Methodological Issues
-- Harry Powell
The Canadian comrades suggest that what Lenin said about evaluating elements opposing imperialism is at variance with Stalin's summary in The Foundations of Leninism. I do not think that this is in fact the case but of course, as Maoist 1 pointed out, Lenin was responding to the particular conditions around the time of the October Revolution. The comrades correctly warn against engaging in a "dead quote Olympics" but since they quote Lenin at length I cannot resist adding just one more quote from Lenin. In 'A Caricature of Marxism and "Imperialist Economism" ' he says that communists should not support an uprising by reactionary classes against imperialism but then goes on to qualify this by saying: "[we cannot] withhold support from any serious popular struggle against national oppression." with the clear implication that if great masses of the people rally to such a struggle then communists should support it.
The point is that establishing a correct line on a contemporary strugggle cannot be done simply on the basis of dredging up quotations from Lenin, Stalin, Mao and anyone else. This is a scriptural approach and quite incorrect. Neither can a correct line be established by trying to find historical analogies with past struggles. Certainly we should learn from the conduct of past struggles as in the case of the United Front in China but there is unlikely to be an exact parallel between different historical situations. Even so, valuable lessons from the past can be learnt. It will not do to dismiss them, as some comrades in this debate have done with respect to the Chinese Revolution, simply because there is not an exact parallel with present events. Rather we should follow Lenin's recommendation to carry out "the concrete analysis of concrete conditions" by using the method of materialist dialectics.
Much more concrete analysis is needed on the class basis of Islamic fundamentalism. It should not be automatically assumed, as Sunsara Taylor does, that it represents only "outmoded" elements. As the Canadian comrades pointed out, the class character of regimes using Islamic ideology varies between countries. Also some comrades assume that the Islamic regimes are nothing more than the creation of and tools of imperialist powers. Again even a limited amount of concrete analysis shows that the reality is more complex. For example the Islamic regimes in Saudi Arabia , Sudan and Iran arose internally and are not simply puppet implants of the imperialists. Crude conspiracy theories should not be substituted for real historical materialist analysis.
The question of principal and secondary contradictions has been raised. Some wonder whether in the world at large the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations is at present the principal one. In general it can be argued that this is the case. As far as Afghanistan and Iraq are concerned then current conflicts within those countries are certainly mainly determined by this contradiction. In the case of particular countries this may not be so. There have been differences over whether in Iran this contradiction is principal or is it the contradiction between the Islamic regime and the great mass of the people? Both contradictions exist - as well as others - and which one is principal at a given time can change. If the principal contradiction is with the Islamic regime then the communists should emphasise the struggle to overthrow it. Even so, at a certain point in the face of mounting imperialist aggression the contradiction with imperialism becomes principal and then the communists should emphasise opposing imperialist aggression, without abandoning their aim of overthrowing the IRI. Realistically communists in Iran will attract no significant popular following unless they take up armed struggle against the reactionary government. If they do so it would not be correct to continue with it in the face of immediate imperialist attack. At that point it would be correct to call for national unity against the common foe. Imperialist occupation is likely to be more difficult to get rid of than the IRI.
Materialism or Idealism?
A materialist analysis of contemporary Iraq , Iran and Afghanistan begins by establishing which class forces and political formations are active in and determining the developing struggles in these countries. From such concrete examinations we can begin to develop tactics which if successfully applied will begin to make advances, however small, towards socialism and communism. It is on the basis of such analysis that some of us call for qualified support for the existing reactionary movements leading the armed struggle against imperialism in these countries. At the same time we call for communists in those countries to get organised and engage in armed struggle against imperialism and in the case of Iran against the Islamic Republic. We recognise that given the past setbacks of the communist movement in these countries that it will be some time before this can be done and only then will the communists will be in a position to begin to build united fronts with other anti-imperialist elements. This position does not "worship spontaneity" nor is it "tailism". It simply recognises that the armed resistances in Iraq and Afghanistan are dealing heavy blows against imperialist powers and that this is to the advantage of oppressed people not only in those countries but throughout the world.
An idealist analysis of the same situations begins not from the actual existing material conditions but from the conditions that these comrades would like to see, i.e. anti-imperialist united fronts under communist leadership. Given that this is not the case at present, they denounce the existing resistance movements with as much venom as they do the imperialist aggressors. "A curse on both your houses" is their position. This is incorrect because it equates the aggressors with their victims, those who engage in imperialist invasion with those who resist it. There can be no doubt that, difficult as the lives of the masses in Afghanistan and Iraq were before the imperialist invasions, now they are much worse. If Iran were attacked and occupied the living conditions of the Iranians would almost certainly be worse. Thus it is correct for us to do what we can to deter US imperialism and its allies from attacking Iran even though we call for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. The comrades taking up the idealist line should reflect that this is essentially the same position as the Worker Communist Party of Iran and the Trotskyite Alliance for Workers' Liberty in Britain and where it can lead. While these organisations say they oppose the imperialist occupations also they want the imperialist forces to smash the existing resistance movements. In effect their's is a pro-imperialist position because it sees imperialism as having a progressive role in these countries.
As Leninists we certainly do place great emphasis on the revolutionary role of political consciousness in uniting and mobilising the people to oppose imperialism and local reaction. Furthermore we know from past experience that only a disciplined revolutionary party is capable of carrying out this task. In the case of Iraq such a party does not exist and needs to be created. With Afghanistan and Iran such parties do exist but are weak and have yet to succeed in launching new armed struggles. Until such time as they do they will not have much impact on the people. It is all very well to talk, as some of the American comrades do, about "bringing forward the role of the proletariat" but this cannot be done except through a protracted process of political and military struggle. At present the proletariat in these countries is a "class in itself" - divided by religion and ethnicity - and not yet a "class for itself". The task of communists is to bring about such a transformation and not to speak as if this is already the case.
Practical Consequences of the Two Different Lines
If the line that condemns the existing armed resistances in Iraq and Afghanistan is put forward by communists in those countries then the popular response will be dismissive contempt.. The communists will be seen as stooges of imperialism and thus legitimate targets for the active resistance.
In the case of the imperialist countries, especially with America and Britain , confusion about a correct position towards the armed resistances has weakened the anti-imperialist war movement. In Britain most of the Trotskyites have denounced the existing resistance movements and thus have brought about a certain degree of confusion among anti-war protestors. Also it has alienated many Muslims from the anti-war campaign.
The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has played a valuable role in fighting to recreate the international Maoist movement. But on this occasion they have made a serious error in arguing that any support for the existing resistance movements in Iraq and Afghanistan is incorrect. In the spirit of communist self-criticism they should change their position before more harm is done.

यो पृष्ठ छाप्नुस्

प्रतिक्रिया दिनुस्