex Callinicos's review of Gareth Stedman Jones's much discussed Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion. All in all, a great looking issue with something for everyone - and since it is hard to read at length online, surely well worth considering subscribing...  

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Where next after the Leave vote?


Celebrating Cameron's resignation - 'Oh my God, the quarterback is toast!'

After the historic EU vote and the fact that Cameron is now toast, come and discuss where next at Marxism 2016...

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Paul Foot on why socialists oppose the EU

[In his last posthumously published book, The Vote (2005), the campaigning socialist journalist Paul Foot stressed that the EU was part of the infrastructure of international capitalism like the IMF and World Trade Organisation, just another a 'capitalist bureaucracy' counter-posed and quite hostile to 'popular democracy' from below. As Foot wrote, 'The bureaucrats who put together the Treaty of Rome were at best uninterested, at worst downright hostile to extending democracy’, as the new political structure enshrined ‘an appointed Commission, with a huge supporting bureaucracy far out of the reach of any electorate’. ‘The plain fact [was] that membership of the European Community meant a transfer of power from elected Parliaments to the unelected European Commission’ while the European Parliament was actually completely powerless and open to corruption, as ‘the MEPs power and authority went down almost as fast as their salaries and expenses went up’. Writing in the Guardian on the EU in 2004, in what must have been one of his very final pieces of writing, Paul Foot re-emphasised why socialists stand against the EU. The essential truth of his argument, that while 'Another Europe is possible, another EU is not', it seems shines through as clearly and cogently as it did then - which is arguably why those socialists who rallied around the independent banner of a left exit - or #Lexit - this time around were right to do so]: 

I voted no in the 1975 referendum on EEC entry and will do so again in the European constitution referendum - whenever that finally happens. In 1975, I was uneasy about some of the company I was keeping. Very rightwing Little Englander Tories for instance, not to mention fascists. But the class lines were clearly drawn. The rich, almost without exception, were for a yes, the workers and the poor for a no. The Labour party and the TUC were for no on two solid grounds. First, the EEC was a capitalist club designed to cut down the influence of the workers. Second, its institutions were created by capitalists for capitalists and were therefore less democratic and more corrupt even than the parliamentary democracies of its member states. Those objections seem just as powerful today.

The basic class issues may be the same, but the party lines have shifted. The bulk of the Tory party, which, under Thatcher, called for a yes vote, now calls for a no. So does its new lunatic and xenophobic fringe, Ukip. In 1975, the yes campaign spent much more than the no. That may not happen again. All sorts of millionaires are throwing their ill-gotten gains at the no campaign. On the left, the bulk of the parliamentary Labour party (better known as the war party) is for a yes. Some trades unions are still doubtful, but the TUC general council is already starting to bow and scrape to Blair on the issue, and will probably end up snivelling surreptitiously for a yes.
In these circumstances it is vitally important that those of us on the left who want to vote no keep our distance from the rightwing campaign. Internationalists, socialists and greens who oppose the European constitution because it will drag us further down into the corporate whirlpool, emasculate trade unions and further deregulate an already rampant private enterprise, are a million miles away from the narrow nationalism of Michael Howard or Robert Jingo-Silk. We cover a wide spectrum. Even those who favour the mildest Keynesian economics, or the right to organise and strike against capital, or the right to speak out and vote for social democratic policies, will find themselves in opposition to the proposed constitution.
We must not allow our voices to be confused with the clamour of the Murdoch press. Our votes may end up in the same place, but the reasons for those votes need to be spelled out independently and separately...

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, May 28, 2016

#HistoriansforLexit



I was very disappointed to see so many otherwise decent progressive - some even radical and socialist - historians lining up with reactionary, pro-imperialist and racist historians like Niall Ferguson and Michael Burleigh* to sign this letter in the Guardian this week:

As historians of Britain and of Europe, we believe that Britain has had in the past, and will have in the future, an irreplaceable role to play in Europe. On 23 June, we face a choice: to cast ourselves adrift, condemning ourselves to irrelevance and Europe to division and weakness; or to reaffirm our commitment to the EU and stiffen the cohesion of our continent in a dangerous world.

Would any seriously progressive, radical or socialist historian sign such a statement?  Lets deconstruct it a little:

We believe that Britain has had in the past, and will have in the future, an irreplaceable role to play in Europe.

