The False Promise of Multi-Polarity in International Relations
With the collapse of the USSR and other socialist States in the late 1980s and early 1990s, multipolarity became the much sought after ideal for almost all progressives as they sought resources to counter the rampant global strides of the sole superpower, the USA. Today when a return of the former socialist States is neither possible nor perhaps even desirable, multipolarity is seen as perhaps the only option to hedge in the arrogant brutality of the US war machine. I would like to argue that multipolarity is like the “opium of the masses”, it is merely a “sigh of the oppressed creature” which provides fleeting relief in times of trouble, but like opium it is a poison which may even prove fatal in the long run.
The conclusion of the Second World War with the defeat of Nazism inaugurated an era of bi-polarity in international relations with the world divided into two armed camps led by the United States and the Soviet Union. While on the face of it, this was like any other armed face-off between two militarily powerful groups of allies, there was a qualitatively different nature to this conflict. The USSR and its allies provided an alternative to the oppression, aggression and exploitation of the old colonial powers, now organised around the military might of the United States. It is no coincidence that the leading countries in the Non-Aligned Movement ended up indirectly supporting or taking the support of the USSR and its allies. Colonies fighting for independence and people organising against exploitation often found dis-interested help and support from the USSR and its allies. The State Department of the United States wasn’t too off the mark when it accused the Non-Aligned Movement with “aligning” with the Soviet Union. The objective conditions of the world were such that for any newly independent country which wanted to preserve its political independence and defend its economic autonomy from attacks by the imperialist powers, the only option was to lean on the Soviet Union.
Unfortunately, the USSR and its allies themselves were riddled with shortcomings and weaknesses. Internally they were totalitarian political structures which often denied their own citizens basic democratic rights and had, in a strange manner, depoliticised their own working classes and peasantry. Even in their external relations, while the former socialist States did support and help the decolonising world, often their sectarianism got in the way. Who can forget the deplorable Soviet military forays into Hungary and Czechoslovakia? Who can forget that in 1979 China attacked and invaded Vietnam, which had just emerged out of three decades of the most brutal war with France and USA. Finally, the socialist States could not break out of the trap of low productivity and economic – political stagnation. Despite all these weaknesses and shortcomings the socialist States played a progressive role, especially in the context of the third world and in keeping a check on the ravages of imperialism.
The collapse of the socialist State system led to a breakdown of the balance of power and the emergence of the USA as the sole superpower. This new, and unquestioned, military dominance was quickly put to use to concentrate economic and political power with the USA. What is important to remember is that prior to 1990-91, the military power of the United States was used to defend the interests of the imperialists powers of the entire world – from Japan to Europe. But with the collapse of the USSR and its allies, the objective conditions changed overnight. The military power of the United States was now its own to shore up its individual power vis-à-vis the other powerful nations of the world.
Within a few years of the collapse of the Soviet Union a new trade regime – World Trade Organisation – was instituted and Nato started expanding from the North Atlantic to Eastern Europe. The USA also moved quickly to physically control the oil resources of the world. In much of this, it has been largely successful and even today its military – economic – political might remain unparalleled. It alone spends half the global military budget, has military bases strewn all over the world and controls, through an increasingly restrictive intellectual rights regime, much of the advanced technology of the world. Almost half of the world’s capital is concentrated in individuals and companies which are based in the United States.
This absence of an opposite pole and the increasing power of the United States reduces the space other countries have of taking sovereign decisions and often forces them to compromise their own national self-interests for the sake of peace and economic stability with US demands. This has created a strong demand for one or more power centres to check the hegemony of the USA. This subjective demand has been complimented by the objective rise in economic and political power of some other components of the global imperialist system. Europe has started consolidating into a truly common economic unit which is a clear rival to the USA. China is clearly emerging as a military and economic heavyweight in Asia and the Pacific. Russia too has started flexing its considerable military muscle in association with its increasing control over hydro-carbon reserves of Siberia and Central Asia. Together these two Eurasian powers are emerging as important checks on US military hegemony, if they are still some way off from becoming economic competitors. On the other hand, the EU is emerging as a serious competitor to the economic domination of the US even though it has no independent military power outside of US controlled NATO. The proposal for a European army outside NATO is yet to be acutalised, even though Germany and France seem quite keen.
