|
|
General: Lessons of the Israeli-Lebanese War: The AnarchistDebate About National Liberat
Elegir otro panel de mensajes |
|
|
| De: RudolfRocker1 (Mensaje original) |
Enviado: 30/08/2006 03:13 |
Lessons of the Israeli-Lebanese War: The AnarchistDebate About National
Liberation
> Lessons of the Israeli-Lebanese War:
> The Anarchist Debate About National Liberation
>
> by Wayne Price (NEFAC-NYC)
>
> The war between Israel (with full backing by the U.S.) and Hezballah (and
> the rest of Lebanon) is over--temporarily. "Temporarily" because no major
> issue has been settled, particularly Israel's colonialist role in the
> Middle East. Meanwhile the war between the U.S. and Iraq has intensified,
> while the Iraqi sectarian civil war also increases. The U.S.-Afghanistan
> war continues. And there is good evidence that the Bush administration
> intends to attack Iran. Peace is not at hand.
>
> The Left, such as it is, has taken a range of positions on the
> Israeli-Lebanese war, as part of its positions on the Middle Eastern wars
> in general. First, the liberals have continued to support the U.S. state
> as well as the Israeli state, but have wanted them to clean up their acts,
> to show smarter and more sophisticated behaviors. For years, the liberal
> wing of the U.S. antiwar movement has fought to keep the issue of Israel
> vs. the Palestinians out of antiwar protests. Now that they had to
> directly address U.S.-Israeli aggression, they claimed that, while Israel
> had the "right" to "defend itself," it was being "excessive" and
> "disproportionate." Instead, these pro-Israeli doves advocated a
> "cease-fire," equating the two sides, the aggressor and the victim. They
> should both stop fighting. Mostly liberals supported the demand for
> Hezballah to disarm (but not a call for Israel to disarm!). They cheer on
> the current (temporary) resolution of the war by which various imperialist
> powers and other states intervene as sheriffs to "keep the peace," more or
> less.
>
> Secondly, the radical Left mostly became a cheering squad for Hezballah,
> as well as Hamas, as it had for the fundamentalist-led resistance in Iraq.
> (No one is cheering on the Taliban in Afghanistan; this would be too much
> even for most radical Leftists, I guess.) I am speaking of the Workers
> World Party and its fronts and splits, as well as the International
> Socialist Organization in the U.S. and its co-thinkers, the Socialist
> Workers Party in Britain--among others. They have focused on the
> undeniable evils of the Israeli attack and on the popular support for
> Hezballah which has swept Lebanon and the rest of the Arab and Muslim
> world.
>
> This has a somewhat odd effect. During the U.S.-Vietnam war, it was
> possible to portray the "Communist" side (Stalinist-totalitarian
> nationalists) as "socialists." But there is no way to put a progressive
> spin on Hezballah and like-minded forces. They are for theocratic
> dictatorships, with no rights for dissident religions, minority
> nationalities, workers, or women. In the absence of an alternative, they
> have become the leaders of movements for national defense against foreign
> occupations. This can and should be said. But for secular Leftists to
> uncritically hail them as though they were proletarian socialists is
> bizarre. For anarchists, the point is not just that we do not like such
> ideas, but that these programs will not liberate Lebanon and other
> countries from imperialism. Only the anarchist program can do that.
>
> Thirdly, the anarchists have clearly opposed the U.S.-Israeli aggression.
> They have pointed out the reactionary nature of both sides in the war.
> However, many have tended to equate the two sides, to treat them as
> equally bad, and to call for opposing the war on both sides. While there
> is a good deal of confusion on this issue among anarchists, it is my
> impression that most have failed to support the oppressed against the
> oppressor in this war (and in the other Middle Eastern wars).
>
> Instead, I propose a different anarchist approach: Revolutionary
> anarchists should, at the same time, (1) be in solidarity with the people
> of the oppressed nation against the oppressor (in this case Lebanon
> against the U.S.-Israel), while (2) politically opposing all
> bourgeois-statist (nationalist, Islamist, etc.) programs and leaderships
> (here Hezballah, other nationalists, etc.) in favor of revolutionary,
> internationalist socialist-anarchism. By "solidarity" I mean being "on the
> side of" the people of the oppressed nation, supporting them against
> attacks from their oppressors. (Which does not prevent us from sympathy
> for Israeli--and U.S.--soldiers, but this is a sympathy due to their
> humanity and their working class background, not a solidarity with their
> being soldiers.)
>
> It does NOT mean slogans such as "Victory to Hezballah!" or "We are all
> Hezballah!", slogans which imply political agreement with Hezballah.
> Recently a group of Gay anarchists in New York City called off a
> demonstration at the Iranian embassy against the persecution of Iranian
> Gays. They did not want to play into the hands of U.S. government
> preparations for war against Iran. I would have preferred that they
> demonstrated, with signs saying, "U.S. State, Hands Off Iran! Iranian
> State, Hands Off Gays!"