Yes - certainly since becoming a major imperial power in the 18th century, Britain has played an 'irreplaceable' role in Europe - that much is true in the sense it is historically accurate. Will it have an 'irreplaceable' role to play in Europe in the future?  Well, as one of the world's richest countries and still an imperialist power in its own right, it seems destined to have such a role in the near future - whether we leave or remain in the EU - simply because we tend to follow America in terms of our foreign policy and so while America remains a dominant (but declining) imperial power on the global stage, all this seems true.  In the long term, Britain's role in Europe depends on our economic and military might - but this looks unlikely to fade away in the short to medium term, whether we stay or leave in the EU.  What any of this has to do with progressive, radical or socialist thinking however is another question.

On 23 June, we face a choice: to cast ourselves adrift, condemning ourselves to irrelevance and Europe to division and weakness...

Would Britain  really be so 'adrift' and 'irrelevant' - and Europe even more 'divided' and 'weak' if Britain left the EU - given the balance of forces in terms of British capital / imperialism vis a vis European capital?  

...or to reaffirm our commitment to the EU and stiffen the cohesion of our continent in a dangerous world.

Again, is there anything inherently progressive, radical or socialist about reaffirming one's commitment to the EU - part of the infrastructure of capitalism like the IMF or World Bank?  As for 'stiffening the cohesion of our continent in a dangerous world' - again - what is progressive about this?  It implies the rest of the world outside of Europe is 'dangerous', while 'our continent' needs strengthening - this seems to me to rest on some appeal to ideas of white European supremacy against the 'darker nations' of the world which are rooted in racist and colonialist discourses.  How is stiffening the cohesion of European identity going to bring down the borders of Fortress Europe?  How is 'stiffening the cohesion of European identity' going to block the rise of dangerous and poisonous racist and fascist parties within Europe such as in Austria, Germany, France, Hungary, Greece, etc etc?    

I do wish most of the historians who had signed this statement had read it properly and not signed it - even if they do believe in remaining in the EU.  There is nothing internationalist, anti-racist, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist or even just vaguely progressive about this statement at all.  By signing it they have been recruited into an argument between different sections of our ruling class - and so lined themselves up alongside the likes of Niall Ferguson and Michael Burleigh and so behind the American Empire and the vast bulk of international and British capitalism who know that it is in their interests for Britain to stay in the EU.   What is needed is at the very least for socialist and radical historians to be making their own arguments for or against the EU independent of our ruling classes - and ideally for socialists and radicals to be making the case that 'Another Europe is Possible - but another EU is not' - and for a genuinely internationalist and anti-racist argument against the EU - in other words a campaign of #HistoriansforLexit.   

* On Michael Burleigh, remember Eric Hobsbawm even refused to speak to him.

Edited to add: Keith Flett on why EP Thompson would in all likelihood vote #Lexit

Labels: ,

Friday, March 11, 2016

Refugees welcome here - Stand Up to Racism national demonstration


Refugees welcome here now! UN Anti-Racism Day national demonstration - Saturday 19 March - London, Glasgow, Cardiff

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, February 21, 2016

The internationalist case against the EU

Alex Callinicos on why socialists and trade unionists should support a vote to leave the EU - in the upcoming EU Referendum but obviously not sharing a platform with the likes of 'poundshop Enoch Powell' Nigel Farage while doing so... see also the debates and other pieces collected together at the bottom of this page. As Charlie Kimber of the SWP notes, We hope others will join us in a campaign that is rooted in anti-capitalism, support for workers’ struggles and anti-racism. It is not too late for Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn to shrug off the pressure from the right and launch a left-wing leave campaign. It would condemn Cameron to defeat. Our campaign will say, “No to racism, open the borders, leave the EU”, and “Yes to workers’ unity everywhere, solidarity against neoliberalism and capitalism, leave the EU”. It will also say “No to Ukip and TTIP and the other neoliberal treaties, fight the bosses, leave the EU” and “Yes to real action over climate change, no trust in the bosses’ solutions, leave the EU”.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, September 04, 2015

