Trotskyism slips on the supposed anti-imperialism of the Taliban
(from Communist Voice #28, January 2002)
- Introduction by Joseph Green
- Sectarian propagandism by Bob Pitt (who, in the name of anti-imperialism, opposes denouncing both sides in the US-Taliban war )
- Neither Taliban nor imperialism by Ian Donovan
It might seem strange that any leftist could doubt the reactionary nature of the Taliban. This ultra-fundamentalist regime springs from mujahedeen circles which were funded for over a decade by the CIA to fight a dirty war in Afghanistan in the 80s and early 90s. But since Sept. 11, there have been some groups who don't believe that both sides in the US-Taliban war are reactionary. Instead they hold that the Taliban is carrying out an anti-imperialist struggle. They generally have to accept that it is reactionary domestically, but hold that it is carrying out a progressive, anti-imperialist struggle internationally. This includes such groups as WWP in the US, the SWP in Britain, and various "left" Trotskyist groups. Some of these groups also believe that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, however misguided and unfortunate, were some sort of anti-imperialist or progressive act.
But it isn't always easy to see what the larger groups involved in coalition-building, such as the WWP in the US and the SWP in Britain, actually believe on this question. Certain smaller "left" Trotskyist groups may declare outright that they stand for the "military victory" of the Taliban, but the coalition-builders avoid such declarations. Instead they write almost exclusively about broad demands, like an end to the war and stop racism and stop repression. Their stand on the Taliban or the Sept. 11 attacks is mainly reflected by their opposition to slogans outright condemning these things. So often one finds that discussions about their stand degenerate into people wondering if they really say this or that, or really mean this or that.
Thus it is useful to examine an open debate on this issue. The CP of Great Britain is a party that broke away from its pro-Soviet past, although it still thinks the late Soviet Union was "bureaucratic socialism", if not desirable socialism. Its paper, the Weekly Worker, has a lively correspondence section where the issue of the Taliban has been vigorously debated. While the CPGB opposes both the Taliban and Western imperialism, the Weekly Worker accepts letters with varying viewpoints. (The Weekly Worker may be found at < http://www.cpgb.org.uk>.) Following this introduction are two letters from this debate, from Trotskyists of different trends, one (Ian Donovan) arguing against the Taliban and one (Bob Pitt) arguing that anti-imperialists must desire the victory of the Taliban.
Pitt's letter vehemently supports the Taliban, and talks of the "progressive content" of a Taliban victory. He enthusiastically compares the struggle of the Taliban to a progressive anti-colonial revolt.
He also deals with why people haven't heard more about such pro-Taliban views. He makes it clear that groups such as the British SWP hold these views, but hide them in their mass work. He supports such secrecy, writing that it would be a mistake to "organize an anti-war movement around slogans such as 'Victory to the Taliban' or even 'Defend Afghanistan, defeat US imperialism' ". (He thus indicates that what he, and others of like mind, mean by "defending Afghanistan" in the current Afghan war, is defending the Taliban. ) It's not because he doesn't believe in these slogans, but because few other people agree with them, and because they would alienate the liberal, trade-unionist and reformist forces.
So Pitt holds that the only slogan should be "Stop the war". For that matter, although Pitt doesn't draw the point out further, it isn't simply a question of what slogan should be used in some big demonstration. Groups such as the British SWP lower most of their agitation to this same general level. Pitt likes to present matters as if the pro-Taliban stand is the sign of real militancy against imperialism. . But Pitt, the SWP of Britain, and WWP water down the content of anti-war work to something that is, broadly speaking, acceptable to the liberals. ...
Pitt also makes it clear that the issue isn't just the attitude to the Taliban, but towards the attacks of September 11. He points out that the SWP and SLP don't want anyone to condemn the terrorist attacks of September 11.(1) They will say things about the tragedy of September 11, but they draw the line at actually condemning it. ...
Ian Donovan, in reply, argues vigorously that one has to look at the class nature of the Taliban in particular, and of the fundamentalists in general. He looks more concretely at their general political role in the world than Pitt does, and raises many issues that Pitt sweeps under the rug.
However, despite their differences, both Donovan and Pitt, being Trotskyists, share some common assumptions. For example, they both accept Trotsky's stand on the anti-colonial struggle. Pitt argues that this stand shows why it is correct to see the Taliban's struggle as anti-imperialist, while Donovan argues that Trotsky was writing in a different historical situation. It doesn't occur to them that Trotsky might have been just plain wrong on this question, as on so many other key questions of Marxist theory. ...
But, theory aside, Donovan points out how Pitt's depiction of Taliban anti-imperialism amounts to utter fantasy. Pitt in turn gives one a good feeling for what the section of pro-Taliban apologists among the coalition-building groups are saying. It is important to know that there are pro-Taliban apologists, because this explains some of the events in the anti-war movement and because the pro-Taliban stand undermines the struggle against the "war on terrorism", and undermines solidarity with the class-conscious activists around the world. It is also important to refute such apologetics as part of overcoming the crisis of revolutionary theory in the left. <>
Full text at https://www.communistvoice.org/28cTaliban.html.