In a very real sense, the world is slowly but surely moving into a phase of multi-polarity and for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USA finds its authority and power being seriously questioned. But this check on the hegemony of the USA is coming from States which themselves harbour imperialist ambitions and are intrinsic parts of the globalised economic world system. They do not provide any alternative to the USA in terms of ideology, ethics, economic organisation or social justice. They just want to combat the hegemony of the pre-eminent power so that they can exercise their own power in exactly the same manner. An analogy would be that a neighbourhood is tormented by one domineering and violent mafia gang which controls all economic activity and then there emerge one or two alternate mafia gangs which challenge the power of the former. For residents of that neighbourhood, the emergence of rival gangs can sometimes provide immediate relief of the most basic sort from the depredations of the main mafia gang. But in the long term, all it does is to make the neighbourhood more dangerous and violent and reduces the possibility of civil life even further.
Similar is the danger of the rise of multipolarity. In an immediate and very basic sense, it challenges the power of the United States but the rise of other, equally predatory imperialist powers merely adds to the violence and oppression of the world. Multipolarity is good news for the non-US based capitalist classes, it is more of the same for the working people and oppressed. It is a chimera we need to rid ourselves of at the earliest and start building truly democratic global institutions which will provide an alternative to our crisis ridden, violent, exploitative and oppressive world.
Printer-friendly versionVideos from Newsclick
- Angelina Jolie's Mastectomy: Patenting Genes is Patenting a Discovery
- Pakistan Elections: Regional Mandate- A Threat or an Opportunity
- India's External Balance Deficit: Impending Macro-Economic Crisis
- Prison Reforms needed - not a Sanaullah for a Sarabjit
- Fighting for their land; two farmers in the West Bank
Recent comments
-
TPC’s Murder: Questions that Remain after One Year
-
TPC’s Murder: Questions that Remain after One Year
-
TPC’s Murder: Questions that Remain after One Year
-
Small Savings Schemes in India and the Saradha Scam
-
Small Savings Schemes in India and the Saradha Scam
Comments
Please Stop this Messianic Moralism
I have been reading Aniket's Alam's writings for some time now and it seems to be highly irritating. He seems to be in a constantly moralizing mode: just as Prabhat Patnaik somewhere called "messianic moralism". In other words if you are condemning everything under the sun, you are in effect condemning nothing. Everyone knows that in the absence of a Socialist world today, most countries in the world are capitalist. Any challenge to US imperialism therefore has to take the shape of inter-capitalist or inter-imperialist rivalry. Those who are interested in eventually going beyond capitalism, have to reckon with this real world situation. Aniket Alam is fully off the mark in equating EU and Japan with Russia and China because the former are subordinate allies of the US whereas the latter are potential rivals. Just because Russia is capitalist and China is not a pursuing a very convincing Socialist model does not mean we become cynical about whatever resistance they put up to the US. The future of democratisation of the world order is inconceivable without further intensification of the rivalry between US on the one hand and Russia-China on the other. In that sense multi-polarity, far from being an opium of the masses, is an achievable objective which needs to be fought for. By spreading cynicism about multi-polarity Aniket Alam is willy nilly strengthening those who aspire for the perpetuation of US hegemony and unilateralism in world affairs. One wonders why a person who does not seem to have the rudimentary idea of contemporary imperialism and indulges in such childish sermonizing is provided space in pragoti which i find to be an otherwise good website carrying very insightful material.
Not Moralism but Pure Humbug
What Aniket Alam has displayed is not moralism but pure humbug. Underlying his puritanical sermons is deeprooted cynicism and abysmal ignorance. When the US was threatening Iran over the nuclear issue Aniket was educating us about the vices of the fundamentalist regime in Iran. During the elections in Pakistan he warned us about the impending fascist takeover of the country by the Islamists. Such ridiculous assessments of course fell flat when the fundamentalists were marginalised by the electorate. Notwithstanding such a gaffe Aniket started a tirade against China over the Tibet issue coinciding with the anti-China hype by the Western media. Once that subsided, he took up cudgels on behalf of Georgia, conveniently hiding the fact that it was the American poodle Sakaashvili who had attacked South Ossetia, and demonising Russia for its counter-offensive. Then comes this marvel on the futility of a multi-polar world. One wonders whether Aniket is realizing that in the process he is increasingly sounding as a US State Department spokesperson. I sincerely hope that Aniket does not go the same way as Jack Straw, who was once a self-proclaimed Marxist and later went on to become a crucial architect of the "war on terror" as Tony Blair's Foreign Secretary.
