As I have written previously, one reason the Left holds this position, of opposition to Co-ops, is due to a misreading of Marx in his criticism of the Utopian Socialists. For, the Trotskyist Left, that is compounded also by a misunderstanding of the question of building “Socialism In One Country”, as an extension of that argument. In fact, the position adopted is not that of Lenin or Trotsky, but that of the Ultra-Left criticised by both of them. For example, in his work Lenin, Left-Wing Childishness - not to be confused with the better known Left-Wing Communism – Lenin, argues against the idea that they had a revolutionary duty to destroy themselves, by responding to imperialist provocation, and engaging in a war against it. On the contrary, he points out that having secured power they had a duty to try to hold on to it, by any means possible, retreating back into the interior if necessary.
“If you want to fight now, say so openly. If you don’t wish to retreat now, say so openly. Otherwise, in your objective role, you are a tool of imperialist provocation. And your subjective “mentality” is that of a frenzied petty bourgeois who swaggers and blusters but senses perfectly well that the proletarian is right in retreating and in trying to retreat in an organised way. He senses that the proletarian is right in arguing that because we lack strength we must retreat (before Western and Eastern imperialism) even as far as the Urals, for in this lies the only chance of playing for time while the revolution in the West matures, the revolution which is not “bound” (despite the twaddle of the “Lefts") to begin in “spring or summer”, but which is coming nearer and becoming more probable every month....
Now that we have become representatives of the ruling class, which has begun to organise socialism, we demand that everybody adopt a serious attitude towards defence of the country. And adopting a serious attitude towards defence of the country means thoroughly preparing for it, and strictly calculating the balance of forces. If our forces are obviously small, the best means of defense is retreat into the interior of the country (anyone who regards this as an artificial formula, made up to suit the needs of the moment, should read old Clausewitz, one of the greatest authorities on military matters, concerning the lessons of history to be learned in this connection). The “Left Communists”, however, do not give the slightest indication that they understand the significance of the question of the balance of forces.”
There is a huge difference between the Theory of Socialism In One Country,
which essentially is pessimistic of international revolution, and so focusses entirely on the reactionary idea of building an autarchic, statised economy within a single country, and bases all its politics and strategy around that goal to the exclusion of all else, and a policy of defending what has been gained, as a means of securing a foothold for further advance, once the balance of forces allow. The latter is what Lenin argues, and the differences here with the position outlined by Trotsky are only differences of nuance not substance.Once again, what we have is a difference based on time-scales. Essentially, what is being said is, its not permissible to build Co-operatives, because the date of the revolution is unknown. So, Co-operatives might have to survive for a long-time prior to the revolution, and in that time they will have degenerated. So, only Trade Union struggle, and Economistic struggle for reforms is allowed, short of the revolution. However, once the Revolution breaks out, even in a single country, that is okay, because the assumption is that the revolution will automatically spread internationally, and the revolutionaries where they have seized power will use that to hasten its spread. But, of course, as Lenin argues in the above,
“This formulation is even more childishly inaccurate despite its playing at science. It is natural for children to “understand” science to mean something that can determine in what year, spring, summer, autumn or winter the “collapse must begin”.
These are ridiculous, vain attempts to ascertain what cannot be ascertained. No serious politician will ever say when this or that collapse of a “system” “must begin” (the more so that the collapse of the system has already begun, and it is now a question of the moment when the outbreak of revolution in particular countries will begin). But an indisputable truth forces its way through this childishly helpless formulation, namely, the outbreaks of revolution in other, more advanced, countries are nearer now, a month since the beginning of the “respite” which followed the conclusion of peace, than they were a month or six weeks ago.”
So, it was just as impossible to conclude that international revolution WOULD follow on from its outbreak in one country. All that followed was that what had been gained should be defended, and should be built upon as an example to workers elsewhere, and to be used as a resource to facilitate workers in those other countries, in order to thereby facilitate their development and struggle, so that such revolutions were made more likely! In response to the Ultra-Left statement,
“. . . The Russian workers’ revolution cannot 'save itself’ by abandoning the path of world revolution, by continually avoiding battle and yielding to the pressure of international capital, by making concessions to ’home capital’.
“From this point of view it is necessary to adopt a determined class international policy which will unite international revolutionary propaganda by word and deed, and to strengthen the organic connection with international socialism (and not with the international bourgeoisie). . . .”
Lenin responds,
“But examine this riot of phrase-making—and timidity in deeds—in the sphere of foreign policy. What tactics are binding at the present time on all who do not wish to be tools of imperialist provocation, and who do not wish to walk into the snare? Every politician must give a clear, straightforward reply to this question. Our Party’s reply is well known. At the present moment we must retreat and avoid battle. Our “Lefts” dare not contradict this and shoot into the air: “A determined class international policy"!!”
So, in reality the argument for building Co-operatives is precisely, from a strategic perspective, the same as that in relation to carrying through a revolution in a single country, and attempting to hold on to that territory once achieved,
despite the fact that this implies the need to accept reality, and to compromise. The idea that whether in a Workers' Co-operative or a Workers' State, it is possible to avoid the use of the best aspects of Capitalist Management, of Capitalist technique, of Capitalist organisation, or even the Capitalist Market is ridiculous, Ultra-Left childishness, typical of the petit bourgeois. It does not, as the view of the reactionary Utopians, or the Stalinists requires, mean turning this necessity into a virtue, into a principle of self-sufficiency.Back To Part 4
Forward To Part 6
No comments:
Post a Comment