Questioning the 'pro-war 'left''.

Nick Cohen's new book, 'what's left', has generated considerable controversy on many fronts, not least in the view of a left critique that has sought to discredit Cohen for not accepting the legitimacy of the 'decent' anti-war movement; a critique with which I am moved, especially by an article I saw by Martin Rowson in the current edition of Tribune, to agree with.

It has widened my perspective somewhat. Until now, my perspective could be likened to a reformist version of the AWL perspective, with a more liberal-leaning underlying IR theory, but similar conclusions; namely that the Stalinisation of parts of the Leninist 'left' have created counter working-class conditions in parts of that movement, in terms of attitudes towards Iraq, for a most poignant example.

This simplifies Trotsky on the matter considerably, and does not seek to deny that even he may have supported Islamists, to a limited extent. But the point I always understood about the Trotskyist attitude to extra-domestic political forces was that quite restrictive and definite political requirements are made of them for support to be given, for example the old IS slogan 'Neither Washington nor Moscow, but International Socialism'. Indeed, the British SWP were even more hostile to the Stalinist USSR than most other trot groups.

Yet these days, the only political criterium to be met for the approval and unconditional support of the SWP is opposition to the US or Israel. Even far right figures are welcome, as are theocrats such as Hamas.

Cohen essentially agrees with me on the degradation of the SWP and like-minded groups, such as the Socialist Party and Worker's Power. On the basis of the lessons of Stalinism for the workers' movement, so do the AWL.

This even leads me to the same conclusions as the AWL on the solution to the problems of Iraq and militant Islamism in the middle east. Strong independant Labour movement.

I like to add to that with constitutional democracy, done by people themselves. But that's because I'm not a revolutionary socialist (at least, not until it comes with the 'democratic' bit, and there's no pre-existing democracy to work through).

But the point is that the malaise enjoyed in terms of corruption of principle in Pro-war 'anti-War' left foreign policy is largely due to a sudden forgetfulness of the proper reaction to Stalinism, namely that in order to support a movement or organisation, the left should whack a few pretty important criteria on it (as opposed to a reductionist analysis which, by seeing things in purely black vs white shades, based on a conception of imperialism, actually admits in itself it's own fallacy; 'comrades, we must fail to take all of the factors and class analysis into account!').

Rowson's Tribune article makes the point rather forcefully that the same mistake has indeed been mirrored by those on the pro-war left, who have aligned themselves with neoconservatism, an ideology that owes to a melding of the worst points (for the global disadvantaged, at least) of both IR realism (what is good, at any cost, for us/US...) and IR liberal internationalism (...is good for everybody), rather uncritically if I may say so. Like the trots at the SWP, it is reasoned, we on the 'decent' left have political alliances to maintain, and avoid disturbing.

Great. So are we too to drop our criteria for who we support internationally?

Furthermore, in opposing the pro war anti war left, has cohen, as his left critics claim, 'bent the stick' too far the opposite way?

Just thought I'd summate the basics of what I'm saying with this extract from Rowson's piece:

"Does abhorrence of 'Islamophobia' trump hatred of 'Islamofascism' or freedom trump security, or self-determination trump internationalism, or do human rights trump sovereignty, or does universalism trump stability, or does being killed by your own government trump being killed by someone else's? And does democracy trump death?

Death is what actually trumps everything, and that's the reason why I, and many others like me found ourselves marching, for an hour at least, with people we wouldn't normally go within 1000 miles of (and I remember wondering, while looking at the Islamists and Trots around me, who would kill whom first if they ever won the final victory)."

Although I don't agree that all of the above are real dichotomies, I do think that the first paragraph explains the terms of the debate, and why the legitimately 'left of centre' could feel that the balance falls more on either side of each.

Although we don't all agree with Nick Cohen on issues of war and peace, I think it quite possible that we can be both anti-war and left, provided that we are really anti-war, as opposed to merely nominally anti-war (and purely revolutionary defeatist) like those who Cohen rightly says we should be contemptuous of. There is, in other words, a legitimate anti-war left, and a legitimate left which doesn't share Cohen's contextual interpretation or political priorites en large. Check out that bold paragraph.

We're not all anti-democratic. In fact, Rowson's characterisation of pro-war Eustonites as 'neo-tankies', with their preponderance for bombs is rather undemocratic in itself. Democracy does not equal death from above (Their government or yours?). The 'neo-tankies' point also points rather accusatorially, but rightly so, towards the accomodation of neoconservatism, and the suggestion that what is best for western states' upper echelons is somehow the same as what is good for everyday Iraqis... that our (or infrastructurally minded corporations) interest in controlling the resources and people of faraway lands is the same as that of those controlled, or indeed melted by white phosphorous shells. Dominance by our model of trade and US based companies=Good for Iraqis. Not necessarily, I'm afraid.

I do not think that our ('anti-war Eustonites/decents') political alliance with pro-war 'decent' leftists, or their political alliance with neoconservatism is sacred and protected at all costs to our principal, or that criticism must be blunted or sharpened (indeed, that sort of debate is what Euston is all about). To do that would be to simply mirror the fallacies of the SWP, something which we should be rather keen to avoid.

So where now?

I can disagree with Cohen without agreeing with the SWP, and very much the same vice versa. Perhaps he is, then, missing a hefty chunk of the point.

Moreover, on a personal level, I don't feel that being 'pro-war' (as opposed to 'pro-some wars') can ever be catagorised as left... for the political tradition of the left is to avoid war wherever possible.


Death trumps all. There is utility in that. But democracy is next in line.