SFI distances itself from such Sectarian Views
The opinions expressed by Aniket Alam reflect how far he has moved from his roots. His equating the US with China, which despite all its problems continues to be a state dominated and regulated economy, and with Russia which is justifiably defending its own national interests against American MNC's encroaching on its hydrocarbon resources within its own territory (Siberia is a part of Russia isn't it?) by nationalizing them, betrays total ignorance. It is indeed pathetic that a former President of the SFI JNU Unit would expose such ideological and political naivete. Aniket has said: "They (i.e. Russia/China etc.) do not provide any alternative to the USA in terms of ideology, ethics, economic organisation or social justice. They just want to combat the hegemony of the pre-eminent power so that they can exercise their own power in exactly the same manner". Does Aniket support the tactics adopted by the Socialist states to combine in a United Front against Fascism alongwith capitalist countries like the US and Britain during the WW II, despite so many differences? The USSR under Stalin allied with the US and Britain despite no commonality in "ideology, ethics, economic organisation or social justice" in order to defeat the monster of fascism. US imperialism in today's world represents such a monster against which we have to form a broad united front. Aniket's views run counter to such an understanding. SFI JNU distances itself from this sectarian approach and laments the fact that a former leader of our organisation is espousing such views which are harmful for the Left movement of the country.
Wrong views on Imperialism
When the USSR existed, there was always a section within the Left who abused it relentlessly. The Trots derided "Stalinism" while the Maoists denounced the "social imperialism" of the USSR, to the extent that they started downplaying the imperialist threat. The fact is that after the collapse of the USSR, all shades of the Left, including the Trots and Maoists got weakened and pushed into oblivion and imperialism led by US established absolute dominance. Aniket seems to be a victim of the same syndrome in the current context. He finds Russia and China to be imperialist powers whose assertions vis-a-vis the US needs to be slighted. Does he celebrate the supine submission of the Indian Government before the Americans as something which needs to be celebrated? And if he is talking about a socialist alternative to imperialism, socialism will not drop from the heaven one fine morning. It will be born out of the conflicts and contradictions of the current phase of imperialism, particularly through the weakening of American hegemony.
The opinions expressed by
The opinions expressed by Aniket Alam reflect how far he has moved from his roots. His equating the US with China, which despite all its problems continues to be a state dominated and regulated economy, and with Russia which is justifiably defending its own national interests against American MNC's encroaching on its hydrocarbon resources within its own territory (Siberia is a part of Russia isn't it?) by nationalizing them, betrays total ignorance. It is indeed pathetic that a former President of the SFI JNU Unit would expose such ideological and political naivete. Aniket has said: "They (i.e. Russia/China etc.) do not provide any alternative to the USA in terms of ideology, ethics, economic organisation or social justice. They just want to combat the hegemony of the pre-eminent power so that they can exercise their own power in exactly the same manner". Does Aniket support the tactics adopted by the Socialist states to combine in a United Front against Fascism alongwith capitalist countries like the US and Britain during the WW II, despite so many differences? The USSR under Stalin allied with the US and Britain despite no commonality in "ideology, ethics, economic organisation or social justice" in order to defeat the monster of fascism. US imperialism in today's world represents such a monster against which we have to form a broad united front. Aniket's views run counter to such an understanding. SFI JNU distances itself from this sectarian approach and laments the fact that a former leader of our organisation is espousing such views which are harmful for the Left movement of the country.
Roshan Kishore
Secretary
SFI-JNU Unit
pack of contradictions
the article is full of contradictions. it is titled "false promise of multi-polarity'. but in between it says: "In a very real sense, the world is slowly but surely moving into a phase of multi-polarity and for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USA finds its authority and power being seriously questioned". so what does one conclude? is the world becoming multi-polar or not? if it is then why is it a false promise? and if it is not then is multipolarity desirable compared to the current unipolar world? the author seems to be a thoroughly confused person.
It is interesting to see an
It is interesting to see an article on Pragoti after a long time that has attracted laborious and critical comment. But it is surprising to see the intensely personal attacks and epithets. The writer has obviously aggravated the 'thought police' among the avant garde CPI(M) intellectuals.
