Plaid welcome St. Athan Murder Academy

[Udo Erasmus]

A further sign that Plaid are neither anti-imperialist or anti-war:

Plaid has welcomed the announcement of the Defence Training Academy at St Athan which will create 5000 jobs. Plaid has called on the Labour Assembly Government to ensure the employment prospects for people already living in the area are maximised and that road, health, school and community infrastructures are invested in to deal with the increased number of people living in the area.

Plaid Leader Ieuan Wyn Jones AM commented:

“With such a large project, and the possibility of so many extra jobs, it is vitally important that people already living in the area and south Wales as a region are given every opportunity to get a job at the facility. The knock-on effect of such a large project on the community will require great investment in health, education and transport services and it is therefore essential that the government invests adequately in the area.”

http://www.plaidcymru.org/content.php?nID=14;ID=102;lID=1

The St.Athans Murder Academy will play a vital role in the war on terror, Plaid's support for it shows that when push comes to shove they side with the ruling class and their project.

 

[Gavin Bl]

well...you can support some level of military spending and training, without necessarily supporting military adventures -especially if it brings a load of jobs to an area. And what do you mean by anti-war, do you mean pacifism?

 

[niclas]

Plaid's leadership has fucked up on this. They reacted, in fear of an attack from Labour about the dangers of separatism, without checking out two key points (quite apart from the anti-militarism angle).

1. It's a PFI and effectively means the privatisation of military training, which is why the PCS is against it.
2. 6,400 jobs are going in nine bases throughout England to create 4,000 jobs in St Athan. The vast majority of the skilled jobs will be trainers re-locating to Wales. The locals will, if they're lucky, get jobs as security guards and cleaners.

Surprise, surprise, Labour attacked Plaid on the issue in the Assembly debate - despite the leadership's support.

I don't think those jobs - not due til 2013 - will ever materialise. It's a great publicity stunt by Labour ahead of the Assembly elections and Plaid's leadership failed to respond.

More here

 

[bendeus]

More fighting on the streets of my town last night - local boy knocked senseless by a para. This academy is going to fuck the area up good and proper as more and more violent thugs are relocated here.

A few locals will benefit from clever property speculation, a few more will get minimum wage shit jobs. As for the rest of us we can look forward to more congestion, more pressure on local infrastructure and the systematic dismantling of any sense of community or place. All to feed the war machine

Shame on Plaid for backing this.

 

[neprimerimye]

well...you can support some level of military spending and training, without necessarily supporting military adventures -especially if it brings a load of jobs to an area. And what do you mean by anti-war, do you mean pacifism?

In point of fact socialists cannot endorse any level of military spending by any bourgeois administration. it is a point of principle for all socialists that we always take the time honoured position of not a penny not a man for the capitalist military.

This position arises from the understanding that the state in capitalist society is the instrument in the hands of the ruling classes and will if need arise be used against the population here just as it is used to invade countries such as Iraq.

The above position is, of course, one that Udo as a member of the SWP would agree with. However I wonder about what members of the other party he is a member of, Respect the unpopular coalition, would have to say. Given that at least one prominent member was until recently a member of the imperialist occupation forces stationed in Kosova.

 

[niclas]

In point of fact socialists cannot endorse any level of military spending by any bourgeois administration. it is a point of principle for all socialists that we always take the time honoured position of not a penny not a man for the capitalist military.

I don't think I'd have accepted that in WW2 - the need to defeat fascism was paramount.

 

[neprimerimye]

I don't think I'd have accepted that in WW2 - the need to defeat fascism was paramount.

So you would have supported and endorsed the government of Winston Churchill who used troops to repress miners in South Wales, endorsed the fascist regime of Mussolin and supported the militarist regime in Greece which smashed the Greek workers movement?

Better to have taken the viewpoint of the socialists of the day, that is the Revolutionary Communist Party, of actually fighting the fascists while opposing the british rulling class. In other words the revolutionaries of the day joined the military when required to do so but refused to endorse their imperialist politics.

Remember the British ruling class was not fighting fascism, in fact they allied with various fascists and allowed Franco to cary on happily after 1945, but sought to impose its will on the peoples it subjected to a rule hardly less onerous than that of the Nazis in say Belgium or France.

