Beware of 'stages' theory

Scan page 14

-SHARED ERRORI would like to make a few points arising from Jack Johnson's letter (SO89). Firstly, Johnson objects to Stan Crooke's analogy with Russia in 1914 because Lenin called Russia imperialist. Johnson asks where and how does Argentina export capital.

Tsarist

One could well ask where, and to what extent, did Tsarist Russia export capital. The Tsarist empire was not based on economic power like modern imperialism, but on military strength.

It is also worth remembering that Lenin and Trotsky considered that without the Revolution Russia would have been turned into an impoverished outpost of imperialism like China..

It is also a mistake to say that because Argentina is not a major capital exporter, whilst Britain is, that we should therefore side with Argentina. Imperialist war is precisely about seizing the markets, etc., of other capitalist states. Marxists have no more interest in siding with the Argentine ruling classes' imperialist intentions as against Britain's than we do in supporting the Iraqi bourgeoisie against the Iranian bourgeoisie.

Ultra-left

Argentina's imperialist intentions have been illustrated in its claims over neighbouring countries, e.g. Chile, and its invasion of the Falklands and the Georgias (to which it has never had a claim) was as much to do with bargaining over control of minerals in Antarctica as being diversion from the class struggle at home.

Johnson's arguments about sub-imperialism are ultra-left. They are of the same school as those which deny any possibility of development within monopoly capitalism.

Just as new technology has made the. claims that monopoly capitalism prevents rapid development look silly, so empirical analysis of newly industrialised countries makes the assertion that imperialism keeps impoverished all underdeveloped economies look silly too.

Former colonies like Australia and Canada are clear examples, whilst others like Singapore have developed and become exporters of capital within their area. Domestic capital has also developed in Taiwan and South Korea, including in important areas like steel and heavy engineering.

Johnson refers to the theory of Permanent Revolution. My understanding of the theory is that we point out the limited ability of the bourgeoisie to fight imperial ism, that we refuse to take part in Popular Fronts, that we insist upon the organisational independence of the working class, and that we prosecute the class struggle alongside the struggle against imperialism.

Workers

This is not what is being advocated by Johnson and those who would defend dence for the workers inside the Argentine army, and far from the class struggle being fought against the imperialists and national bourgeoisie it has been suspended in order to invade a group of harmless islanders.

A real anti-imperialist struggle in Argentina would have focussed on the workers to seize the assets of the international finance houses and the factories™ of the multinationals.

Johnson's argument is support the junta in its war against Britain in the Falklands, then maybe we STAN Crooke's arguments about the South Atlantic war (SO 88) seem to me to share a common error with the comrades he most sharply criticises.

Stan argues that because Argentina is a sub-imperthe war had shifted to a war by Britain against Argentina's national rights.

The other comrades argue that because Argentina is economically dependent we should have supported it despite the reactionary nature of its invasion of the Falklands.

A long - and not useless - argument is possible about Argentina's precise ranking in the world hierarchy of capitalist powers. But surely it is very abstract and mechanical to read off an attitude to the war directly from that ranking.

What interests us is not just whether the capitalist forces waging a war are can persuade it to act against imperialism at home, then we can get round to the class struggle against it.

In other words it is the stages theory, the direct opposite of the Theory of Permanent Revolution Johnson seeks to defend.

Fraternally, ARTHUR BOUGH Stoke strong or weak, but the political issues.

We would support a war for genuine national rights, despite bourgeois leadership, because it is our war - a war on issues wẹ support. The reason for not supporting Galtieri's war was that it was a war for reactionary aims - a war for the self-promotion of the Argentine military regime.

That Galtieri miscalculated, and that the Argentine state was not strong enough to achieve its imperialist-type aims, cannot change that assessment. (Nor can Galtieri's war be made progressive simply by the fact that it was against a reactionary opponent, the British state).

So the analogy between Galtieri in 1982 and Chiang Kai Shek fighting for Chinese national liberation in 1937 falls down. But so does Stan's analogy with the Tsar in 1914-17.

Scan page 15

Socialist Organiser no.91 1982 Page

----- pull-quotes -----

Argentina. There is no organisational indepen-

ialist power we should not have supported it even if