Refugees are welcome here day of action Saturday 12 September















Refugees are welcome here - National Day of Action Saturday 12 September 2015,

London details - assemble 12pm, Assembly point Marble Arch 2pm Rally,Downing Street
National day of action, Called by Stand up to Racism, BARAC, Stop the War Coalition, Migrant Rights Network  War on Want, Peoples Assembly Against Austerity, Unite Against Fascism, Movement Against Xenophobia, Love Music Hate Racism and Black Out London
 https://www.facebook.com/events/1629390697300657/

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Marxism 2015 - Ideas for Revolution

Marxism 2015: Ideas for revolution
A five day political festival: 9-13 July 2015, Central London
www.marxismfestival.org.uk
Book up - Just over one week to go!
New meeting: Tackling the Racist Offensive
Sat 11th July, 7pm
Marxism Festival is very pleased to announce that Diane Abbott MP will speak alongside Sabby Dhalu and Weyman Bennett (Joint Secretaries of Unite Against Fascism, pc) at this new meeting at Marxism.
Meetings on Greece at Marxism 2015
The crisis in Greece poses sharp questions for the left.
Don’t miss our special debate:
Syriza in power: Whither Greece?
With Stathis Kouvelakis (Syriza Central Committee) and Alex Callinicos (SWP)
Sat 11th July, 2pm 
Plus
  • Greece: keeping the hope for change alive
With Panos Garganas (SEK)
Sunday 12 July, 2pm
  • The fight against Golden Dawn in Greece
With Petros Constantinou (Athens Councillor and co-ordinator of the Movement Against Racism and the Fascist Threat) and Kostas Papadakis (part of the legal team representing the victims of Nazi attacks at the trial of Golden Dawn)
Saturday 11th July, 11.45am
  • Fighting the Troika and austerity across Europe
Maria Styllou from Greece will peak alongside Richard Boyd Barrett from Ireland and Christine Buccholz from Germany
Sunday 12th July, 3.45pm
Plus Panos Garganas will join the Marxism opening rally on Thurs 9th July at 7pm

Other meetings at Marxism 2015
  • After Kobane and the general election: where now for Turkey and the Kurds
 Ron Marguilies will be joined by HDP MP Sebahat Tuncel
Sat 11th July, 7pm (the time of this meeting may change – please check our website)
  • Orgreave: the search for the truth
Gareth Peirce and Mike McColgan from the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign
Sun 12th July, 3.45pm
  • The story behind Pride
With Nicola Field and Gethin Roberts, original members of LGSM
Sun 12th July, 7pm.
And if you missed Pride at the cinemas there is chance to watch the film afterwards.
  • Darcus Howe, broadcaster and civil liberties campaigner discusses his political life with his biographers Robin Bunce and Paul Field

The final timetable for Marxism 2015 will be on line from tomorrow . . . to book tickets and for more information go to www.marxismfestival.org.uk or call us on 020 7819 1190

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, April 24, 2015

Migrant Lives Matter protest

Protest at the EU London HQ:

The death of 950 African migrants in the latest loss of a ship crossing from Libya to Europe has exposed the appalling human cost of the 'Fortress Europe' immigration policy imposed by European Union and the British government.

Anti-migrant rhetoric of the establishment politicians, UKIP and the Katie Hopkins obsessed media has lead to thousands of people, many of whom are fleeing nations torn apart by Western intervention, drowning
in the sea.

In the first quarter of 2015, approximately 1,700 migrants have already drowned, 30 times as many as in the same period of 2014, leading to fears of a record death rate this year. Last year nearly four thousand bodies were recovered from the Med, and that figure is just those that were found. The EU needs to change it's policy to stop this and restart the rescue.

Protest called by the Movement Against Xenophobia, supported by:
Stop the War Coalition
BARAC UK (Black Activists Rising Against Cuts)
Global Justice Now Global Justice London
Stand Up To Racism

Time: 1pm.

Date: Saturday 25th April

Place: European Commission, 32 Smith Square, Westminster London, SW1P 3EU (nearest tubes Westminster or St James')

Labels: , , ,

Monday, February 23, 2015

Where is Syriza going?

