Dhaka: many dead as garment factory building that supplied west collapses, the fruits of imperialism. 

Or “Civilization-mongers” in 1857 and 2013

https://socialistfight.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/in-defence-of-trotskyism-no-5.pdf

In 1857 Fredrick Engels wrote in defence of Chinese anti-Imperialist insurgents:

“There is evidently a different spirit among the Chinese now to what they showed in the war of 1840 to ‘42… [1] They kidnap and kill every foreigner within their reach. The very coolies emigrating to foreign countries rise in mutiny, and as if by concert, on board every emigrant ship, and fight for its possession, and, rather than surrender, go down to the bottom with it, or perish in its flames…Civilization-mongers who throw hot shells on a defenceless city and add rape to murder, may call the system cowardly, barbarous, atrocious; but what matters it to the Chinese if it be only successful? Since the British treat them as barbarians, they cannot deny to them the full benefit of their barbarism. If their kidnappings, surprises, midnight massacres are what we call cowardly, the civilization-mongers should not forget that according to their own showing they could not stand against European means of destruction with their ordinary means of warfare.

In short, instead of moralizing on the horrible atrocities of the Chinese, as the chivalrous English press does, we had better recognize that this is a war pro aris et focis, (for our altars and our hearths) a popular war for the maintenance of Chinese nationality, with all its overbearing prejudice, stupidity, learned ignorance and pedantic barbarism if you like, but yet a popular war. And in a popular war the means used by the insurgent nation cannot be measured by the commonly recognized rules of regular warfare, nor by any other abstract standard, but by the degree of civilization only attained by that insurgent nation.” [2]

 Modern-day civilisation-mongers

And so to the modern-day civilisation-mongers. In an article on 3 November 2010, Sean Matgamna, long-time guru of the Alliance for Workers Liberty and its predecessors, gives his opinion that it would be unprincipled for socialists to support the victims of any of the US or other Imperialist wars of aggression. The list includes Korea, Vietnam, Algeria, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Because the victims of US aggressions were led by terrible unprincipled scoundrels (we all became aware of just how shockingly bad they were immediately before and during the attacks, strangely). Notice that anti-imperialism is in quotations marks throughout the article because, of course, his opponents are bogus (“kitsch”), anti-Imperialists who do not understand what real anti-Imperialism is and he is now going to explain all this to us to put us straight. He goes further and accuses the pacifist Stop the War movement of secretly supporting the opponents of Imperialism by failing to produce sufficient pro-imperialist propaganda in lock-step with the Imperialist chauvinist mass media.

Sean Matgamna

He soon tells what the problem is:

“In this world, the residual elements of “anti-colonialism” will be auxiliary and subordinate to working-class socialist anti-imperialism. Otherwise “anti-imperialism” becomes a siding with anything else against the dominant capitalist powers, and comes to include siding with lesser, weaker imperialisms and regional imperialisms, like Iran or Iraq. [3]

Notice the clever use of language. The dominant Imperialist powers have become simply ‘capitalist powers’ and the semi-colonial victims of Imperialist aggression have become “lesser, weaker imperialisms and regional imperialisms, like Iran or Iraq”.”

If we are to deal with Imperialism it would be useful to know what it is. Sean helpfully tells us what Imperialism and anti-Imperialism are:

With the liquidation of old colonialism, what is imperialism? Primarily, the workings of the capitalist world market. What, now, is anti-imperialism? It is the working class anti-capitalist revolution! Against the “imperialism of free trade, and economic might, and military clout”, of the USA now, the only feasible, serious, real “anti-imperialism” is inseparable from working-class anti-capitalism. [4]

Well, zero points for that answer, comrade Sean. This is how Lenin defines the term, and takes issue with the sloppy formulators:

 In his controversy with the Lefts, Kautsky declared that imperialism was “merely a system of foreign policy” (namely, annexation), and that it would be wrong to describe as imperialism a definite economic stage, or level, in the development of capitalism. Kautsky is wrong. Of course, it is not proper to argue about words. You cannot prohibit the use of the “word” imperialism in this sense or any other. But if you want to conduct a discussion you must define your terms precisely.