 

[Gavin Bl]

In point of fact socialists cannot endorse any level of military spending by any bourgeois administration. it is a point of principle for all socialists that we always take the time honoured position of not a penny not a man for the capitalist military.

Well, this is what I was after really, rather than vague 'anti-war' stuff - just against military stuff you disagree with.

But your subsequent comments on how 'socialists' should have responded to WW2 are rather contrary to this - as even if you did reject the 'imperialist politics', which were undoubtedly central to one side of the war, you still would have relied upon the military machine being sufficiently well funded to wage war against Germany.

To be honest, I spent a while in the SWP, and I always felt the matter of WW2 was fudged. Not to disagree with the imperialist elements in Britains war aims, but squaring the circle of fighting Hitler, seeing as there was no apparent prospect of the regime crumbling from within.

But anyway, plenty of socialists support a degree of military spending, so why shouldn't a leftwing nationalist outfit?

 

[niclas]

So you would have supported and endorsed the government of Winston Churchill who used troops to repress miners in South Wales, endorsed the fascist regime of Mussolin and supported the militarist regime in Greece which smashed the Greek workers movement?

Better to have taken the viewpoint of the socialists of the day, that is the Revolutionary Communist Party, of actually fighting the fascists while opposing the british rulling class. In other words the revolutionaries of the day joined the military when required to do so but refused to endorse their imperialist politics.

Remember the British ruling class was not fighting fascism, in fact they allied with various fascists and allowed Franco to cary on happily after 1945, but sought to impose its will on the peoples it subjected to a rule hardly less onerous than that of the Nazis in say Belgium or France.

So the RCP joined the military during WW2, in contradiction to your absolutist "not a man for the military". A practical revolutionary position.


Maybe the Brit ruling class wasn't fighting fascism but the fight was against fascism. Fighting Hitler did not mean signing up to all the other evils you mention. The RCP had the right idea.

 

[Gavin Bl]

Didn't Gwyn 'Alf' Williams do this, fought in the war, but refused to be posted to Greece afterwards?

 

[neprimerimye]

Well, this is what I was after really, rather than vague 'anti-war' stuff - just against military stuff you disagree with.

But your subsequent comments on how 'socialists' should have responded to WW2 are rather contrary to this - as even if you did reject the 'imperialist politics', which were undoubtedly central to one side of the war, you still would have relied upon the military machine being sufficiently well funded to wage war against Germany.

To be honest, I spent a while in the SWP, and I always felt the matter of WW2 was fudged. Not to disagree with the imperialist elements in Britains war aims, but squaring the circle of fighting Hitler, seeing as there was no apparent prospect of the regime crumbling from within.

But anyway, plenty of socialists support a degree of military spending, so why shouldn't a leftwing nationalist outfit?

In point of fact all states in WW 2 were fighting for imperialist aims. Some in order to defend the empires they already had and others in order to win captive markets for their goods. Class conscious workers could not then endorse the war aims of any of the states concerned.

That said revolutionary socialists did recognise that in the first instance Nazi Germany had to be defeated. But given the imperialist and predatory nature the opposing regimes, including Britain, there was no way their war aims could be endorsed or supported. at best our application of the revolutionary defeatist policy had to be adapted to changed circumstances.

Which meant that in practice we did not vote for or support war credits, as happened in WW1 when the SPD betrayed the worlds workers and passed over to the bourgeopis order. Nor did we do anything to hinder the defeat of nazism by the Allied military and our comrades fought on every major front. More interstingly we called, before 1941 when the policy fell into irrelevance, for the control of military training by the trades unions with a vew to turning the war against Nazi germany into an international civil war with the aim of overturning both the Nazi regime in Germany and the capitalist regime in Britain. Obviously our comrades were too few in number to sicceed in this task!!!

As i do not support the increasingly bankrupt and opportunist SWP icannot speak for that decayed outfit. I doubt that the question of WW 2 is actually fudged in that sect however more neglected due to the low level of education in the group. For example I can only recall one, rather poor, article on the question by Chris Bambery in the Socialist review qite a few years ago. It has to be said however that the natuire of WW 2 is not a pressing issue today.

For a good short contemporaneous article explaining the stance revolutionary socialists took at the time go here http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/backiss/Vol1/No1/Printact.html A large number of articles can be found in the journal Revolutionary History http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/backissu.htm detailing the controversies and exploits within the revolutionary movement duiring the Second Imperialist World War.

