Skona syndabocken … och Trotskij!

Reply to a not very intelligent polemic of Alan Woods’ IMT on the slogan of “Arms for the Ukraine”

By Michael Pröbsting, International Secretary of the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 11 November 2022, www.thecommunists.net

Alan Woods’ IMT – a self-proclaimed “Trotskyist” organisation with a London-based leadership – has published another article justifying its refusal to defend the Ukraine against Putin’s invasion. [1] The most remarkable thing about this article is not the content but its formal occasion. It is a 3,200-words long polemic against an article … published in April this year, i.e. seven months ago! That article was written by John Reimann, a 75-years old socialist in Oakland (California, U.S.) and an individual activist in various campaigns (incl. solidarity with the Ukrainian resistance). [2]

To our knowledge, comrade Reimann never wrote or said a single word about the IMT. So, one wonders why Alan Woods’ group feels obligated to write a wordy polemic against an article published seven months ago by an individual activist? The reason is pretty clear: Reimann is just a dummy for the real target of the IMT.

As we did report, the IMT currently faces internal turmoil in its Russian section because of its treacherous position on Putin’s invasion against the Ukraine. A number of members have left this organisation in protest against its refusal to consistently oppose Russian imperialism. The RCIT has dealt with the IMT’s policy on the Ukraine War in several documents and our comrades in Russia have also published interviews with ex-IMT comrades. ^[3] Hence, the new IMT polemic is a badly disguised attempt to counter its internal and external critiques.

In itself, the article does not contain any new arguments. Once more, the IMT confirms its assessment that the U.S. is the “the most reactionary force on Earth” (this silly phrase has a near-programmatic meaning for Alan Woods which is why the author repeats it twice). Sure, the Kremlin’s policy is bad. But in the IMT’s fantasy world of semi-Putinism, only the U.S. and its allies are real imperialist powers. Russia has only, the article emphasises once more, “imperialist ambitions”. This is utter nonsense and ignores the fact that Russia is an imperialist power in its own right. [4]

Consequently, the IMT is incapable of recognizing the rivalry between the Great Powers (U.S., China, Western Europe, Russia and Japan) as a key characteristic of the current historic period. [5]

The IMT wrongly claims that the Ukraine does not fight a national war of defence but merely a proxy war on behalf of NATO. In reality, as we demonstrated in several article, they even consider Russia as a “lesser evil”. ^[6] Consequently, the Russian IMT section supports and collaborates with Zyuganov’s KPRF – an undisguised Great Russian social-chauvinist party which has supported Putin’s war since the very beginning. [7]

“Trotsky” a la IMT

It is not necessary to repeat here our analysis of the Ukraine War or our critique of the IMT. ^[8] At this place, we will limit ourselves to refute a blatant distortion of a Trotsky quote which constitutes the core of the whole IMT article at hand. The IMT author criticises Reimann for his interpretation of Trotsky’s anti-imperialist position elaborated in his article “Learn to Think”. Let us first reproduce the quote in question.

“Let us assume that rebellion breaks out tomorrow in the French colony of Algeria under the banner of national independence and that the Italian government, motivated by its own imperialist interests, prepares to send weapons to the rebels. What should the attitude of the Italian workers be in this case? I have purposely taken an example of rebellion against a democratic imperialism with intervention on the side of the rebels from a fascist imperialism. Should the Italian workers prevent the shipping of arms to the Algerians? Let any ultra-leftist dare answer this question in the affirmative. Every revolutionist, together with the Italian workers and the rebellious Algerians, would spurn such an answer with indignation. Even if a general maritime strike broke out in fascist Italy at the same time, even in this case the strikers should make an exception in favour of those ships carrying aid to the colonial slaves in revolt; otherwise they would be no more than wretched trade unionists – not proletarian revolutionists. At the same time, the French maritime workers, even though not faced with any strike whatsoever, would be compelled to exert every effort to block the shipment of ammunition intended for use against the rebels. Only such a policy on the part of the Italian and French workers constitutes the policy of revolutionary internationalism.” [9]

The IMT author claims, after reproducing this Trotsky quote, that Reimann would ignore the “class aspect” in the whole issue. “It is very telling that Reimann omits the class aspect of Trotsky’s argument. If we were talking about a working-class revolution in Ukraine, which overthrew the oligarchs, installed a workers’ government, and then came under attack from Russian imperialism, it might be that the western imperialists would weigh the advantage of supporting the Ukrainian workers’ regime to strike blows against Russia, though we suspect they would be far more reluctant. Our position in this case would be very different.”

Surely, if the Ukraine would be socialist, if Russia would be imperialist, the IMT swears that in such a case it would side with the Ukraine and that it would not sabotage Western military aid. “Unfortunately”, (in fact, fortunately, as it relieves the IMT from redeeming its promise!) this is not the case so Alan Woods’ group can continue to call for the blockage of aid for the Ukraine.

The real Trotsky

In fact, it is the IMT which completely misinterprets Trotsky’s argument. The quote in question refers to an attack of an imperialist power against a capitalist non-imperialist country. In this quote, Trotsky takes the example of a rebellion in Algeria – at that time a colony of French imperialism – which would receive weapons from fascist-imperialist Italy. As it is well-known, Trotsky and the Fourth International did side with the oppressed peoples not only in theoretical scenarios but also in the real class struggle. Furthermore, they took the same position in wars between an imperialist power and a semi-colony, i.e. a formally independent capitalist state which has a dominated position in world economy and politics.