It is fundamentally wrong, un-Marxist and unscientific, to single out “foreign policy” from policy in general, let alone counterpose foreign policy to home policy … Being a “negation” of democracy in general, imperialism is also a “negation” of democracy in the national question (i.e., national self-determination): it seeks to violate democracy.

Economically, imperialism … is the highest stage in the development of capitalism, one in which production has assumed such big, immense proportions that free competition gives way to monopoly. That is the economic essence of imperialism. Monopoly manifests itself in trusts, syndicates, etc., in the omnipotence of the giant banks, in the buying up of raw material sources, etc., in the concentration of banking capital, etc. Everything hinges on economic monopoly. (our emphasis) [5]

 Crumbs from the super profits

Having invented his own bogus definition of Imperialism he can then equate the oppressor with the oppressed, the whale with the minnow and take a neutral position in all Imperialist predatory wars. We must oppose Imperialism because not to do so is to adopt a chauvinist attitude and become pro-Imperialists ourselves. In opposing this view from Karl Kautsky almost a century ago this is how Lenin tackled the question:

Is the actual condition of the workers in the oppressor and in the oppressed nations the same, from the standpoint of the national question? No, it is not the same.

“(1) Economically, the difference is that sections of the working class in the oppressor nations receive crumbs from the super profits the bourgeoisie of these nations obtains by extra exploitation of the workers of the oppressed nations. Besides, economic statistics show that here a larger percentage of the workers become “straw bosses” than is the case in the oppressed nations, a larger percentage rise to the labour aristocracy. That is a fact. To a certain degree the workers of the oppressor nations are partners of their own bourgeoisie in plundering the workers (and the mass of the population) of the oppressed nations.

(2) Politically, the difference is that, compared with the workers of the oppressed nations, they occupy a privileged position in many spheres of political life.

(3) Ideologically, or spiritually, the difference is that they are taught, at school and in life, disdain and contempt for the workers of the oppressed nations. This has been experienced, for example, by every Great Russian who has been brought up or who has lived among Great Russians.

Thus, all along the line there are differences in objective reality, i.e., “dualism” in the objective world that is independent of the will and consciousness of individuals.

…In real life the International is composed of workers divided into oppressor and oppressed nations. If its action is to be monistic, its propaganda must not be the same for both. That is how we should regard the matter in the light of real (not Dühringian) “monism”, Marxist materialism. “ [6]

Now we can see the real reason behind this theory. It justified the AWL’s relationship with the Labour leaders when in the party and with the left TU leaders like Bob Crow of the RMT. Like all TU bureaucrats Crow is the softest on British jobs for British workers and the AWL trots along behind him ideologically and politically because Imperialism is “not always the main enemy”. If we cannot make revolution at least the crumbs from the master’s table might sustain us for a little longer,

But Sean has the killer quote from Lenin on why we must not support the Taliban against Imperialist attack:

“Imperialism is as much our ‘mortal’ enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.” [7]

He hopes we have not taken the trouble to read the rest of the article to discover the premise on which that idea was based. And it is only a few pages back:

“The social revolution cannot be the united action of the proletarians of all countries for the simple reason that most of the countries and the majority of the world’s population have not even reached, or have only just reached, the capitalist stage of development…Only the advanced countries of Western Europe and North America have matured for socialism.” [8]

That was written in 1916 where Lenin still held the theory of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry and before he had written the April Theses and before Trotsky had developed his Theory of Permanent Revolution in 1928 to apply to all nations. Many nations had not economically reached the capitalist stage of development in 1916 but politically the extension of communications via trade and commerce meant that they were becoming ever more globally integrated economically and this was politically reflected in their consciousness. In any case it is ridiculous to argue that in 2010 there was any nation on the planet that has not reached the capitalist stage of development. Feudalism has long vanished from the face of the earth economically even if there are many reactionary feudal and pre-feudal ideas and institutions in backward countries. As a self-proclaimed but bogus Trotskyist is Sean asking us to seek the salvation of two-stage revolutions?

