Analysis of Gallup International poll on terrorism in the United States By PIRAO5 Gallup recently polled the population in various countries on the topic of war/terrorism. The results definitely serve as another justification of Lenin's theory of imperialism at a high level. Polls were taken in various countries in Western and Eastern Europe, Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa. People polled were asked a number of questions related to war, terrorist attack and United $tates foreign policy. One of the questions was: "Do you agree or disagree that your country should take part in military actions against terrorists with the United States?" The results were predictable: while a majority of the population in 27 out of 29 countries (the exceptions being India and Israel) thought that the United $tates should extradite the terrorists rather than launch an attack, most imperialist countries showed strong public support for joining the United $tates in military action should it happen. With the exception of Finland (8 percent) , Greece (29 percent), Switzerland (28 percent), Austria (14 percent), more than 50 percent of most Western European countries polled believed that their country should directly partake in war waged by U.S. imperialism in the event of having a NATO treaty with the United $tates. Of these four countries, MIM only says that Switzerland is a typical imperialist. That was MIM's definition created by the party Congress Session II of 1999. The clear-cut imperialist countries are listed on page 2 of every issue of MIM Notes. We know already that Americans themselves almost unanimously support their government in it's war against "terrorism." Figures for Eastern Europe are much lower: among 9 polled countries only the Czech Republic reached beyond the 50 percent cutting line -- 55 percent being in favor of serving in military action if the Czech Republic were part of a NATO treaty. All other participants showed support for military participation in the event of a hypothetical treaty with the U.S. Government somewhere around 30 to 35 percent. The same is true for Latin America, Asia and Africa. The exception is India -- 86 percent think their country should participate in the war if the United States's Government asked as part of a prior treaty. Thus, it could be easily construed that on a high level, there is a correlation between willingness to fight for imperialism and the amount of benefits derived from it. Countries with imperialist status are more likely to have 50 percent and higher of it's population to be willing to fight for other imperialists against unspecified countries--which turned out to be Afghanistan so far. Of the countries MIM defined as imperialist, only Switzerland did other than what MIM predicted and of those countries that are Third World, only India showed support for military action in line with the United $tates. This is a definite example of "imperialist solidarity," unfortunately overlooked by many organizations which call themselves communist. For instance, Trotskyists splintered from the Spartacist League called the "Internationalist Group" insist that it is the "duty of all class- conscious workers and socialists to defend Afghanistan and all those countries under attack by U.S." The contradiction of this statement is that "class-conscious workers" of imperialist countries are actually being truly class- conscious in supporting the war. In spite of the huge disparity of the distribution of wealth in the United $tates, even the poorest members of the society, leaving alone "class-conscious workers"-- middle or lower middle class, do benefit from the existing system. It is true that if U.S. imperialism collapsed tomorrow, "class-conscious American workers" would experience a tremendous plunge in their wages, living standard, etc. The "executive committee of the capitalist class," as Trotskyists define the U.$ government as Marx did but excluding the labor aristocracy majority as bourgeoisie, acts according to today's economical interests of the majority of this country. Yes, those interests are short-termed, and in the long run such policy could backfire. However, this is how the "executive committee of the capitalist class" understands the notion of national security and prosperity. The state's policy is absolutely consistent with this understanding: the working class of imperialist countries is definitely taken in consideration; this is why this "working class" offers it's support to imperialists, no matter how much it could be embarrassing for the occasional Trotskyist union leaders. The very idea of "class solidarity" prompts the workers of imperialist countries (all races included) to support the war waged by its imperialists: it's in their class interest. Their class interest and class interest of nations exploited and/or oppressed by imperialism are opposing one to another, quite contrary to Trotskyists's notion of "unity of the working class." In reality, it is very difficult to see much difference between the U.S. government and "American workers," as well as workers in other imperialist countries: they all are rather on the same side. The national interests prevail. This is why we see so high a level of support of war in America and Western Europe, with figures going down in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa, as it was mentioned above. Exceptions to MIM's theory of the Imperialists and Third World. Results mentioned above proved MIM's contemporary application of Lenin's theory of imperialism on a high, theoretical level. However, in reality, this theory definitely doesn't cover all possible situations and outcomes. Exceptions to MIM's theory of the Imperialists and Third World are too numerous and important to be just exceptions. These exceptions suggest that MIM has to take international relations, not only notions of class and national struggle in very close consideration. 