But beyond the passionate personal attacks looms a larger question. As far as I know, the CPI)M) was born rejecting the 'national bourgeoisie' thesis. So why this passionate plea by the Young Turks to look at the Russian ruling class as a 'strategic ally'?
Organized Public Disowning
Who is the writer? He must be somebody very important to have invited such an organized public disowning campaign from the powers that be.
March on Left nationalists - the world will be yours with Kautsky's blessings.
Reflects the bankruptcy of left intellectual thought today
In the comments to the article, there is no attempt to even delve into the questions of Soviet intervention in Hungary or China-Vietnam War, when the Soviet Union and China were socialist states and there was a genuine reason for the CPI and then CPI(M) to be either silent or come out in support.
All the zeal seems to be invested in wanting to see the Chinese and the Russian ruling class as a bulwark against US hegemony. This faith in the ruling class of these two countries reflects a very superficial political understanding. So far, these ruling classes have shown no interest to thwart US hegemony - they are beneficiaries and props of the financial system that provides the basic international structure for US hegemony. At the same time, they have expansionary interests of their own just as the burgeoning big bourgeoisie in India has its own expansionary aims.
The CPI(M) may want to form an United Front with them (I hope this is the zeal of a supporter and not the official line) though it beats me how that argument can even be made.
US imperialism poses a grave
US imperialism poses a grave danger to the world, but strange that the comparison with fascism has been invoked to underscore it in one of the comments. History presents similarities, it is never the same. The US is imperialist and poses a grave danger as an imperialist hegemon, but is it fascist?
Moreover, the United Front against fascism during WWII emerged precisely because the Soviet Union existed which was an established socialist state. But there is also another history that precedes it - the Stalin-Hitler pact. Can the latter development be cited without the former?
The CPI(M) has led from the front in the fight against fascism at home. But what about building an internationalist solidarity with progressive forces worldwide that are resisting neofascism today? Rather than advocacy for the Russian and Chinese ruling class, it would be good if comrades devoted some energy to that.
Need for broad based anti-imperialist unity
It is curious to see that those coming to the rescue of comrade aniket are doing so by lambasting the CPI (M). There is no justification for this. I find it hard to believe that comrade aniket is intending to undermine the CPI (M) in his article. What is required today is a broad unity between different anti-imperialist currents. While there will be disagreements and ideological differences between various anti-imperialist strands, the current situation demands that their unity is upheld. Let us not underestimate US imperialism (although it is not Fascism). No advance of the left and democratic movement worldwide is possible without weakening US imperialism. Do we see Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez openly criticising Russia or China? No. Does that mean Cuba or Venezuela have no differences with Russia/China? Of course they have which is reflected in their domestic policies. But on the international plane they cooperate. For instance, Venezuela is about to conduct joint military exercises with Russia in Venezuelan waters. US imperialism and globalisation are being fought in different ways by different countries and movements. We may like some and dislike others. However, going by the logic of comrade aniket's argument, progressive forces should wage struggles in their respective national domains till socialist forces (the "correct" ones) assume state power in all countries, before any international cooperation is forged between nation-states against US imperialism. Can this be taken seriously from the praxis point of view? Let us reflect upon the need to forge broad based unity against US imperialism. Otherwise we will not succeed in our endeavours and will keep on rejecting every possibility of intervention and advance. Let us not be either cynical or sectarian to a self-defeating extent.
Aniket Alam, whoever you are,
Aniket Alam, whoever you are, write on. Apparently everyone knows it is you writing, so I suppose most of the commentators are your former friends. As for me, a first-time reader of this website, I found your article interesting, though your view that the EU, Russia and China (and possibly India, though you did not mention our own home-grown imperialist ambitions, possibly because they are as yet thankfully still nascent) are implacably opposed to the US seems extreme. Imperialists sometimes fight each other and sometimes they are quite chummy and accommodative. I imagine we are going to see a bit of both as the new power equations make themselves more clear. But man, your SFI/CPM friends really have it in for you, don't they?! Personal attacks, intellectual vapidity, formulaic responses..okay, I guess we have come to expect nothing less from the intellectuals of the organised Indian left. But guys, this chap is actually saying something that can be useful for the left. This idea that imperialist states can be countered by other states, while bread and butter dogma for the traditional left, has never really worked. Yet capitulation is not an option. So one has to think of alternative forms of organisation and resistance which have genuine grassroot connections.