For example, the Marxists supported the struggle of the China and Ethiopia in the 1930s and 1940s. “Only, where the struggle is imperialistic only on one side, and a war of liberation of non-imperialist nations or of a socialist country against existing or threatening imperialist oppression on the other, as well as in civil wars between the classes or between democracy and fascism—the international proletariat cannot and should not apply the same tactic to both sides. Recognising the progressive character of this war of liberation it must fight decisively against the main enemy, reactionary imperialism (or else against the reactionary camp, in the case of a civil war), that is, fight for the victory of the socially (or politically) oppressed or about-to-be oppressed: USSR, colonial and semi-colonial countries like Abyssinia or China, or Republican Spain, etc.” [10]

From such a fundamental differentiation between reactionary and progressive wars follows that Marxists advocate very different tactics. We are against the escalation of reactionary wars and therefore, socialists oppose the delivery of armaments in such wars. But things are very different in liberation wars! In such cases, socialists support the delivery of armaments! Trotsky stated, on the occasion of the Italo-Ethiopian war in 1935: „Of course, we are for the defeat of Italy and the victory of Ethiopia, and therefore we must do everything possible to hinder by all available means support to Italian imperialism by the other imperialist powers, and at the same time facilitate the delivery of armaments, etc., to Ethiopia as best we can.“ [11]

Another example is the scenario of a war between “democratic”-imperialist Britain and a “fascist” Brazil, which Trotsky outlined in an interview in 1938. “I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semi-fascist 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. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slaveowners, and robbers!“ ^[12]

As we pointed out in several works, these (semi-)colonial countries did receive substantial support from imperialist powers which were in rivalry with the aggressor (e.g. the imperialist League of Nation against Italy in 1935, the U.S. and Britain against Japan in 1937-45). However, in contrast to the IMT today, Marxists at that time did not use such support as pretext for dropping their support for these semi-colonial countries. ^[13]

Silence on crucial issues

The IMT wisely ignores this fundamental position of Trotsky and the Fourth International as this would destroy their whole argument. This allows them to claim that Trotsky’s scenario about Italy’s aid for the Algerian uprising does not apply to the case of the Ukraine. “There is an important difference here. What is happening in Ukraine is not a revolutionary uprising by an oppressed colony or a case of self-defence by a proletarian regime.“

Formally, this is true. The Ukraine today is neither a “colony” nor a “workers state”. However, it is a capitalist semi-colony! As we did show above, the Trotskyist policy of revolutionary defensism against imperialist aggression applies not only to colonies and workers states but equally to semi-colonies.

In order to cover its trick, the IMT simply ignores the question of the class character of the Ukraine. They could hardly claim that it is an imperialist state. That would be too silly. But they can also not admit that it is a semi-colony. Hence, the only solution is … silence.

The IMT tries to present its betrayal of the Ukrainian people by claiming that they would be in staunch anti-imperialist opposition against the Western Great Powers. Nothing could be further from the truth! Just remember how Ted Grant and Alan Woods refused to defend Argentina against Britain during the Malvinas War in 1982? [14] Or their refusal to defend Iran or Hamas against Israel. [15]

In contrast to such social-chauvinist capitulators, the RCIT and all authentic socialists have always defended oppressed people – like Argentina, Iraq or Afghanistan – against the Western imperialists! ^[16] But in contrast to the IMT, we apply the program of revolutionary defeatism not only against the U.S. but against all imperialist powers – the U.S., China, Russia, Western Europe and Japan. Where an oppressed people is waging a legitimate war of defence (like in the Ukraine, Syria and Palestine today or Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya in the past), we stand for revolutionary defensism, i.e. we side with their military struggle without lending any political support to their (bourgeois) leadership or to an imperialist power with which this leadership might be allied. [17]

Misusing the slogan “The Main Enemy Is At Home”

Finally, we should also point to another distortion of the IMT: their claim that Karl Liebknecht’s well-known slogan “The Main Enemy Is At Home” would mean that Marxists must not support a (semi-)colonial country which receives support by their “own” ruling class.

As we did demonstrate somewhere else, Lenin and Trotsky always refuted such reactionary nonsense. Applying the IMT’s method in the past would have meant, among others, that the American and British section of the Fourth International could not have supported the Ethiopian or Chinese people in the 1930s and 1940s because “their” imperialism supported their liberation struggles in one way or another. As a matter of fact, the program of consistent anti-imperialism means that Marxists oppose all Great Powers – their own as well as any other – and that they never lend political support for such an imperialist state even if it delivers material aid to a legitimate struggle. [18]

We shall briefly also add that the IMT’s pseudo-“orthodox” emphasis on the principle “The Main Enemy Is At Home” is particularly grotesque since Alan Woods’ himself has repeatedly renounced Lenin’s policy of revolutionary defeatism! [19]

In conclusion, the IMT article is a badly disguised attempt to counter its internal and external critiques by using comrade Reimann as a dummy. The means of this strike against their opponents are a) a shameless distortion of Trotsky and b) casting a veil of silence over crucial issues like the class character of Russia and the Ukraine.

Naturally, the IMT leadership is free to do as it likes. But, please, spare the dummy … and Trotsky!

Svar på IMT:s mindre intelligenta kritik av parollen ”Vapen till Ukraina”

Michael Pröbsting, Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 11.11.2022, www.thecommunists.net