As for your remark that some socialists do support a degre of military spending I can only remark that such people would not have been pemitted to join the Second International which laid down a clear line of opposition t all military spending by the boss class. Tht position remains an immutable principle of genuine internationalist socialists. proving by the way that Plaids wimpy lefts are not properly speaking socialists.

By the way when and where were you in the SWP?

 

[neprimerimye]

So the RCP joined the military during WW2, in contradiction to your absolutist "not a man for the military". A practical revolutionary position.

Maybe the Brit ruling class wasn't fighting fascism but the fight was against fascism. Fighting Hitler did not mean signing up to all the other evils you mention. The RCP had the right idea.

The members of the WIL/RCP did not volunteer to join the british military. they waited to be conscripted and in the meantime continued the class struggle. Which is why our comrades were jailed by the boss class for supporting strike action on Tyneside.

A reading of the WIL/RCP press, both the Socialist Appeal and WIN, reveals that at no point did the WIL/RCP abandon its critique of an struggle against British imperialism. As Karl Liebknecht said "The main enemy is at home" and that remains true today I note.

Yes the RCP had the right idea and knew well enough that the British state was not interested in fighting fascism but had every interest in defeating a rival imperialist power.

 

[neprimerimye]

Didn't Gwyn 'Alf' Williams do this, fought in the war, but refused to be posted to Greece afterwards?

He may well have refused to be posted to Greece but as Stalinist his position was not one of oppostition to Britains imperialist war aims. His positiion then had nothing in common with that of principled revolutionary socialists.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

I think the attitude of socialists in WW2 would merit it's own thread and actually the debates within the trotskyist movement are quite interesting.

I think that Plaid's support for the Murder academy is the last nail in the coffin of the idea that Plaid can provide an alternative to New Labour. It is actually evidence of the kind of politics we would expect to see if they got into power.

It is noticeable that none of the so-called Plaid Left: Leanne Wood AM, Jill Evans MEP, Adam Price MP have broken with the leadership and attacked the Murder academy.

The St. Athan's Murder Academy is the biggest ever contract handed to the Welsh Assembly government (or rather a private-public partnership). It is being sold by Rhodri and Plaid as the solution to poverty in the Valleys.

Socialists should demand that the £14 billion spent on St. Athans be spent on hospitals, schools, public services, eliminating poverty etc. T

Plaid apparently have no problem with billions being channelled into the UK "defence" budget or supporting an academy that will play a key role in the war on terror.
.

 

[neprimerimye]

I think the attitude of socialists in WW2 would merit it's own thread and actually the debates within the trotskyist movement are quite interesting.

I think that Plaid's support for the Murder academy is the last nail in the coffin of the idea that Plaid can provide an alternative to New Labour. It is actually evidence of the kind of politics we would expect to see if they got into power.

It is noticeable that none of the so-called Plaid Left: Leanne Wood AM, Jill Evans MEP, Adam Price MP have broken with the leadership and attacked the Murder academy.

The St. Athan's Murder Academy is the biggest ever contract handed to the Welsh Assembly government (or rather a private-public partnership). It is being sold by Rhodri and Plaid as the solution to poverty in the Valleys.

Socialists should demand that the £14 billion spent on St. Athans be spent on hospitals, schools, public services, eliminating poverty etc. T

Plaid apparently have no problem with billions being channelled into the UK "defence" budget or supporting an academy that will play a key role in the war on terror.

So Udo all you can cme up with is lame pacifism? The slogans you enumerate could be subscribed to by many liberals let alone members of Plaid or the left of Labour.

Are you unable to say how these policies should be fought for other than voting for Respect the non-existent in Wales coalition? Why does the SWP not develop a politics that goes beyond voting Respect and demos which are so easily ignored?

 

[Gavin Bl]

That said revolutionary socialists did recognise that in the first instance Nazi Germany had to be defeated. But given the imperialist and predatory nature the opposing regimes, including Britain, there was no way their war aims could be endorsed or supported. at best our application of the revolutionary defeatist policy had to be adapted to changed circumstances.

Which meant that in practice we did not vote for or support war credits

As i do not support the increasingly bankrupt and opportunist SWP icannot speak for that decayed outfit. I doubt that the question of WW 2 is actually fudged in that sect ....