Right!
While I may quibble with a detail here and there, I think the fundamental point Aniket is making is perfectly sound: the only alternative to imperialism is socialism, and the chimera of multi-polarity should never make us forget that. The world has had enough experience of conflict between Great Powers, and such conflicts have never helped the people. When their understandings broke down you got World Wars, when they stayed intact you got the Prussian Army collaborating in putting down the French Communards. The policies of Russia and China today match more closely this Great Powers pattern than those of anti-imperialist forces supporting the principles of national sovereignty and social equality.
But regardless of whether Aniket is right or wrong, I find it very unfortunate that fellow commentators have chosen to attack him personally than take issues with his ideas. And I don't see why SFI had to dissociate itself with this article, since there was no association to begin with.
Regarding Aniket's post and the subsequent comments
For few months now, I've been reading Aniket's posts in his blog and here, and find them quite interesting, and thought-provoking. In the current post, he tried to raise few issues which regardless of what staunch CPI(M) supporters will say, have been troubling people's minds for a long time. And I know I may be (or rather will be) slated by the same people in voicing my concerns - because in the past couple of years or so, I've seen such attitude from a large section of party members and sympathisers - any criticism results in a tirade against the person who raised the issues. Unfortunately, such tirade does more harm than good because it shoves all criticisms into a dungeon. Further it fails to uphold the liberty of a person to express his/her thoughts and exposes the so-called "moral police" attitude of a section of the party and its sympathisers.
Does it remind something? Or of someone, who infamously said (a few years ago) - "If you are not with us, you are against us?"
My Response to comments
Its not easy but I will try to respond to the comments on my article one by one.
-- --
1. Anonymous: I think the operative part of your disagreement with me is this:
"The future of democratisation of the world order is inconceivable without further intensification of the rivalry between US on the one hand and Russia-China on the other. In that sense multi-polarity, far from being an opium of the masses, is an achievable objective which needs to be fought for."
All I am saying is that inter-imperialist rivalry has never led to democratisation of the world. They will fight and bicker among themselves but as soon as there is even a whiff of a democratic alternative, they will gang together to snuff it out. What I was trying to argue in my article is that multi-polarity is not only an "achievable objective" but something which is happening on its own. The problem is that if we fight to build multipolarity (merely a non-political euphemism of inter-imperialist rivalry) we forget that we are in the fight here to build socialism.
-- --
2. Indraneel: I really don't understand why you invoke the USSR here? The USSR was socialist and even if it was making mistakes, there was a need to defend it. The only thing common between the USSR and Russia today is that they occupy a similar territorial space. The fact that you seem to draw a lineage from the USSR to today's Russia is perhaps indicative of how you are still stuck with very wrong notions. I will get to your comment on destruction of American hegemony later.
-- --
3. Com. Abhay: There are a series of mis-representations about my various arguments which you have written. Let me restate, in brief, what my actual arguments are/were.
When the US was threatening Iran over the nuclear issue Aniket was educating us about the vices of the fundamentalist regime in Iran.
All I have been arguing is that the left globally, should be careful in how it opposes the USA's obviously malafide attacks on Iran. Our opposition to the US / Israel attacks on Iran should not be seen as a defense of that country's fascist regime which has butchered lakhs of communists, trade unionists, feminists and anyone else they feel is Satanic. The communists and other progressives in Iran have fought with their life against this fascist regime and we need to also stand in solidarity with the people of Iran who do not necessarily support the clerical fascism which rules over them. By appearing to support the fascist regime of Iran in its standoff with the USA, we run the danger of pushing those who have been fighting this regime into the arms of Imperialism.
During the elections in Pakistan he warned us about the impending fascist takeover of the country by the Islamists.
I had tried to argue that in Pakistan the contradictions within the ruling class alliance are reaching a stage where it is becoming increasingly difficult for the dominant social classes to manage these contradictions within the normal bounds of politics. This implies that a social revolution is very much on the cards and given the near absence of the left and the organisationally strong and geographically wide spread presence of the religious fascist parties, an implosion of the present ruling class structure will open the gates to a fascist social revolution. I still stand by that analysis and this election has not proved or disproved anything other than the utter fragility of ruling class politics in Pakistan.