Matgamna blunders on:

“We are against imperialism as such, on the lines sketched by the Second Congress of the Comintern? Yes, but the point is that “anti-imperialism” is not an absolute imperative, not outside of context, not outside of the concrete truths of world politics. The Comintern theses themselves made a modification, an exception, insisting on “the need to combat pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the… mullahs, etc. (our emphasis)” [9]

But we must insist that anti-Imperialism is an absolute imperative for all the reasons outlined by Lenin above. Take the current situation in Syria. All the arguments against supporting Assad are moral and not political. Assad is a bloody-thirsty tyrant so we must oppose him and seek his downfall. Obama is a modern westerner who is bringing civilisation to Syria so we must support him – we leave to one side the bogus leftists who ridiculously think that Obama, Cameron, Holland, Erdoğan of Turkey, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani of Qatar, Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum of the United Arab Emirates and Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel are supporting a genuine revolution in Syria. As against this we must see the real motivations and what will be the outcome for Syria and its entire people if this bogus ‘revolution’ succeeds. A devastated land where Wall Street, the City of London and the Paris Bourse can extract their super- profits via their multi-national corporations rebuilding what they have destroyed and grabbing privatised health services and schools, etc. And the now poverty-stricken people whose living standards will have been devastated will, therefore, have to work for them for a pittance. That is what they did to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and everywhere the ‘civilisation-mongers’ visit to impose ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’. That is why Uncle Sam’s CIA thugs funds its proxy armies and murders and assassinate itself; to maintain the profits of Wall Street and its multi-national corporations.

 Reactionary theory of sub-imperialism

In around 1982 Matgamna proposed his reactionary theory of sub-imperialism or paleo-imperialism in justification of his refusal to call for the defeat of British imperialism in its war on Argentina over the Malvinas. He subsequently pressed this justifying mantra into use over every war Imperialism waged before or since. Basically it is just a reworking of the backward reactionary libertarian workerist notion so popular among Anarchists and ‘Left Communists’ (the infantile disorder variety slated by Lenin in his famous book) that all nations are capitalist and we must be equally against them all and not take sides when one capitalist nation attacks another but declare we are against all this nonsense and for the working class and socialist revolution.

Colin Foster set out the reactionary view in Workers Liberty 2/2:

“Today some ex-colonial or ex-semi-colonial countries have some military means to dominate their neighbours, but relatively little economic clout. They use the methods of the old imperialism, “paleo-imperialism”, as it might be called – Turkey in Kurdistan and Cyprus, Serbia in Kosova, Iraq in Kurdistan and Kuwait, Indonesia in East Timor, Morocco in the Western Sahara, Libya in Chad, Ethiopia in Eritrea, Argentina in the Falklands… This “paleo-imperialism” is a small-scale parody of the high imperialism of the late 19th century. It is not anti-imperialist. It is not a progressive alternative to the economic domination of the big powers. It may clash with the modern “imperialism of free trade” and with the USA as the chief policeman of that new order – or cooperate with it as a junior partner. But even when it clashes with the USA, the “paleo-imperialism” does not represent liberation or progress. It does not show a way out of underdevelopment, or towards a fairer and more equal world. Only independent working-class struggle can do that. And the working class which can wage that struggle is growing in numbers, and often in organisation, all across the ex-colonial world. “ [10]

But Lenin’s definition of Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism precisely makes the point that Imperialism even as it existed in 1916 was NOT SIMPLY colonialism and the conquest of territory and the Scramble for Africa but the financial and consequent economic domination of monopoly capital, on which “everything hinged”, as Lenin said . This was assisted by colonialism but that was not its essence. Military interventions are embarked on to impose puppet rulers today; there is no need for direct rule which is now politically unacceptable. The 1960 United Nations Resolution 1514, Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples was approved by 98 votes in favour, none against and 9 abstentions, Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States. Possession of overseas territories was the motivation for the abstentions apart from the unfortunate Dominican Republic whose vote we can only record with contempt.