To be honest, I think trotskyists have fudged it generally - as it undermines the whole 'real enemy at home' thing, at least the absolute interpretation of that. For western workers, the victory of British imperialism was infinitely preferable to that of German imperialism - and the far left have dealt with that awkward exception to revolutionary defeatism badly, and distracted away from the conundrum with formulations like some of the ones you quoted - that were pretty abstract in the concrete situation.

I agree, its hardly the most pressing question around, but it does raise its head in other extreme situations, say, like Srebrenica or Sierra Leone where a western intervention may not inevitably make things worse.

By the way when and where were you in the SWP?

joined 93, decree nisi 98, decree absolute 2000 - to be honest, I joined as they were the only far left group I had any contact with, and I was into it for most of that period. Left on good terms, just didn't agree with revolutionary politics anymore. Though I think they've backed themselves into a corner with Respect...

 

[neprimerimye]

To be honest, I think trotskyists have fudged it generally - as it undermines the whole 'real enemy at home' thing, at least the absolute interpretation of that.

I agree, its hardly the most pressing question around, but it does raise its head in other extreme situations, say, like Srebrenica or Sierra Leone where a western intervention may not inevitably make things worse.


joined 93, decree nisi 98, decree absolute 2000 - to be honest, I joined as they were the only far left group I had any contact with, and I was into it for most of that period. Left on good terms, just didn't agree with revolutionary politics anymore. Though I think they've backed themselves into a corner with Respect...

There is never an 'absolute interpretation' if one is a dialectician. Or else one is engaging in scholastic game playing which is quite alien to the Marxian tradition.

And you have a good point with regard to imperialist intervention in Sierra leone and so forth. Though not in my opinion with regard to Yugoslavia. The point remains however that under no circumstances can Marxists give any kind of political support to imperialist interventions although in cases such as Sierra Leone we are well advised to stay schtum for the duration.

I'm sorry you abandoned the revolutionary ideal but I do understand why one might collapse into liberalism as you would sem to have done given the utterly craven bankruptcy of the SWP. Point well made about Respect the coalition of censors by the way.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Plaid's leadership has fucked up on this. They reacted, in fear of an attack from Labour about the dangers of separatism, without checking out two key points (quite apart from the anti-militarism angle).

Still waiting for one of Plaid's so called anti-war, left wing politicians to break ranks with the leadership and speak out against the St.Athan's Murder Academy . . .

Admitedly, Plaid were extremely slow to come out against the Afganistan War, with many leading figures prepared to support some form of military action (including the leader of Plaid in the house of commons who took a similar line to the LibDems) , so maybe there is still hope of at least one Plaid elected representative publicly condeming the Murder academy?

We can only assumed that Jill Evans, Leanne Wood, Adam Price et al all support a terrorist training camp in Wales and billions of money being spent on warfare rather than welfare!

 

[Udo Erasmus]

UPDATE!
Plaid Cymru MP, Hywel Francis leads the Welsh Affairs Committee in Parliament in a stomach-churning congratulations to Defence secretary, Des Browne

Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, Dr Hywel Francis said: “This is great news for Wales and for the future of British military excellence. “As the largest single investment by the Government in Wales ever, it will undoubtedly have a huge impact on the economy in South Wales, providing much needed jobs and investment. We congratulate the Defence Secretary Des Browne on his decision and we look forward with great anticipation to the opening of this centre of excellence in 2013.”

In the not so-distant-past Leanne Wood AM attacked the MoD for shutting down DARA at St. Athans, the "Defence" Aviation Repairs Agency. While we understand that many of the workers are civilians who have to support families, the bottom line is that their trade is death, and we should campaign for real jobs. Who are DARA: The people who repair the planes that bomb children in Iraq and Afghanistan!

 

[niclas]

UPDATE!
Plaid Cymru MP, Hywel Francis leads the Welsh Affairs Committee in Parliament in a stomach-churning congratulations to Defence secretary, Des Browne



Meanwhile Leanne Wood AM has attacked the MoD for shutting down DARA at St. Athans, the "Defence" Aviation Repairs organisation. DARA - You know the people who repair the planes that bomb children in Iraq and Afghanistan!

Calm down, Udo. Hywel Francis is Labour.

Did you campaign to close DARA? Have you raised the issue of the Metrix PFI scandal anywhere but on this list? What's Respect's position on this?