...Aniket started a tirade against China over the Tibet issue coinciding with the anti-China hype by the Western media.
I am not sure what Com. Abhay means by "tirade". Till this comment of his, most people actually attacked me for indirectly defending China's actions in Tibet in March this year. I showed the feudal basis of the Dalai Lama's legacy, I highlighted the liberatory nature of communist interventions in Tibet and I railed against the hypocrisy of the West's support for Tibet. But I went further. I also said that China had mishandled the nationality question with regard to Tibet and I argued that it was not possible to defend Tibetan's anger against China while ignoring the mass protests which are wracking the entire length and breadth of China's population. Tens of millions of Chinese working people are coming out in protest against various aspects of the neo-liberal economic regime being imposed there. And I said that as Leftists we need to stand in solidarity with all these struggles.
...he took up cudgels on behalf of Georgia, conveniently hiding the fact that it was the American poodle Sakaashvili who had attacked South Ossetia, and demonising Russia for its counter-offensive.
I would like to be shown where have I ever taken up cudgels on behalf of Georgia's despicable regime. All I did was to argue that the war in Georgia was not about the supposed human rights of 70,000 South Ossetians but was for the control of the region's hydrocarbon reserves and to stop Georgia from joining NATO. I tried to argue that Russia's strategic doctrine of not allowing any "foreign" influence into its "near abroad" was nothing but a 21st century copy of the 19th century Monroe Doctrine of the USA. I was trying to argue that Russia is not the USSR anymore and is now a State which is part of the global imperialist system and this was an inter-imperialist war where it did not matter who won since it was the people of Georgia, S. Ossetia and Abkhazia who lost.
And lastly, I would like to say that I am surely your "humbug"; not in the English sense of the word, but hum-bug as in "hum-saathi". I promise to bug you as much as you bug me ;-)
-- --
4. Roshan Kishore, Secy, SFI-JNU Unit: You say
US imperialism in today's world represents such a monster against which we have to form a broad united front.
I have no love for US imperialism, all I am trying to argue is that the monster is actually imperialism and the USA is merely its leader - the top cat! Even if tomorrow the USA slips from its position due to the strengthening of other, second level, imperialist powers, it will not lead to any relief, forget about socialism, for the people of the world. Britain was replaced by the USA which will be replaced by someone else. The real monster is imperialism, not one particular country which happens to be the strongest imperialist state at a given point in history. And by being partisans in the inter-imperialist rivalry between the USA and second level imperialist states, we will be so much fodder to the cannon!
I was deeply touched by your lament
SFI JNU distances itself from this sectarian approach and laments the fact that a former leader of our organisation is espousing such views which are harmful for the Left movement of the country.
If it helps I am willing to (re)take SFI membership in JNU for a day so that you may have the satisfaction of expelling me! Please don't lament.
-- --
5. Anonymous: I am not sure who is confused here.
-- --
6. Albeena: It was good to see that you accepted that my intention is not to undermine the CPI(M); or for that matter any anti-imperialist movement. What I could make out, the crux of your argument is
going by the logic of comrade aniket's argument, progressive forces should wage struggles in their respective national domains till socialist forces (the "correct" ones) assume state power in all countries, before any international cooperation is forged between nation-states against US imperialism. Can this be taken seriously from the praxis point of view?
I am not at all arguing for what you are suggesting. In fact, elsewhere I have argued that we need to move beyond only banking on the nation=state to base our politics on. (and before this is misrepresented again, i want to clarify that i am not saying that we should abandon the nation-state as a site of struggle, but only saying that it may not anymore provide the primary site for the anti-imperialist struggle). In fact, during Lenin's time the primary site for the anti-imperialist struggle was the International. For various reasons we don't have it now with us... but we need to think of global institutions to base our anti-imperialist struggles on. That does not mean we abandon the nation state. In some situations it may still provide us with a good base to fight imperialism with. But we really need something like an Working Peoples' International. Such an international will not come out of thin air, surely. But that is what we need to work towards and there is a crying need for such a global institution. The amazing popularity of initiatives like WSF only go to underline that progressive peoples' movements globally are looking to unite and work beyond national boundaries. The eventual failure of WSF to do anything like that further highlights the necessity of building a "correct" international!
And I am not saying that the international is the only form available. There may be many various organisational and political forms. We need to work towards that. These cannot be delineated idealistically sitting on a computer but will emerge from actual political praxis.