86 percent in India was willing to join the United $tates in military action - a paradox for MIM's Third World theory. However, it could be easily explained if the history of animosity between India and Pakistan is kept in mind. Only 8 percent in Finland, 28 percent in Switzerland, 14 percent in Austria, 29 percent in in Greece, 12 percent in Ukraine and 21 percent in Bulgaria are in favor of joining military action. These figures are a reminder that not all countries of predominantly white people are ready to line up with the imperialist exploiters and oppressors. Thus, we can conclude, that even though the theory of imperialism is correct on very high, theoretical level, in reality, variables to be taken in consideration do not boil down to the colonial past, race, or even level of economical development. Concrete political conditions and history must be kept in mind, not only theoretical idea that oppressed will support each other for some reason. In other words, in any country, including Third World countries, national interests take precedence over international proletarian solidarity. MIM leaders may be altruistic and selfless; it doesn't mean that the majority of people in any, even most oppressed countries are the same. Quite opposite. The more oppression and exploitation the country experienced in the past, the more likely it may be in the future to protect it's own national interests even at the expense of the other, also exploited countries. International relations are more complex than just simply class struggle of oppressed against oppressors. Eventually, in the fight against imperialism there are going to be much more than two camps; many countries are going to change sides many times. This is reality which shouldn't be attributed to the false consciousness or simply dismissed for the sake of theory. Note: http://www.gallup- international.com/terrorismpoll_figures.htm International Minister replies for MIM: We did not see CNN or USA Today headline these survey figures. Gallup also buried them because some of their big- money clients would not want to see them, because they reveal that U.$. imperialism is globally isolated, with 27 out of 29 countries not favoring war over the September 11 incident. The main pattern in the Gallup figures is well- explained by the theory of imperialism ignored by Trotskyists and other social- chauvinists too unwilling to admit the essentially enemy character of imperialist country populations. We see evidence again and again that hardened racism and national chauvinism to the point of being willing to go to war and create millions of refugees is part of the labor aristocracy view. The labor aristocracy is not indulging in "false consciousness," because if it did have false consciousness and not just a different material position than the international proletariat, we would expect to see imperialist country and oppressed country poll figures to be similar with working classes of the non-U.$. and non- Afghanistan workers expressing roughly equivalent views. Those Gallup poll figures are not similar, so we must conclude that there is in fact a difference in material conditions, as MIM has said all along. Imperialist country populations are bribed and the future of the proletarian revolution resides in the Third World and Eastern Europe. As a result of a failure to confront hardened racism and national chauvinism in the imperialist countries, various phony communists lower the bar for what really has to be accomplished to achieve international peace. There is no getting around the fact that hardened racism and national chauvinism have to be addressed. Aside from the fact that making excuses for oppressor nation "workers" and their supposed "false consciousness" contributes to hate crimes, which have been committed in the thousands since September 11th, the death of 5000 people on September 11 has created outrage and willingness to create millions more refugees and starving people in Afghanistan. Yet the death of more than 5000 Third World babies a day creates no similar such outrage amongst the so- called workers of imperialist countries. The United $tates creates the refugees, bombs farm lands and supports regimes including the Taliban (as late as a few months ago) and others like it and then it considers itself generous for opening the borders to a small percentage of those refugees and dropping food packets to less than 15% of the starving. When such conditions exist amongst a population and its views, it is not possible to have global peace. Communists should not be making excuses, talking about false consciousness or fantasizing about quick imperialist country insurrections. There will have to be protracted People's Wars against imperialist invaders. The oppressed and exploited will have to deal with the imperialist country populations, principally the Yankee population; the way anti- fascists had to deal with Nazis. As for the point PIRAO5 makes about the national interests of people such as how it is that 86% of Indians support military action against the Taliban, MIM disagrees. Indians are indeed expressing false consciousness as exploited people in supporting war against Pakistan and its Taliban proxy. The Indian people have nothing to gain from such a war. The arms traders will make the profits and the exploited will do the dying. The Indian rulers and Pakistani rulers have sent their exploited peoples to make war against each other, but it is not rationally in the self- interest of those Pakistani and Indian exploited peoples to engage in war.