 

[Udo Erasmus]

I have made a somewhat foolish slip, but that statement from Hywel Francis was SIGNED by Hywel Williams - who is a Plaid MP and the other members of the committee: http://www.parliament.uk/parliament...affairs_committee_press_notice_no_4_06_07.cfm
So essentially, the point still holds

The issue of DARA is admittedly less black and white than I made it to be. DARA were (I hear) a big employer in the area, but the general abstract point still holds. Surely, it is inconsistent to demonstrate at RAF Fairford or Faslane, but support the bombers being repaired?

As you well know, the mainstream media in Wales give somwhat more coverage to Plaid than Respect (understandably because Plaid have elected MPs, AMs and Councillors), but in answer to your question Udo did send a letter to his local rag.

Finally, what elected representatives of Plaid have broken ranks with the leadership?

None.

So we can only deduce that their is unaminous support in Plaid for the statement produced at the beginning of this thread . . .

 

[niclas]

The issue of DARA is admittedly less black and white than I made it to be. DARA were (I hear) a big employer in the area, but the general abstract point still holds. Surely, it is inconsistent to demonstrate at RAF Fairford or Faslane, but support the bombers being repaired?

As you well know, the mainstream media in Wales give somwhat more coverage to Plaid than Respect (understandably because Plaid have elected MPs, AMs and Councillors), but in answer to your question Udo did send a letter to his local rag.

Finally, what elected representatives of Plaid have broken ranks with the leadership?

None.

So we can only deduce that their is unaminous support in Plaid for the statement produced at the beginning of this thread . . .

I've made clear my view of Plaid on this.

What did your letter say?

Did it mention that St Athan is going to become, and I quote, a "terrorist training camp"?

Is that Respect's position on this?

Were you in favour of closing DARA?

 

[neprimerimye]

I have made a somewhat foolish slip, but that statement from Hywel Francis was SIGNED by Hywel Williams - who is a Plaid MP and the other members of the committee: http://www.parliament.uk/parliament...affairs_committee_press_notice_no_4_06_07.cfm
So essentially, the point still holds

The issue of DARA is admittedly less black and white than I made it to be. DARA were (I hear) a big employer in the area, but the general abstract point still holds. Surely, it is inconsistent to demonstrate at RAF Fairford or Faslane, but support the bombers being repaired?

As you well know, the mainstream media in Wales give somwhat more coverage to Plaid than Respect (understandably because Plaid have elected MPs, AMs and Councillors), but in answer to your question Udo did send a letter to his local rag.

Finally, what elected representatives of Plaid have broken ranks with the leadership?

None.

So we can only deduce that their is unaminous support in Plaid for the statement produced at the beginning of this thread . . .

If Udo were to announce that he is a pacifist and wishes to see all military institutions and arms plants closed down I would disagree with him but applaud the clarity of his position. And that does seem to be what he is suggesting ought to be done but then he voices a concern that DARA was a major employer and that factor changes things somehow. It occurs to me that the planned 'terrorist training camp' as he describes it would also be a major employer. Why then does Udo oppose the one but seem concerned about the other?

From reading Udo's coments on this thread he would sem to criticize Plaid Cymru on the grouns that it is not consistently pacifist. Fair enough but neither are his arguments when he seems to differentiate between the new 'terrorist training camp' and an installation that enables the 'terrorists' to wage their war of terror in the firstr place.

Udo has got himself in a terrible muddle by adopting this pacifist stance, which he confuses with a socialist response to capitalist war and terror. Rather than arguing against either existing or new miitary installations, perhaps Udo would like to consider that historically revolutionary socialists (for some bizarre reason Udo fancies himself to be such) counterpose workers power and a workers militia, including workers employed in the war industries (both in and out of uniform) to pacifist campaigns against individual bases which we may well need ourselves on the morrow. There are exceptional cases but the planned base at St Athan is not one.

 

[el_starkos]

More fighting on the streets of my town last night - local boy knocked senseless by a para.

To be honest mate I wuz asking for it

 

[llantwit]

From reading Udo's coments on this thread he would sem to criticize Plaid Cymru on the grounds that it is not consistently pacifist.

It does sound a bit like that.

revolutionary socialists counterpose workers power and a workers militia, including workers employed in the war industries (both in and out of uniform) to pacifist campaigns against individual bases which we may well need ourselves on the morrow. There are exceptional cases but the planned base at St Athan is not one.