The post WWII change from colonialism to semi-colonialism did not alter financial and economic relations. In fact, colonialism, in the epoch of the first global economy under Great Britain from c1690 to c1890 was characterised by the suppression of manufactures and trade in captured territories to facilitate the hegemony of British industry and commerce. From the Great Depression of 1873-79 there began the rise of the huge banks and financial institutions (Britain and the US) and monopolies, trusts and syndicates, particularly in the US and Germany, the export of capital by Britain (globally) and by France and Germany to Europe. From that point Imperialism was not simply annexations but, as Lenin explains:

“Typical of the old capitalism, when free competition held undivided sway, was the export of goods. Typical of the latest stage of capitalism, when monopolies rule, is the export of capital… England became a capitalist country before any other, and by the middle of the nineteenth century, having adopted free trade, claimed to be the “workshop of the world”, the supplier of manufactured goods to all countries, which in exchange were to keep her provided with raw materials. But in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, this monopoly was already undermined; for other countries, sheltering themselves with “protective” tariffs, developed into independent capitalist states. On the threshold of the twentieth century we see the formation of a new type of monopoly: firstly, monopolist associations of capitalists in all capitalistically developed countries; secondly, the monopolist position of a few very rich countries, in which the accumulation of capital has reached gigantic proportions. An enormous “surplus of capital” has arisen in the advanced countries… As long as capitalism remains what it is, surplus capital will be utilised not for the purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses in a given country, for this would mean a decline in profits for the capitalists, but for the purpose of increasing profits by exporting capital abroad to the backward countries. In these backward countries profits are usually high, for capital is scarce, the price of land is relatively low, wages are low, raw materials are cheap…The export of capital reached enormous dimensions only at the beginning of the twentieth century. Before the war the capital invested abroad by the three principal countries amounted to between 175,000 million and 200,000 million francs. At the modest rate of 5 per cent, the income from this sum should reach from 8,000 to 10,000 million francs a year—a sound basis for the imperialist oppression and exploitation of most of the countries and nations of the world, for the capitalist parasitism of a handful of wealthy states!” [11]

Therefore, the Berlin Conference (1884–85) where the Imperialist powers carved up Africa on the basis that, “No nation was to stake claims in Africa without notifying other powers of its intentions. No territory could be formally claimed prior to being effectively occupied” signified that this form of colonialism was fundamentally different from the old form. Now empires were sought as arenas for the investment of capital on the basis of cheap labour most often in the form of the cultivation of primary produce AS WELL AS the extraction of raw materials and mining etc. In fact it only brought to the fore the essence of Imperialism itself; a nation could have nominal independence and yet be even more oppressed by Imperialism in its national independence phase than in its colonial days. Lenin explains:

Finance capital has created the epoch of monopolies, and monopolies introduce everywhere monopolist principles: the utilisation of “connections” for profitable transactions takes the place of competition on the open market. The most usual thing is to stipulate that part of the loan granted shall be spent on purchases in the creditor country, particularly on orders for war materials, or for ships, etc. In the course of the last two decades (1890-1910), France has very often resorted to this method. The export of capital thus becomes a means of encouraging the export of commodities. In this connection, transactions between particularly big firms assume a form which, as Schilder “mildly” puts it, “borders on corruption”. Krupp in Germany, Schneider in France, Armstrong in Britain are instances of firms which have close connections with powerful banks and governments and which cannot easily be “ignored” when a loan is being arranged…

Thus, finance capital, literally, one might say, spreads its net over all countries of the world…The capital-exporting countries have divided the world among themselves in the figurative sense of the term. But finance capital has led to the actual division of the world. [12]

How very ‘modern’ this all sounds. Take the following account of how the corruption scandal over the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia ended:

On 14 December 2006, the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced that the investigation was being discontinued on grounds of the public interest. The 15-strong team had been ordered to turn in their files two days before. The statement in the House of Lords read: The Director of the Serious Fraud Office has decided to discontinue the investigation into the affairs of BAE Systems plc as far as they relate to the Al Yamamah defence contract. This decision has been taken following representations that have been made both to the Attorney General and the Director concerning the need to safeguard national and international security. It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest. No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest. The Prime Minister justified the decision by saying “Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine. That strategic interest comes first.” [13]

Hosni Ara Begum Fahima, the widow of Aminul Islam, a labor organizer who was killed.CreditArantxa Cedillo for The New York Times

 What does Imperialism do?