>
> Class and Non-Class Oppressions
>
> This issue is an aspect of a broader question: the relationship between
> class issues and specific nonclass issues when seeking liberation. The
> problem of oppression may be divided between class exploitation and other,
> nonclass, forms of oppression. Class exploitation refers to the way the
> capitalists pump surplus value out of the workers (and also to the
> exploitation of peasants by landlords and capitalists). Nonclass
> oppressions include the oppression of women (gender), of People of Color
> (race), of Gays and Lesbians (homophobia), of minority religions, of
> youth, etc., as well as national oppression. Working class oppression is
> specific to capitalism and its resolution requires socialist revolution.
> The other oppressions (even that of the peasants--who are still a large
> proportion of humanity) are often remnants from pre-capitalism. They are
> forms of oppression which capitalism, in its revolutionary youth,
> "promised" to abolish. This was the bourgeois-democratic program as raised
> in the great capitalist revolutions of England, the U.S., France, and
> Latin America.
>
> Of course, the capitalists never lived up to their democratic program.
> They have rather integrated specific oppressions into their system as
> bulwarks of capitalist exploitation. Some of these oppressions may have
> been started by early capitalism or by pre-capitalist class exploitation
> (that is, by economic forces)--but they have taken on lives of their own
> and exist on their own inertia. All forms of oppression, including class,
> are intertwined, lean on each other, and prop up each other.
>
> Historically, the class struggle tendency within anarchism
> (anarchist-syndicalism and most anarchist-communism) has focused on the
> workers' class struggle against the capitalists. They have often treated
> nonclass oppressions as unimportant, as illusions created by the
> capitalists to trick the workers, to split and weaken the working class.
> Once this is pointed out to the workers, supposedly, they would see
> through this trick and unite against the bosses. This simplistic view is
> also raised in a crude version of Marxism.
>
> In the radicalization of the 60s and 70s, there were upheavals by
> African-Americans, women, Gays and Lesbians, and other oppressed people,
> including worldwide struggles by oppressed nations against imperialism. In
> our current period of radicalization, the vital importance of the working
> class has been recognized by many radicals. Only the workers, as workers,
> could stop all society in its tracks and start it up on a new,
> nonexploitative, basis. The working class overlaps with and includes all
> other oppressed groupings: women, most People of Color, and so on. To the
> extent that it is true that the working class is conservative, or at least
> nonrevolutionary, this is the same as saying that most of the population
> is nonrevolutionary. There is no other, nonclass, majority capable of
> overthrowing capitalism.
>
> However, the true lessons of the sixties remain. It is impossible to
> ignore the importance of the special, nonclass, oppressions. For example,
> racism was created by early capitalism as a justification for African
> enslavement (that is, of exploitation of a form of labor). And it
> continues to have class advantages for the capitalists. But it has also
> taken on a life of its own. Racism is real. The prejudices, and even
> hatred, which many white workers hold for People of Color does not depend
> on rational causes and will not immediately vanish with good arguments
> about the value of class unity. We cannot call on African-Americans to
> stop fighting for their specific democratic rights until the white
> population gives up its racism.
>
> An understanding of the reality of special oppressions does not deny the
> valid insights of historical materialism. It does not deny the importance
> of class analysis. To repeat, many oppressions were created by current or
> past material (class) factors. All of them interact with capitalism (that
> is, the capital-labor relationship). All are affected by capitalism, as
> they affect it in turn (dialectically, shall we say). For example, the
> oppression of women predates capitalism, and may even predate class
> society of any type (we really do not know). But it has been greatly
> modified by capitalism to fit the bourgeois family and the capitalist
> economy.
>
> National Oppression and Liberation
>
> Most anarchists today (with certain sectarian exceptions) accept the
> reality and importance of specific, nonclass, oppressions. Mostly
> anarchists are committed to the struggle for specific democratic rights by
> women, African-Americans, Native Americans, Gays and Lesbians, prisoners,
> and other oppressed groups.
>
> But strangely enough, many anarchists who champion nonclass liberation
> struggles often refuse to support national liberation (here meaning the
> same as national self-determination: the right of a people to determine
> its own fate). National liberation is also not a direct class struggle,
> even though its connections to capitalism are pretty clear. That is, the
> big capitalists of the industrialized nations seek to expand their wealth
> by dominating the weaker, "underdeveloped," nations. The international
> capitalists seek to super-exploit the workers of these nations (workers
> who accept lower wages), to sell goods to their states and populations,
> and to loot their natural resources--oil being the most important resource
> but not the only one. This is imperialism. Since the imperialist states no
> longer directly "own" colonies, this is its neocolonialist phase. The
> oppressed people of these nations are mostly workers, peasants, and small
> shopkeepers. But they also include "middle class" and upper class layers.