From Panagiotis Sotiris via Alex Callinicos:

First major negative reaction against the Eurogroup agreement from inside SYRIZA comes from Manolis Glezos, Member or European Parliament of SYRIZA, and a living legend of the Resistance against fascism (in 1941 along with Lakis Santas they took down the German flag from the Acropolis)
Here is a rough translation of his statement

Statement by Manolis Glezos

Before it is too late
The fact that the Troika has been renamed ‘the institutions’, the Memorendum has been renamed the ‘Agreement’ and the Creditors have been renamed the ‘Partners’, in the same manner as baptizing meat as fish, does not change the previous situation.
And you can’t change the vote of the Greek People at the January 25 election.
The Greek people voted what SYRIZA promised: that we abolish the regime of austerity that is the strategy of not only the oligarchies of Germany and the other creditor countries but also of the Greek oligarchy; that we abrogate the Memoranda and the Troika and all the austerity legislation; That the next day with one law we abolish the Troika and its consequences.
A month has passed and this promise has yet to become action.
It is a pity indeed
From my part I APOLOGIZE to the Greeκ people for having assisted this illusion
Before the wrong direction continues
Before it is too late, let’s react
Above all the members, the friends and supporters of SYRIZA, in urgent meetings at all levels of the organization have to decide if they accept this situation
Some people say that in an agreement you must also make some concessions. By principle between the oppressor and the oppressed there can be no compromise, as there can be no compromise between the slave and the conqueror; Freedom is the only solution
But even if accept this absurdity, the concessions that have already been made by the previous pro-memoranda government with unemployment, poverty and suicide, are beyond any limit of concession...
Manolis Glezos, Brussels 22-2-2015

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, February 08, 2015

Tim Sanders on Charlie Hebdo

The point of satire is to attack the powerful, to expose their hypocrisy and absurdity, and of course to be funny. If satire is directed downwards it is not satire, it’s bullying.
British socialist cartoonist Tim Sanders on satire on the latest Socialist Review

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, January 26, 2015

Revolutionaries and 'workers' governments'

The very nature of bourgeois government excludes the possibility of socialist class struggle. It’s not that we fear for socialists the dangers and the difficulties of ministerial activity; we must not back away from any danger or difficulty attached to the post in which the interests of the proletariat place us. But a ministry is not, in general, a field of action for a party of the struggle of the proletarian classes. 
 The character of a bourgeois government isn’t determined by the personal character of its members, but by its organic function in bourgeois society. The government of the modern state is essentially an organisation of class domination, the regular functioning of which is one of the conditions of existence of the class state. With the entry of a socialist into the government, and class domination continuing to exist, the bourgeois government doesn’t transform itself into a socialist government, but a socialist transforms himself into a bourgeois minister. 
 The social reforms that a minister who is a friend of the workers can realise have nothing, in themselves, of socialism; they are socialist only insofar as they are obtained through class struggle. But coming from a minister, social reforms can’t have the character of the proletarian class, but solely the character of the bourgeois class, for the minister, by the post he occupies, attaches himself to that class by all the functions of a bourgeois, militarist government. 
 While in parliament, or on the municipal council, we obtain useful reforms by combating the bourgeois government; while occupying a ministerial post we arrive at the same reforms by supporting the bourgeois state. The entry of a socialist into a bourgeois government is not, as is thought, a partial conquest of the bourgeois state by the socialists, but a partial conquest of the socialist party by the bourgeois state... 
 Within bourgeois society the role of social democracy [the socialist movement] as an opposition party is prescribed by its very essence. It can come forward as a ruling party only on the ruins of the bourgeois state
Rosa Luxemburg, 1899.

Although a left government cannot steer a path to socialism, revolutionaries are not indifferent as to whether such a government comes to power. Even though the bourgeoisie has only retreated from the front-line positions and still retains control of the economy and the state, immense possibilities can be opened up.