-- --
There is a strong hesitation among all those who attacked my positions to accept that Russia is a member of the imperialist club and that China plays a role very similar to an imperialist State on the world stage. I will only restate the questions which I had posed to a purported Russian Marxist Leninist who attacked my article on the Russia - Georgia war.
I would like to know your opinion about whether you consider Russia an imperialist State or not, as defined by Lenin. From your reply(ies), it appears that you don’t think so. If that is indeed true, I would then ask you these questions;
(a) How and why is Russia a member of G8?
(b) How would you accept Lenin’s categorisation of the Russian State in 1914-17 as imperialist, when it had lower levels of industrialisation, concentration of capital, significantly smaller working class, weaker military, etc. than Russia does today?
(c) Do you support Lenin’s line of “Revolutionary Defeatism” of 1917? If yes, why do you support the Russian State today? If no, why do you call yourself a Leninist?
(d) How do you define the ruling class in Russia today?
(e) How is the Russian’s State’s concept of “near abroad” — countries in Russia’s sphere of influence where they will not allow the influence of any other country to dominate — different from the Monroe Doctrine of 19th Century USA?
-- --
The only other period in world history when there was no socialist State (we can ignore Cuba for the purpose of this discussion) but imperialism was rampant was from the late 19th century till the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1917. When inter-imperialist rivalry was at its peak in 1914-1918, what did Lenin say? Did he ask communists to work for the defeat of Britain and France, the largest colonial powers of that era. The defeat of Britain would have led to the unravelling of the largest colonial empire the world had ever known - an empiire on which the sun never set! Yet, Lenin did not say that socialism will be born out of the weakening of British hegemony!! He called on the working people of all countries to actively work to defeat their own States, in each State. He did not argue that communists should support Germany so that British imperialism is destroyed because he argued that defeat / destruction of British imperialism will not end imperialism as a system as such. I fear communists today are forgetting this simple lesson.
Lastly, I would like to state that I am not undermining the threat of imperialism. Nor am I trying to deny the possibility of using inter-imperialist rivalry to defend gains of the working people. All I am saying is that Imperialism is not equal to only the USA; Imperialism is equal to USA+EU+Japan+Russia+candidate members of the imperialist club like China and India. Surely Venezuela should use everything possible to defend itself from attack by imperialism and if a current alignment in the inter-imperialist rivalry provides it space to do that, well and good. But the moment the Bolivarian revolution starts considering Russia as its ally, it is doomed.
-- --
I have tried to address those issues which I thought were being raised by those who were critical of me. My intention has never been to moralise, sermonise or spread cynicism. I am sorry that those I consider my friends and comrades think so of me. I am reminded of a line from Tagore, "E monihaar amay, nahi saaje". Get your bong friends to translate it for you...
Comrade Aniket
I've several points on your reply. just adding 3.
1) "But the moment the Bolivarian revolution starts considering Russia as its ally"
it is easy to tell the above statement; but remember fate of Alenda before passing such a generalized statement. Taking a position should be based on concrete analysis of situation and need to study very closely how that position will strengthen unity among the working class and its key alleys [In latin american context, protect the "revolution", and In Indian context it is required to see the dangerous presence of right wing fascist sangh parivar also. ]. I sincerely felt, you lacked this on certain points on reply.
2) "If it helps I am willing to (re)take SFI membership in JNU for a day so that you may have the satisfaction of expelling me! Please don't lament." This statement is very sad and in reality, it shows contempt to revolutionary organization and unwillingness to work under the principle of democratic centralisim....if that is the case, then it is totally non- Leninist approach. hoping you would correct this mistake.
3) I agree with u on the need of an international and concerted opposition from left partys' against the imperialism. it will evolve on due time.
Regards,
Ravi
Aniket Alam has written: "But
Aniket Alam has written: "But we really need something like an Working Peoples' International. Such an international will not come out of thin air, surely. But that is what we need to work towards and there is a crying need for such a global institution. The amazing popularity of initiatives like WSF only go to underline that progressive peoples' movements globally are looking to unite and work beyond national boundaries. The eventual failure of WSF to do anything like that further highlights the necessity of building a "correct" international!" This is Trotskyism of the 21st Century. Please do not invoke Lenin to push this line. Best of luck for your NGO based "civil cociety"activism. It enables one to have the best of both worlds. Remember what Lenin had said about Trotsky: "Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other".