Can you explain this a bit more Nep? It seems to imply that campaigning against the institution of military bases is unsatisfactory because we'll need to loot/use them a bit down the line when worker militias come into being. That seems a bit odd - seems to me that you can campaign against these places as part of an anti imperalist-war argument, which is I guess what Udo's doing really

Do you have any strong feelings either way about this base?

 

[neprimerimye]

It does sound a bit like that.

Can you explain this a bit more Nep? It seems to imply that campaigning against the institution of military bases is unsatisfactory because we'll need to loot/use them a bit down the line when worker militias come into being. That seems a bit odd - seems to me that you can campaign against these places as part of an anti imperalist-war argument, which is I guess what Udo's doing really

Do you have any strong feelings either way about this base?

Well I don't have any particularly strong feelings about any military base or factories producing weaponry come to that.

Hwever my opposition to Udo's pacifism is not simply based on the rather vague, although correct, idea that at some point we may have use for their contents. To base my position on that would be to telescope events by decades given the lamentable state of affairs in the workers movement and in the ranks of the far left groups.

More to the point I hld the view that workers, including those who work in arms plants and those in uniform, are the force which can defeat imperialist wars. To single out any particular plant or installation for action seems pointless to me given that if such a campaign were to succeed in closing the plant concerned (though such a thing has never happened) would in effect to be to call for the dismissal and redundancy of the workers concerned.

Far better to attempt to develop an anti-capitalist consciousness among such workers by means of a socialist propaganda which appeals to their interests as workers. Such a tactic I note yielded cosiderable results for socialists in both workd wars. Proving that arms workers can be the best fighters against the capitalist warmongers. But such a tactic, a concrete orientation on the working class at the point of production, is somethng alien to the semi-pacifist politics currently pushed by the populist-socialists of Respect-SWP.

 

[lewislewis]

Udo, Why so anti-Plaid on this? Your preliminary attack should be on Labour, then a secondary snipe at other parties.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Plaid Cymru claim to be anti-war and a left wing alternative, New Labour don't.

To Neppy:

A few points. Firstly, do you really think that socialists should rush to join the chorus of the South Wales Echo, Western Mail, LibDems, Tories, New Labour and welcome a Military academy in the drooling, servile manner of Plaid Cymru? Or should they not argue that the military academy is of no benefit to working class people and that the billions could be more usefully spent on allieviating some of the real social problems faced by Welsh workers. Surely, the question arises automatically: "Why billions for defence, yet no money for education, pensions, work, social regeneration etc.?"
I think that it is a duty of socialists to say, "well, actually spending £16 billion on a facility linked to training the latest recruits in the war on terror is not that great".

This is the key issue being debated on this thread.

I would agree that it is intensely important for socialists to agitate among the armed forces, which I would argue that our current has tried to do. For example, our candidate in Hackney was a former Lance Corporal who (after a period of three years of going to anti-war meetings and demos and getting involved in left wing politics) left the army because he wasn't prepared to serve in Iraq. In South Wales, I have come across a few ex-soldiers who have been won to socialist poltics and joined the SWP. In Cardiff, one guy was trying to get out of the RAF when he joined, another guy I have come across had served in Iraq and Northern Ireland.

I have quite frequently, in the course of campaigning against the Iraq war, had the opportunity to have short conversations with soldiers who are going/or just returned from Iraq, many of whom are anti-war. Where possible, I try to take the debate beyond opposition to this particular war to the next level of raising anti-capitalist arguments. Of course, I would be kidding myself if I said that this represents major agitation among the armed forces in Cardiff, but I would say that in the scheme of things my rather modest concrete praxis on the streets counts for more than your grandiose armchair theorising carried out in front of a PC.

Also, do you think that socialists should refrain from saying that the $450 billion spent by the US on it's military machine is enough to abolish absolute poverty ten times over?

Do you think that students shouldn't for example campaign against University investment in the arms trade? In Swansea, SWSS members were very active in getting Swansea University to break its links with arms companies.

Secondly, your comments are on supporting the arms trade on the basis that the weapons can be used by the workers when they make the revolution is actually a naive conception of revolution.