In both France and Italy, the entry into government of both communists and socialists for the first time since the late 1940s would lead to increased confidence and perhaps, militancy of the workers movement. To this extent the election of a left government provides the possibility of a major advance of the workers’ movement; if the masses take advantage of the temporary confusion of the bourgeoisie. But the advance is not inevitable, the government will be attempting to stabilise the situation, and the bourgeoisie will be regrouping. If the workers fall into the delusion that they have taken power, rather than crossed the first barrier, if, in other words, they rely on the government rather than their own activity, then their advance will be limited to reforms which can be clawed back by a resurgent bourgeoisie.
Hence the all-important paradox: the advent of a left government will only strengthen the workers’ movement inasmuch as the class, or at least its vanguard, do not have illusions in this government. The more independent and strong the workers’ movement is, the more reforms it will force from the government. The more it relies on its own forms of organisation, the more the way is open to a fundamental change in the balance of power between the workers and their allies and the bourgeoisie. But the more it is tied to the structures of state power, the greater is the possibility of bourgeois reaction.
This means that the role of revolutionaries is not to enter such a government ‘in order to accentuate the contradictions within it’, for to do this is to precisely tie the workers to the bourgeoisie.
Rather the job of revolutionaries is to break the illusions that the workers have in a ‘left’ government— and that means taking up all the partial limited struggles of workers, generalising them and leading them even if they conflict with the strategy of the government. In short, it is to organise a left opposition to the government, seeking to replace the reliance on the state with the self-organisation of workers.
Of course, tactically there are times when the revolutionary left defends the left government or perhaps particular measures; when it is open to attack from the right and the bourgeoisie trying to regain positions it has lost. But this should never obscure the fundamental positions that the revolutionary party has to adopt: the strategy of developing working class forms of power, which by definition will conflict with the bourgeois state power still in existence, in order to overthrow the government from the left and replace it with a workers state.
Otherwise, revolutionaries can find themselves in the same situation the Chilean left found itself in occasionally-appearing to defend unpopular governmental decisions against movements of the workers and petty bourgeoisie, so allowing the forces of the right to manipulate those movements.
Chris Harman and Tim Potter, 'The workers' government', SWP International Discussion Bulletin, No.4, 1977 - see also  Paul Blackledge, 'Left Reformism, the state and the problem of socialist politics today', International Socialism, 139 (2013)

Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Stathis Kouvelakis on international solidarity with Greece

Greece has a very rich tradition of social struggle. What differentiates solidarity with Greece from previous forms of solidarity is that now it is not about expressing solidarity with countries that are geographically very far away and have major differences in terms of social structure and level of development...Greece is a periphery, if you like, but it is the periphery of Europe. Political processes happening in Greece have an expansive capacity, which is far superior and more direct in this part of world than the Latin American ones, because the Greek crisis is part of the bigger crisis of European capitalism. And Europe, despite its current position — which is very different from the position it held in the past — is still one of the major centers of the world capitalist system... What we need is some form of a new international, something more solid in terms of an international network. Without being megalomaniac, or hellenocentric, I think that with a Syriza government, Athens can become a center for political processes at a European and international level. What is needed in the case of a Syriza government would be a major political gathering in Athens — not just to support Syriza but to seriously discuss and to go beyond what we have now in terms of political tools, which is not much ...essentially what is necessary is to connect the fragmented forces of the radical left in each country and make progress on strategic and programmatic issues...
Read the full interview with Kouvelakis - a leading Syriza member - here, see also this eyewitness piece from Greece in the run up to the elections which features interviews with members of Antarsya

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

International Socialism # 145 out now

Cover of issue 145
In the latest issue of International Socialism, Anne Alexander puts forward a Marxist analysis of ISIS, Philip Marfleet surveys the Palestinian movement in an era of neoliberalism and revolution in the Middle East, Ron Margulies looks at the Kurdish struggle in Turkey and we carry an article on sectarianism and nationalism by Lebanese Marxist Bassem Chit who died tragically young in October. 

Simon Joyce asks why there are so few strikes in Britain today and Chris Fuller looks back at the mass strikes during the First World War. Plus analysis by Alex Callinicos on the crisis of the political system in Britain and by Spanish activists on Podemos, feedback on anti-politics and on the dialectics of nature and book reviews on the Haitian Revolution, the Comintern and the African Atlantic, climate change, Leninism and more.  People can subscribe to the journal at www.isj.org.uk or email isj@swp.org.uk for more information. 

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, January 04, 2015

Panos Garganas on the looming struggles in Greece

As the Greek government falls, how can workers win?