What does Imperialism do? It draws super-profits from investments in semi-colonial countries where the cost of labour is kept low by all manner of anti-trade union thuggery and murders, corruption and compliant puppet rulers. The eight-storey Rana Plaza factory collapse on 24 April in Dhaka, Bangladesh is but the most horrible of examples of Imperialism in action. As CBC News reported on 5 May 2013, Bangladesh factory collapse death toll tops 700 (it has now passed 1,000):

The April 24 disaster is likely the worst garment-factory accident ever, and there has been few industrial accidents of any kind with a higher death toll. It surpassed long-ago garment-industry disasters such as New York’s Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire, which killed 146 workers in 1911, and more recent tragedies such as a 2012 fire that killed about 260 people in Pakistan and one in Bangladesh that same year that killed 112. [14]

The multi-national Imperialist exploiters who benefited from this are: Primark and Matalan (Britain), Mango (Spain), Benetton (Italy) Children’s Place (US) and Joe Fresh (Canada) with Primark the chief beneficiary. And that is just one factory. Bangladesh is second only to China as a source of cheap clothes for every major retailer in the metropolitan world. Tommy Hilfiger, Nike, Ralph Lauren, Wal-Mart, Gap, J.C. Penney Co. all source much of their merchandise in Bangladesh. It is very dangerous to attempt to unionise the workers as we see from the fate of Aminul Islam on 4 April 2012:

Aminul Islam, a Bangladeshi labour rights activist and former apparel worker was tortured and murdered last week in Dhaka. His body was dumped outside of the capital city and was found by local police last Thursday. According to the police report, Aminul Islam’s body bore signs of brutal torture. It is most likely that Aminul was murdered because of his labour rights work.

Aminul Islam worked for the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity (BCWS) and the Bangladesh Garment and Industrial Workers Federation (BGIWF). He was last seen on Wednesday evening 4 April 2012, when he left for a meeting with a worker who had called him seeking assistance. Earlier that evening, after having observed a police van parked outside, Aminul and a colleague had closed the local BCWS office fearing harassment or arrest. Aminul’s family and friends searched for him until Saturday, when his wife recognised a photograph of his body, published in a local newspaper.

Repression against trade unionists and labour rights activists in Bangladesh is a serious problem, and worker protests have been met with violence many times over the last years. In particular, the wage protests of 2010 resulted in hundreds of arrests of workers and trade unionists, including Aminul Islam. In June 2010 Aminul had been detained by officials of the National Intelligence Service (NSI). According to Aminul, he was subjected to severe and repeated beatings, which his captors said would stop only if he agreed to give false testimony against his colleagues at BCWS. Dozens of labour leaders are still facing charges of instigating riots and related activities; charges regarded as baseless by international labour and human rights organisations. [15]

Imperialism exploits the semi-colonial world for its natural recourses; it destroys its native industry via its agencies in the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank etc. And it sends its armies to invade those nations that refuse to obey its diktats to open up their domestic markets to its multi-national companies or to sell their primary products at the price demanded by Imperialism. Almost all struggles against Imperialism are carried out by reactionary forces which mobilise popular sentiment against foreign invasion or kick against economic oppression foisted on the semi-colonial world by the big finance houses and multi-national companies whose interests are looked after by the IMF and the World Bank. Of course they do so in defence of the profits of the native bourgeoisie but we would suggest that is preferable to the destruction of the sovereignty of nations to facilitate the super profits of the Imperialist multi-nationals. As we wrote in our document Against the theories of ultra-imperialism and sub-imperialism in 2008:

One only has to look at the Bretton Woods Intuitions (BWI); the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB) and the International Trade Organisation (ITO successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT) to see how national governments fight the corner of their own capitalists against their rivals. The first two BWIs are more immediately under the control of US imperialism but even the ITO, although formally democratic in structure, has to bow to the pressure of the major powers; it is their agenda and their priorities that dominate. In regions like Africa and South Asia with weak state structures IMF/ITO aid programmes have ripped the heart out of their economies by their ‘structural adjustment’ programmes. In the Asian financial crisis of 1997 the IMF immediately had a structural adjustment solution which allowed in US capital in the first place to penetrate these economies. The US government negotiates at the ITO and sets up bodies like NAFTA (North American Free Trade Association between the US, Canada and Mexico), imposes tariffs on the primary products of the third world – far higher if these are processed – and subsidises its own agriculture to overcome its rivals. The EU similarly proceeds in this way, e.g. the CAP, however with continuing internal conflicts, as does China and Japan. And whilst they are destroying welfare benefits for their poorest citizens the great imperialist governments are intervening with welfare for great financial institutions, Bear Sterns and Northern Rock had to be nationalised in effect to save them… No major corporation can operate on its own on the world stage, governmental support is necessary and it must be its ‘own’ government which provides that support, negotiates international treaties and trade blocks on its behalf and be ultimately prepared to go to war against its rivals on its behalf. [16]

All this theoretical baggage has severe political consequences; in reality is a justification for capitulating to the masters of life. Notoriously Sean took exception to the slogan, “stop the slaughter in Gaza” during Israel’s 2008 slaughter of 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza:

The dominant theme (of the protest demonstration), “stop the slaughter in Gaza”, understandable in the circumstances, could not – in the complete absence of any demands that Hamas stop its war – but be for Hamas and Hamas’s rocket-war on Israel. Even the talk of “the massacre” subsumed Hamas into the general population, and was one variant of solidarising with Hamas, its rocket war, and its repressive clerical-fascist rule over the people of Gaza. (our emphasis) [17]

What can we say to such equating the violence of the oppressor with that of the oppressed? Hamas fire puny little rockets out of drainpipes (oh no, they are getting a bit better now, I hear you cry!) as impotent symbols of resistance and the IDF rain down thousands of tons of high explosives and white phosphorous on a defenceless civilian population from the latest hi-tech bombers supplied by the US and these are equally to be condemned? We can only quote Trotsky:

A slave-owner who through cunning and violence shackles a slave in chains, and a slave who through cunning or violence breaks the chains – let not the contemptible eunuchs tell us that they are equals before a court of morality! [18]

Notes

[1] The Anglo-Chinese War of 1840–42; the first Opium War. Engels is writing this at the start of the Second Opium War – 1856–60

[2] Engels in New York Daily Tribune, Articles On China, 1853-1860, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/06/05.htm

[3] Matgamna, Sean, The poverty of “anti-imperialism” and today’s left, (http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2010/11/03/poverty-anti-imperialism-and-todays-left)

[4] Ibid.

[5] Lenin, V. I. A caricature of Marxism and Imperialist economism, August-October 1916 Vol 23 Collected Works p. 42 http://marx2mao.net/Lenin/CM16.html

[6] Ibid. p. 55-56

[7] Ibid. p. 63

[8] Ibid. p. 58-9

[9] Matgamna, Op. cit.

[10] Foster, Colin, The politics of globalisation and imperialism today, Workers Liberty 2/2, 2002, http://archive.workersliberty.org/wlmags/wl102/globalisation.htm

[11] Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch04.htm

[12] Ibid.

[13] Wiki, Al-Yamamah arms deal, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal

[14] CBC News 5 May 2013, Bangladesh factory collapse death toll tops 620, http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/05/05/bangladesh-death-toll.html

[15] Labour behind the label, Bangladesh: Labour rights activist tortured and killed, http://www.labourbehindthelabel.org/urgent-actions/item/1037-bcws-aminul-murder

[16] Gerry Downing, Have Kautsky and Gramsci replaced Lenin; is ultra-imperialism the new world order?  http://www.scribd.com/doc/19117853/Minority-Imperialism-New

[17] Splintered Sunrise blog, Goyisher kop! Matgamna on Gaza, http://splinteredsunrise.wordpress.com/2009/01/

[18] Leon Trotsky, Their Morals and Ours, http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm