James Bloodworth’s round-up of the scandal surrounding Stop the War Coalition’s (StWC) invitation to gassacre-denier Mother Agnes is excellent because he gets to the root of why so much of the Western left (including the governments of Cuba and Venezuela) has sided with counter-revolution and fascism in Syria in the name of ‘anti-imperialism’:
“In inviting Mother Agnes to speak the Stoppers were simply sticking faithfully to their own ‘anti-imperialist’ worldview — hence why the organisers still see nothing wrong in having selected her as a speaker. It was after all the organisation’s National Officer John Rees who once wrote: ‘Socialists should unconditionally stand with the oppressed against the oppressor, even if the people who run the oppressed country are undemocratic and persecute minorities, like Saddam Hussein.’”
So according to Rees, socialists should “unconditionally” stand with tyrants and fascists — provided that as the heads of oppressed nations they have conflicts of interest with imperialist powers. If Rees and StWC applied this consistently, they would have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Adolf Hitler during the Second World War; after all, Germany was a nation oppressed by the imperialist Versailles Treaty which imposed significant economic hardships on the German people, limited German military capabilities, and exacted territorial concessions. Rees and StWC would have been the British comrades of the German-American Bund, an organization that demanded the U.S. take a ‘hands off’ stand and stay out of the Second World War.
Imagine being a European Jew in the 1930s and 1940s and how you would feel watching the above ‘anti-war’ rallies and you get some idea of why Syrians reacted the same way when they saw the same kind of embarrassing and utterly bogus anti-war protests staged by StWC in Britain and ANSWER in the U.S.
Bloodworth is right about a great many things but errs fundamentally when he writes:
“The Stop the War Coalition are not anti-war; they are a malevolent Leninist front whose leadership has a long record of lining up alongside any movement or tyranny that is sufficiently anti-Western. Mother Agnes would have fitted in very well.”
The pro-tyrant ‘anti-imperialism’ that is rampant on the Western far left today is totally at odds with Lenin’s brand of anti-imperialism, grounded as it was in his concept of the democratic revolution and Marxian class analysis of the social forces in conflict with the imperialist powers. As Lenin put it:
“…it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.”
So whatever mistakes Lenin made during his political career, siding with the emperor of China or the Sultan of the Ottoman empire because they had conflicts with Britain or France was not one of them!
Lenin was no John Rees and John Rees is no Lenin.
Lenin avoided John Rees’s phony anti-imperialism by always basing his standpoint on the interests of the toiling, democratic classes — workers, peasants, petty-proprietors, unemployed, and underemployed — rather than their oppressors and exploiters.
The predominance of non-class anti-imperialism within the Marxist circles is rooted not in the politics of Lenin but in the politics of Stalin and Trotsky, the ideological progenitors of practically all self-identified Marxist trends of the 20th and 21st centuries. (Which of these two men Rees resembles more will be left to the reader to decide.)
Stalin first broke with Lenin’s pro-people and pro-democratic anti-imperialism in 1924, the year Lenin died, writing a book ironically titled Foundations of Leninism:
“The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism…”
Here, we see the familiar garbage that passes for principled anti-imperialism in this day and age. Given Stalin’s position as titular head of a new ruling class that mercilessly broke strikes and attacked rebellious peasants while at the same time seeking allies in the colonial world against the then-dominant imperialist powers, it should be no surprise that he gutted Lenin’s anti-imperialism of its pro-democratic content and replaced it with autocrat-friendly, anti-imperialist-tyranny-is-OK politics.
Trotsky ultimately ended up in the same place as Stalin did on non-class anti-imperialism but by way of a profoundly different path.
Trotsky’s starting point was his rejection of Lenin’s concept of the democratic revolution way back in 1905, arguing that the era of democratic, non-socialist revolutions was over and that socialism — meaning the rule of wage laborers by means of collective, democratic economic planning — was the order of the day even in backward, semi-feudal Russia (note: this is an extremely cramped, brief, and therefore necessarily distorted overview of this debate; those interested in it should read the original documents via hyperlinks). Rejecting the notion of democratic revolution led Trotsky to almost completely dismiss the possibility that national liberation movements in the colonies — short of socialism — could actually win independence (a position held by his contemporaries Rosa Luxemburg and Nikolai Bukharin). After the 1917 revolution in Russia and the spate of movements that won national independence all over Eastern and Central Europe, to his credit Trotsky realized he was wrong and Lenin right about the importance of national liberation struggles.
However, Trotsky did not seem to grasp the internal logic of Lenin’s pro-democratic, pro-people anti-imperialism and advocated the same non-class anti-imperialism as Stalin did from 1924 onwards as evidenced by statements such as this:
“In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of ‘fascist’ Brazil against ‘democratic’ Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy.”
Here, we see that Trotsky believed that the victory of a fascist colony over an imperialist power in a war would “give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship.” If anything, the opposite would be the case — a militarily victorious fascist regime would blunt the consciousness and organization of workers and peasants and give reaction a new lease on life. Certainly that is what happened in Egypt after Gamal Abdel Nasser successfully defied Israel, France, and Britain for control over the Suez Canal in 1956. Illusions in Nasser and ‘Arab socialism’ proliferated among the masses (and persist to this day in Egypt) to such an extent that communist parties in the region ended up tailing Nasser and Nasserism politically, only to be caught completely by surprise when he crushed them mercilessly as he expanded his power into Syria through the short-lived United Arab Republic.
The price paid by advocates of non-class anti-imperialism in the Third World has always been incredibly high.
Trotsky argued the same anti-imperialism-trumps-class-considerations case with regard to a war between imperialist Britain and colonized India and Mussolini’s fascist Italy and emperor Hailie Selassie’s feudal Ethiopia:
“Should a dictator place himself at the head of the next uprising of the Indian people in order to smash the British yoke – would Maxton then refuse this dictator his support? Yes or no? If not, why does he refuse his support to the Ethiopian ‘dictator’ who is attempting to cast off the Italian yoke?
“If Mussolini triumphs, it means the reinforcement of fascism, the strengthening of imperialism, and the discouragement of the colonial peoples in Africa and elsewhere. The victory of the Negus, however, would mean a mighty blow not only at Italian imperialism but at imperialism as a whole, and would lend a powerful impulsion to the rebellious forces of the oppressed peoples. One must really be completely blind not to see this.”
Clearly the rotten apple John Rees did not fall far from the Stalin-Trotsky tree of anti-imperialism. Rees is only half-right when he says, “socialists should unconditionally stand with the oppressed against the oppressor, even if the people who run the oppressed country are undemocratic and persecute minorities, like Saddam Hussein.” He should have said, “socialists should unconditionally stand with the oppressed against the oppressor” and stopped right there. That would at least allowed him to hold onto his moral compass and dignity as a socialist.