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Euro-fascism - what it is and how to fight it



The latest issue of Socialist Review has among other things a good analysis of the Euro-elections, one very worrying feature of which was the rise of Euro-fascist parties such as the Front National in France, but also others such as the German neo-Nazi NPD, Golden Dawn in Greece and Jobbik in Hungary amidst the continuing economic crisis.   After the last European elections in 2009, I raised the question of whether it was time to dust off the old slogan about whether it was the 1930s in slow motion.  Given classical fascism turned Europe into a dark continent within the living memory of many people, the fact that a fascist party got the majority of votes in the European elections in France while in Germany, a member of the neo-Nazi NPD was elected to the European parliament means the left cannot afford to be complacent about the danger posed here.  Given this, it is perhaps timely that Chris Bambery's 1993 article from International Socialism on Euro-fascism: the lessons of the past and current tasks is now available online at the Marxists Internet Archive. Though obviously twenty years old and written at a time when Euro-fascism was just emerging as a political current - and though the author's own politics have shifted - some would say degenerated - somewhat since writing this article in 1993, the piece still repays reading and provides a useful introductory historical overview of how the left and trade union movement tragically failed to stop classical fascist formations coming to power in the inter-war period through a combination of sectarianism, ultra-leftism, and liberalism - and why the method of the united front and mass activity against the Nazis as articulated by Leon Trotsky (and put into practice in formations such as the Anti-Nazi League in the 1970s in Britain and its successor Unite Against Fascism today) - remains a critical weapon if the left across Europe are going to block their rise today.
 



Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, March 31, 2014

Alex Callinicos on the Ukraine crisis

The reaction of the Western left to this enormous crisis has been, to put it mildly, confused. Far too many (including some who should know better) have been willing to cast a blind eye at or find excuses for Russia’s military intervention. The reasons for this attitude are, in ascending order of respectability, Stalinist nostalgia, exaggeration of the role of the extreme right in the anti-Yanukovych movement, and the search for some counterweight to American power. The net result is a revival of what used to be called campism in the days of the Cold War—seeing states in conflict with the US and its allies (then the USSR, now usually Russia and China) as in some sense progressive allies of the left.
      None of this has much to do with the revolutionary Marxist tradition. The fate of Ukraine preoccupied Trotsky during the last year of his life in 1939-40, as Europe rolled into the Second World War. Distilling the results of prolonged debates among Russian Marxists (which continued after October 1917) in which Lenin consistently insisted on the necessity of defending the right to self-determination of oppressed nations, Trotsky defended “the independence of a United Ukraine” (ie incorporating Polish Galicia and Volhynia) even if that meant “the separation of Soviet Ukraine from the USSR”—and this, remember, at a time when he was vehemently arguing that the Soviet Union was still a “degenerated workers’ state” that revolutionaries should defend against Western imperialism.
       Quoting Trotsky can be a religious exercise, but his views are worth bearing in mind when considering supposed Marxists who dismiss the idea of Russian imperialism as an “abstraction” or even advocate the partition of Ukraine. Putin’s apologists on the Western left must explain how their stance squares with the right to national self-determination. If they defend Crimea’s (extremely dubious) claim to separate from Ukraine, where do they stand on the long-standing Chechen struggle for independence from Russia, brutally crushed by Putin? And what will they say if Russian forces move into eastern Ukraine and become mired in crushing the nationalist insurgency that this would almost certainly provoke?
       Of course, the US remains the dominant imperialist power on a world scale. And of course, it is thoroughly hypocritical for Obama and his secretary of state John Kerry to denounce Putin’s seizure of Crimea, forgetting Washington’s interventions in its own backyard such as the October 1962 naval blockade of Cuba or the December 1989 invasion of Panama (a state, incidentally, carved out of Colombia at Teddy Roosevelt’s behest at the beginning of the 20th century).
But from a Marxist perspective, imperialism is about more than American power. The classical theory of imperialism is, more than anything else, a theory of intra-capitalist competition. Imperialism is a system, the form taken by capitalism when the concentration and centralisation of capital bring about the fusion of economic competition among capitals and geopolitical competition among states. Putin’s actions express exactly this imperialist logic, combining geopolitical preoccupations (above all, blocking NATO expansion) with economic motivations (fear that Russian firms will be squeezed out of the Ukrainian market by European rivals).
      The confused left response to the Ukrainian crisis is in part the result of an optical illusion created by the so called “unipolar moment” of apparent US global dominance after the end of the Cold War. Particularly in the light of Afghanistan and Iraq, American power has seemed so overwhelming and so malign that everything must be subordinated to resisting it. But this was always precisely an illusion. US hegemony has always been contested, reflecting the fact that imperialism involves a hierarchical distribution of power among competing capitalist states. This fact is becoming more important now.
       The relative decline of US power that has become evident since Iraq and the crash is opening up a period of more fluid competition, in which the weaker imperialist states begin to assert themselves. Putin’s strategy has reflected this for some time. Potentially a much more important conflict is developing in Asia, as China’s economic rise encourages its ruling class to flex their muscles geopolitically, in particular by building up the military capabilities to exclude the US Navy from the “Near Seas” along their coasts. The clashes between China and Japan over the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku islands are harbingers of more to come.
     In this era of growing inter-imperialist rivalries political clarity among revolutionary Marxists is vital. In New York, London and Moscow the main enemy is at home (a slogan Karl Liebknecht coined in response to a great inter-imperialist war whose centenary we will soon be remembering). But acknowledging this is no reason to apologise for our own rulers’ rivals. Imperialism is a hydra-headed beast. It needs to be killed, not merely one of its manifestations.

Full article 'Imperial Delusions' (from the forthcoming International Socialism journal) online here, while Tariq Ali also has quite a good article on the Ukraine here, as does Mehdi Hasan here 

Edited to add: See also Rob Ferguson and Sabby Sagall in the new Socialist Review

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 04, 2014

Neither Washington nor Moscow

Socialists in the West must of course oppose any military intervention by the US or NATO in Ukraine. But the crisis reminds us that imperialism can’t be reduced to American domination. It is a system of economic and geopolitical competition among the leading capitalist powers.
        Rather than tail any of these powers, we must fight this entire system. This means opposing Russian intervention in Ukraine. Never has the slogan “Neither Washington nor Moscow but international socialism” been more relevant.
Alex Callinicos on the mounting crisis of inter-imperialist rivalry in the Ukraine

Edited to add: Ukraine in Crisis - say no to imperialist war games

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, April 11, 2013

International Socialism # 138 out now

Cover of issue 138
 The full contents are well worth a browse and are available here, but highlights at first glance include Sheila McGregor on 'Marxism and women's oppression today', which includes a defence of Engels's writings on this issue, and a series of essays on the state of the class struggles in Europe, including pieces by Catarina Príncipe on Portugal and Thanasis Kampagianni on Greece.  There are also a host of other pieces, including a discussion between Henry Bernstein and Joseph Choonara about agriculture, class and capitalism, and a kind of debate between Ian Birchall and John Rose about Lenin, Paul Levi and revolutionary strategy and tactics.  There is also a review of Donny Gluckstein's A People's History of the Second World War, a work which has already stirred up considerable debate online elsewhere.

Edited to add: The ISJ during the 1980s carried a number of interesting pieces on Thatcher - for example,  Sue Clegg on 'Thatcher and the Welfare State', while for discussions of 'Thatcherism', see Alex Callinicos.

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, October 05, 2012

Eric Hobsbawm on becoming a Communist in 1930s Berlin

[Of the late, great Eric Hobsbawm, Perry Anderson once noted that '"Politically," having joined the CP [Communist Party] in 1936, he belongs to the era of the Popular Front, that pursued an alliance between capital and labour which has determined his strategic thinking... "emotionally", however, as a teenage convert in the Berlin of 1932, he remained tied to the original revolutionary agenda of Bolshevism.' There is lots of good stuff on Hobsbawm appearing now online - the Radical History Review interview is up now - and Verso for example have put up his 2012 introduction to the Communist Manifesto. Personally I have also always had a soft spot for an interview that Hobsbawm did in 1998 about his early political activity as a young socialist activist in late Weimar Germany with Andrew G Marshall in the Independent - entitled 'Revelations: Eric Hobsbawm, Berlin 1931-33: I was working for the revolution', which I will reproduce below]

MY PARENTS got engaged just before the First World War but because one of them was British and the other Austrian, they had to go to Switzerland to marry. Unable to return to either of their home countries, they decided to live in Egypt. So I was born, by a historic freak, in Alexandria. Unfortunately both my parents died within a very short period of each other and I was looked after by close members of my family, first in Vienna and then Germany.

Growing up in Berlin, between 1931 and 1933, was the most crucial phase in my life. I reached puberty and the age of intellectual revelations. Back as far as I can remember I've been on the left. If you grew up in central Europe, there was no way a Jewish kid could be on the right, because by definition they were anti-Semitic. These were the years of the rise of the Nazi Party, so that naturally confirmed my views. There was a political pressure-cooker developing, it was almost impossible not to be drawn. I would listen to the adults talking: how can we prevent Hitler coming to power? And later, when will he come to power?

It was one of the phases when my uncle, who I was living with, happened to be in the money. So we lived an ordinary middle-class existence - which was by no means always the case. I joined the Socialist Schoolboys, an association of secondary left-wing students that was de facto a part of the communist movement. For the part of Berlin in which I lived this was very much a minority activity, with perhaps three or four boys or girls from middle-class families per school. We would sell their periodical called the Shulkampf ( the struggle in the schools) which by that time was in decay - duplicated rather than printed.

I attended the last legal demonstrations and distributed leaflets for the last, no longer quite free, elections, all of which was quite dodgy. It was certainly not something we particularly liked doing. I was never physically threatened, but you didn't ring the bell or stop for a discussion, just chuck the leaflets through the letter box and whip down the stairs again. Obviously it took a lot of conviction; however, in retrospect, it's not absolutely clear to me if I considered it political or a more grown-up version of cowboys and Indians! But it was very serious, I could have got into a lot of trouble - quite big trouble. The left was particularly in danger after the burning of the Reichstag building as Hitler blamed the communists. In fact my friends were so worried I was asked to keep the duplicator under my bed for a few weeks; being a foreign citizen my risks were considerably less. I was treated as an Englishman at school, although I spoke better German, so I was more likely to be blamed for the Treaty of Versailles. Yet that did not mean I was not constantly aware. My uncle taught me an important lesson: never do anything that might even suggest that you are ashamed of being Jewish. Quite a lot of people wanted to dodge it.

We didn't leave because of the new laws - as foreigners we were not so affected - but because my uncle was wiped out. He had been working for an American movie company, and in the middle of the slump there was a new law in Germany so that 75 per cent of the employees had to be citizens. Considering the uncertain economic situation of both sides of my family, the idea of moving to somewhere else for a job was not at all surprising. My uncle decided to move back to England. I was a little bit short of 16 and I doubt I would have become a historian if we'd stayed on the Continent.

It took a lot of getting used to England, especially as to start with it was much more boring than Germany. School was not a problem because secondary education was way behind, so I was treading water until university when I could continue the intellectual conversation that had already begun in Berlin. After the slump and the rise of fascism, it was not so unusual to be passionately communist and Marxist even in England. In fact by my arrival at Cambridge in 1936, communism on a small scale had got quite a long way.

If you start off as a minority child, first by being English in Austria and Germany, then in a political minority, you become how EM Forster described one of his characters: always standing at a slight angle to the universe. It is probably why my books have done well in other countries, I am not exclusively rooted in a single culture. I've known other children of refugees, who reacted to this by becoming 200 per cent British.

Attending secondary school in three different countries broadened the kind of literature I read and the kind of experiences I can have. My ideas are based on a fair amount of travelling around and talking to people. For example, going to Italy in 1951 was very important, I couldn't have gone before the war because it was a fascist country. I discovered, in some ways, a completely new range of things. In the South there were people who joined the communist party despite being Jehovah's Witnesses! Here were people whose views, although officially left and right, did not use our political syntax. For them the age of Luther and the age of Lenin were the same. This gave me ideas on working on movements of history that shouldn't have been there in modern times. The same trip also introduced me to writing about the history of social bandits, (those who were not considered to be just criminals by the people around them) which is now a very large field, which I think I can safely say I invented.

The cause to which I devoted a good deal of my life hasn't worked out. I hope it has made me a better historian, because the best history is written by the people who have lost out. It sharpens your analytical capacity. The winners think that history came out right because they were right, while the losers ask why everything was different, and that is a more profitable question. Personally, I can't complain. My cause has not done well but my books, inspired by it, are very successful. Writing was not what I set out to do - very different from when I was in secondary school in Berlin working for the world revolution, but it is much better than what could have happened.

Labels: , , ,