> These either aspire to be the local agents of imperialism or to replace
> the imperialists as the new rulers (or both).
>
> In reaction to foreign oppression, the people of these nations develop a
> desire for national freedom. First they want their "own" state, and then
> other measures of independence from the imperialists, such as not being
> invaded, as well as not being economically dominated. In the absence of an
> alternative they turn to nationalism. Nationalism is not just a love of
> one's country and a desire for its freedom. As a developed program, it
> means the unity of all sectors of a country, the rich and poor,
> capitalists and workers, landlords and peasants, patriarchal men and
> women, the dominant nation and minorities, all "united" against other
> nations, including THEIR workers, peasants, women, and national/racial
> minorities. The aim is an independent national state, with its own army,
> secret police, flag, and postage stamps, and its own national rulers.
> Meanwhile the capitalists of the imperialist countries encourage
> nationalism (or patriotism) among their workers, to maintain their rule
> and use the workers as soldiers against the oppressed nations.
>
> As a program in oppressed nations, nationalism may win some benefits for
> the people, and even more benefits for its aspiring new rulers. But it
> cannot free any nation from the world market or the power politics of
> great states. It cannot achieve real independence. As can be seen from the
> fate of China and Vietnam, as well as India and the African states,
> nationalism has resulted in new oppressions. Franz Fanon wrote
> penetratingly about this. The worst example of the way the nationalism of
> an oppressed people has resulted in new oppression, is Zionist Israel.
> Only an international revolution by the working class and all the
> oppressed can free the oppressed nations. (I am asserting this here, not
> arguing for it.)
>
> But nationalism is not the same as national liberation. Similarly,
> bourgeois varieties of feminism are not the same as women's liberation.
> Black liberation is not the same as liberal integrationism or Farakhan's
> nationalism. It is possible to be for national liberation without being
> for the program of nationalism. An example of a national liberation
> struggle being waged with a non-nationalist program was that of Nestor
> Makhno's anarchist-led effort in the Ukraine from 1917 to 1921. This was
> fueled by the Ukrainians' hatred of foreign occupation by German-Austrian
> imperialism, Russian Bolshevism, and Polish aggression. Makhno's anarchist
> biographer calls it "a savage war of national liberation." (Skirda, 2004,
> p. 44). But Makhno never ceased to raise class issues (domination by the
> capitalists and landlords) and to advocate socialist-anarchist
> internationalism.
>
> The Makhnovist movement declared (in October 1919), "Each national group
> has a natural and indisputible entitlement to...maintain and develop its
> national culture in every sphere. It is clear that this...has nothing to
> do with narrow nationalism of the 'separtist' variety....We proclaim the
> right of the Ukrainian people (and every other nation) to
> self-determination, not in the narrow nationalist sense of a Petliura, but
> in the sense of the toilers' right to self-determiantion." (in Skirda,
> 2004, pp. 377-378)
>
> Arguments Against National Liberation
>
> Most anarchist arguments against supporting national liberation are based
> in anarchism's well-founded opposition to nationalism. Anarchists do not
> believe that founding new states will free oppressed people. Class
> struggle anarchists emphasize the centrality of the class struggle, and
> also point out the other (nonclass) conflicts within each nation.
> Anarchists oppose the politics and organization of bourgeois-statist
> erstwhile rulers, whether they call themselves Ayatollahs or socialists or
> Little Brothers of the Poor. All this is absolutely correct.
>
> But it does not mean that anarchists must oppose national liberation or be
> neutral when an imperialist or colonialist state attacks an oppressed
> ("Third World") nation. Anarchists must be on the side of the oppressed.
> Once again: there is no contradiction between solidarity with the
> oppressed people under attack and being in political opposition to the
> misleaders of that people. Similarly, we can support a workers' strike and
> stand in solidarity with the workers and their union, while being the
> bitterest foes of the union bureaucracy. If anarchists can do this, then
> they can do the same with national wars by oppressed nations.
>
> Some anarchists have made the argument that they should not support
> oppressed nations because...there are no such thing as nations. Nations do
> not exist! As if France and Argentina are not real. It is true that
> nations are social constructions--that is, they are created by people as
> opposed to being biological categories. It is true that the boundaries of
> nations are often unclear: is Quebec a nation? If so, then is Canada a
> nation? Is India a nation or a conglomeration of many nations? These
> points are valid but apply also to other categories. Classes are social
> constructions. The boundaries between classes are unclear. Are the
> unemployed part of the working class or are they "lumpen proletarians"? Is
> the "middle class" a class? The same is true of other categories. Even
> gender, biologically based as it is, is socially constructed in how
> society interprets that biological given. This does not mean that class or
> gender is an illusion any more than nations are illusions.
>
> People believe they are in nations and act on that belief. An institution
> is nothing else than a pattern of mass behavior. Michael Bakunin wrote,
> "Nationality, like individuality, is a natural fact. It denotes the
> inalienable right of individuals, groups, associations, and regions to
> their own way of life. And this way of life is the product of a long
> historical development [a confluence of human beings with a common
> history, language, and a common cultural background]. And this is why I
> will always champion the cause of oppressed nationalities struggling to
> liberate themselves from the domination of the state." (Dolgoff, 1980, p.
> 401) By "nationality...is a natural fact," he means, not that nationality
> is a biological fact, but that it is created mostly by unplanned,
> unpurposive, social history.
>
> Another argument is that national self-determination (liberation) is a
> democratic right, and anarchists should not be for democratic rights or
> for democracy. Democracy and its rights were, after all, raised by the
> capitalist class as a weapon against the feudal lords. It has served, and
> continues to serve, as a cover for capitalist rule. It has also been
> raised by Leninists (Trotskyists and Stalinists alike) as a cover for
> their state-capitalist rule. Again, these points are true.
>
> It would be disasterous for anarchists to position themselves as
> antidemocratic. Anarchism should be presented as the most radical,
> thorough-going, and consistent form of democracy. Democracy did not begin
> with capitalism. The very term comes from classical Greece. It goes back
> to tribal councils of early humanity. It includes the struggles for
> freedom of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions, including the later
> struggles of the abolitionists. It includes the hope of workers'
> democracy.
>
> The problem with capitalism (and Leninism) is not democracy but a lack of
> democracy and of democratic rights. Capitalism has betrayed its own
> democratic promises. Anarchists will make good those promises: free speech
> and association; no racial, national, or gender discrimination; land to
> the peasants; popular control of all institutions; and self-determination
> for all nations--among others.
>
> Internationalism is Our Goal
>
> Internationalists say "Workers have no country!" and "Workers of the
> world, unite!" But international working class unity is not yet a reality.
> It is a potentiality, something which can happen. And it is a goal,
> something we wish to happen. How shall we get there? Do we ask the
> oppressed to downplay their interests for the sake of a false unity? Do we
> ask People of Color or women or oppressed nationalities really to
> subordinate themselves to the better-off layers of the working class (the
> "labor aristocracy") of the imperialist countries? Or do we seek to build
> working class unity by the better-off expressing solidarity with the
> most-oppressed? It is not the Lebanese Shiites who should give up their
> fight but the Israeli oppressors to whom we place the demand to give up
> their national privileges. Let the workers of Israel give up their support
> for national superiority and a "Jewish state"--then the workers and
> peasants of southern Lebanon can justly give up their need to defend
> themselves from the Zionist aggressors.
>
> The differences between the world-spanning power of U.S. imperialism and
> its junior partners and the weak, poorer, oppressed nations of the Middle
> East and elsewhere has been made clear for all the world to see. It can be
> seen in the smashed cities and villages of Lebanon, as in the war-torn
> streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. It is absurd to treat a war
> between the U.S.-Israel and Arab peoples as the same as a war between
> France and Germany, two imperialisms. In the last case, workers should
> oppose both sides equally. Many anarchists misuse the slogan, "No war but
> class war!" This applies to wars among imperialist states (as in World
> Wars I and II) but not to wars between an imperialist state and an
> oppressed people. I would say, "No war but the just wars of the workers
> and oppressed!"
>
> As Peter Kropotkin wrote, "True internationalism will never be obtained
> except by the independence of each nationality, little or large, compact
> or disunited--just as [the essence of] anarchy is in the independence of
> each individual. If we say, no government of man over man [Note], how can
> [we] permit the government of conquered nationalities by the conquering
> nationalities?" (quoted in Miller, 1976, p. 231)
>
> As we are in solidarity with a strike while opposing the union
> bureaucracy, so we should be in solidarity with the people of oppressed
> nations while opposing their nationalist leaders. The world is a complex
> place, with much interconnection and overlapping of systems of oppression.
> We need concrete analyses of each situation (for example, the situation in
> Quebec is quite different from that of Iraq). Slogans are not enought. We
> need a sophisticated effort to express our politics.
>
> *****
>
> References
>
> Dolgoff, Sam (ed. and trans.) (1980). Bakunin on Anarchism. Montreal:
> Black Rose Books.
> Miller, Martin (1976). Kropotkin. Chicago and London: University of
> Chicago Press.
> Skirda, Alexandre (2004). Nestor Makhno, Anarchy's Cossack; The Struggle
> for Free Soviets in the Ukraine 1917--1921. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
>
> For further on this topic, see my "The U.S. Deserves to Lose in Iraq but
|
|
|
Primer
Anterior
Sin respuesta
Siguiente
Último
|
|
|
| |
|
|
©2025 - Gabitos - Todos los derechos reservados | |
|
|
Tema anterior