International Socialists

Dear Socialist Review,

 

I appreciated the article by Leon Trotsky on terrorism that was reprinted in the last issue.

 

The period Trotsky was writing in is in many ways different from now, but the arguments he makes against terrorism were illustrated on a horrific scale by the 11 September attacks. The scale of the attacks was in fact the only major difference from the early 1900s.

 

In Trotsky's time, terrorist attacks were limited to the assassination of prominent individuals - princes, politicians, and Archdukes.

 

A century of capitalist development has increased the scale and sophistication of technology, and increased the misery and injustice that fuels conflict. The jet aeroplanes, skyscrapers, communications technology, and mobility of the global economic system collided with its conflicts on 11 September, with tragic results for the US office workers, the Afghan people, and civil liberties everywhere.

 

Despite increased opportunities for terrorism, it is as ineffective as it was last century. Worse, the increase in technological sophistication and power that makes massive terror attacks possible also makes unprecedented repression possible. With derisory ease, US military might smashed all Afghan opposition, and elites worldwide are turning to high tech surveillance to monitor dissent.

 

Trotsky's insistence on democracy as essential to political progress is also valuable. When some liberal pundits suggested the attacks might serve as a wake-up call for the US, they exposed the elitist thinking that they share with the terrorists. The idea that ordinary people are incapable of fighting injustice and must be represented by a professional elite, whether MPs or terrorists, is diametrically opposed to socialism. It's also plain wrong. The attacks didn't make the US ruling class think twice about its foreign policy, they incited it to an orgy of imperialism.

 

The motivation that Trotsky sees for terrorism - revenge - is clearly apparent in the politics of Muslim extremists like Osama bin Laden, who the US blames for the attacks. But while we can sympathise with the desire for revenge sparked by the rank injustice of capitalism, there's no need to sympathise with political bankrupts like Osama bin Laden - the son of the Saudi ruling class and spawn of the CIA.

 

Muslim fundamentalism is the bastard child of the corrupt regimes of the Middle East and Western secret services. Terrorism is the natural tool of this spiritual elite, and they can never provide a lead to Arab workers in the struggle against corrupt regimes or US imperialism. Worse, the spectacular nature of the attack and the savage US retaliation will be a serious blow to Arab resistance. As Trotsky put it, "in place of kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy."

 

At all levels in radical politics, there's a temptation to choose activities that only require a hard core of activists but have spectacular results. Greenpeace, ACT UP, and many other lobby groups choose media impact over grassroots struggle. They are not terrorist groups, but they share elitist assumptions and rely on wealthy patrons, just like bin Laden. 11 September was an extreme example of this style of protest, and it showed clearly that if the goal is liberation, there's no substitute for a democratically organised workers' movement.

Mike Tait