Leaving aside the morality of staying silent over the concrete fact that the ruling class in Britain is arming some of the most repressive and oppresive dictatorships in the world because maybe, possibly in some future their might be a revolutionary situation in the UK seems a somewhat abstract way of looking at things.

Generally, in the modern period, revolutionaries will find themselves up against a powerful state and a modern army. For example in the UK or US, the idea that a revolutionary avant-garde would ever be able to win militarily against the biggest and best armed forces in the world is stupid.

The key issue is not the weapons and arms at the disposal of the revolutionary masses but the ability of revolutionaries to poltically split the army.

This happened in 1917, where much of the army went over to the revolution, resulting in the regime collapsing with barely a shot fired. It happened in Portugal 1974, when the army refused to defend the monarchy. It also happened in the (not socialist) revolutions that toppled the dictatorships of the Eastern Bloc.

 

[chilango]

.
Generally, in the modern period, revolutionaries will find themselves up against a powerful state and a modern army. For example in the UK or US, the idea that a revolutionary avant-garde would ever be able to win militarily against the biggest and best armed forces in the world is stupid.

Yet you quite happily encourage and cheerlead some Iraqis trying to do this? I

The key issue is not the weapons and arms at the disposal of the revolutionary masses but the ability of revolutionaries to poltically split the army.

True.

It happened in Portugal 1974, when the army refused to defend the monarchy.

Thats not true.

Check your history of the Portuguese revolution...

surely you should be with Nep on this one and leave the pacifism to liberals like me, no?

 

[Udo Erasmus]

You are correct to pick me up on the Portugese Revolution - though I think my point still stands.

It is true there were several attempted military coups. But in 1974, when the officers toppled the fascist dictatorship of Cateano, a key factor in the emergence of factories under workers control and the various forms of grassroots democracy was the space given by the failure of the army to defend the old order. This was because sections of the army were radicalised, discipline had broken down, and there were even (on a small scale) the emergence of rank and file soldiers' groups.

It was this division in the armed forces that meant that the attempts by the old ruling class at another Chile 1973 failed and various attempts to undermine the revolution militarily were defeated by upsurges of workers militancy. Hence, while the revolution was lost, the ruling class were forced to concede democratic rights, civil liberties and trade union rights and other concessions.

As you probably know the key factor in the defeat of the revolution was the politics of the 2 key organisations that had most influence among militant workers - the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Both parties wanted a solution within capitalism, and were more interested in getting ministers and representatives in a reformist parliamentary system than defending and extending the various forms of grassroots democracy seen in factory councils, workers committees, the rank and file soldiers groups.

Yet you quite happily encourage and cheerlead some Iraqis trying to do this?

Unlike Neppy (who has broken with the Marxist tradition) I support the rights of people under occupation to resist unconditionally, this doesn't mean that I don't criticise the politics and methods of the resistance.

As it happens in Iraq, as in Vietnam, the key factor is the combination of military resistance and politics. For example, the Tet Offensive militarily ended in defeat for the resistance in Vietnam, yet politically it was the beginning of the end for the US ruling class. It was a combination of the US anti-war movement and the military resistance of the Vietnamese that defeated the US. They could of (as Nixon even toyed with) used atomic bombs against the Vietnamese, but considered that the political costs domestically would be too high. The military resistance in Vietnam and the growing anti-war movement in the US was the factor that led to the emergence of dissent in the heart of the beast with American GIs in their thousands turning against the war. Remember, it wasn't the body bags coming home from Vietnam that caused the crisis - the US sustained huge casualties in Korea and WW2, what was a key factor was that the anti-war movement had managed to turn huge numbers of ordinary Americans against the war, so that when US soldiers died, ordinary people felt that they had not died for a just cause. Just as the unprecedented opposition to the Iraq war is intimately linked to the birth of organisations like Military Families against the War - a type of anti-war movement that we have never before seen in postwar-Britain

In Iraq, what is causing a crisis for Blair and Bush is not just the casualties the resistance is inflicting on their military machine, but that there have been anti-war movements domestically of unprecedented size. This means that the chaos, destruction & bloodshed in the occupied countries feeds into political pressure at home, so that our rulers are caught betwixt the hammer of the resistance and the anvil of the international solidarity movement that has made Iraq headline news everyday.

The Iraqi people are resisting against the military machines of two countries where the majority have turned against the wars - this spells defeat.