Trotskyism and Stalinism
I am a regular visitor to this website after this was recommended by a Stalinist friend from India. I am a Trotskyist, born and brought up in the Blairite paradise of Thatcherite legacy.
The snow-balling debate among 'comrades and friends' who clearly know each other over this blog post makes me ask why people who know each other suddenly fight it out on a blog? Is this some faction fight going on? I have never seen such battles on this blog before.
I commend the commentator who has called for a broad unity of anti-imperialist forces.
But the other commentators hardly seem interested in responding to the clarion call. Aniket Alam is clearly not considered a part of these forces.
To the anon commentator on Trotskyism of the 21st century, Trotskyism, in all its forms derives from the theory of Permanent Revolution, combined and uneven development and the impossibility of 'socialism in one country'. That is far removed from Aniket Alam's 'line' which should be dubbed the original Stalinist position in the orthodox tradition of the Third International.
Bury Your Hatchets
Dear Comrades,
I am at once deeply moved but a bit disturbed by the debate you are having here. Moved because it is nice to see young minds debating broadly the same issues which confronted us about a century ago. It is clear that Marxism as a method to understand the world continues to remain relevant in your times as much as it was during my time, despite the torture and vilification that it has suffered since my death. But I am disturbed by the acrimony you are displaying towards each other. It is true that I had spent most of my life criticizing others like Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky et.al. But believe me, the world you are trying to understand today is quite different from the one in which I lived and worked. I am informed that nations which had freed themselves from the chains of imperialism decades ago are once again being invaded and colonised by the United States of America. The Moslem nations are being singled out for ruthless suppression. The USA, which is the leader of the imperialist nations, must be fought by all Socialists the world over. Fellow Marxists have to unite to fight this. There will surely be differences between you in the course of that struggle. As I understand your current differences are over how you position yourself in relation to capitalist countries who are coming in conflict with the USA on various matters. This is an important matter that needs to be debated and cannot be resolved very easily. My experience tells me that conflicts between rival capitalist nations are useful for the socialist movement. The time when I urged upon the proletariat to turn their guns on their own bourgeoisie is perhaps different from the world you are facing today. However, no Marxist should ever bear any illusion about the basic class character of a capitalist state. So keep on debating but do not make enemies out of each other. I have a lot of faith in young Indian revolutionaries. I had once dreamt that one day a Socialist Russia, a Socialist China and a Socialist India will unite to unleash the forces of liberation and freedom worldwide. I hope that my dream comes true!
Down with Imperialism!
Long Live Revolution!!
hey lenin
hey lenin, don't be sectarian in your resurrection. you said a few things about stalin, zinoviev, kamanev and bukharin in your lifetime. set the record straight for your followers on all sides of the great divide. tell your followers not to pick up the toothpick when they bury their hatchets. and tell them to get off the computer to work towards the dream of a socialist india, socialist china and socialist russia.
Congratulations Aniket Alam
From personal expletives to the resurrection of Lenin, you have generated a virtual shake-up. Your original post and the cool response later has been a lesson for readers like me. Congratulations!
To the commentator who says: ''2) "If it helps I am willing to (re)take SFI membership in JNU for a day so that you may have the satisfaction of expelling me! Please don't lament." This statement is very sad and in reality, it shows contempt to revolutionary organization and unwillingness to work under the principle of democratic centralisim....if that is the case, then it is totally non- Leninist approach. hoping you would correct this mistake.''
You should find out if the Delhi SFI held a proper meeting and took the decision to publicly disown Aniket Alam over this article. The direction of sadness at contempt for revolutionary organisation and deviation from Leninism could then be correctly posited.
It is much more sad that Pragoti has not issued a statement condemning the personal attack on Aniket Alam.
AA is no Rabocheye Dyelo
Holy cow! Ravi at the sake of getting personal...please get a life. I am not sure what JNU SFI has to do with what Aniket Alam writes...don't you guys have anything better to do? And for heaven's sake do not throw around terms such as democratic centralism loosely...who are you or SFI do assume heirarchy over an ex-student who happened to run for SFI almost a decade back. debate alam as much as you want...but please refrain from becoming a thought police... and say silly things such as those you said...you make those who have a healthy regard for SFI and CPM embarrassed.