As nationalism and social-patriotism is again on the rise, as it was before WWI, the task of international socialists is to stand even more militantly against it. That means, in the forthcoming elections, in Britain and France, socialists should oppose all nationalists, and where possible give their active support to international socialist candidates. In many cases, that will, unfortunately, mean active abstention.
As Trotsky wrote,
"Fascism is a form of despair in the petit-bourgeois masses, who carry away with them over the precipice a part of the proletariat as well. Despair as is known, takes hold when all roads of salvation are cut off. The triple bankruptcy of democracy, Social Democracy and the Comintern was the prerequisite for fascism. All three have tied their fate to the fate of imperialism. All three bring nothing to the masses but despair and by this assure the triumph of fascism."
The idea of their being some "progressive nationalism", in the age of imperialism, is itself a petty-bourgeois fantasy. The struggle against imperialism, as Trotsky points out, is not a struggle for "nationalism", or "national self-determination", but is a struggle of the proletariat for Socialism!
"The independence of the Belgians, Serbians, Poles, Armenians and others is regarded by us not as part of the Allied war programme (as treated by Guesde, Plekhanov, Vandervelde, Henderson and others), but belongs to the programme of the international proletarian struggle against imperialism."
(The Programme of Peace)
The idea that even a country of the size of Britain can be actually independent in the age of imperialism, is a reactionary petty-bourgeois fantasy, of the kind that lies behind the small business myth, or the Stalinist theory of building Socialism In One Country. Its why Brexit is such a reactionary, utopian dead-end that is bound to lead to disaster, and ultimately Britain re-joining the EU on worse terms than it had when it left. So, the idea that smaller and weaker countries can be independent, and exercise any meaningful "national self-determination", is an even bigger, reactionary, petty-bourgeois fantasy.
"Capitalism has transferred into the field of international relations the same methods applied by it in “regulating” the internal economic life of the nations. The path of competition is the path of systematically annihilating the small and medium-sized enterprises and of achieving the supremacy of big capital. World competition of the capitalist forces means the systematic subjection of the small, medium-sized and backward nations by the great and greatest capitalist powers. The more developed the technique of capitalism, the greater the role played by finance capital and the higher the demands of militarism, all the more grows the dependency of the small states on the great powers. This process, forming as it does an integral element of imperialist mechanics, flourishes undisturbed also in times of peace by means of state loans, railway and other concessions, military-diplomatic agreements, etc. The war uncovered and accelerated this process by introducing the factor of open violence. The war destroys the last shreds of the “independence” of small states, quite apart from the military outcome, of the conflict between the two basic enemy camps."
(The Programme of Peace)
That, indeed, is why capital needed to create the EU, just as it has created NAFTA, Mercosur, ACFTA, and so on. Those advocating a return to the nation state, and in favour of "national self-determination" are unreconstructed reactionaries. As Lenin and the Bolsheviks argued, for many of them, the demand for "national self-determination", is nothing more than a cover for the demand for "defence of the fatherland", for the workers to abandon their own class interests, and to line up behind their own reactionary bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie, and, in some cases, even worse, behind the interests of the old landlord class, and clergy, as for example, is the case in Tibet.
But, it is also the case when it comes to petty-bourgeois nationalists at home. The fact that the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein clothe their petty-bourgeois nationalism in the garb of a more radical social-democracy doesn't change the underlying reactionary nature of their nationalist agenda. Even more is that the case with the fantasists of the Northern Independence Party, or the "Lexiters" in their various garb as TUSC and so on. Socialists can have no truck with any of these petty-bourgeois reactionaries, no matter how much they dress themselves up as some kind of radical alternative. Its worth remembering Lenin's polemics against the nationalistic and separatist arguments of Luxemburg and Pilsudski. The consequences of those arguments came 20 years later, when Pilsudski's nationalism swept aside any remnants of his Socialism, and his nationalist authoritarian regime in Poland took on features similar to that of the Nazis.
The nature of English nationalism presented by the reactionary wing of the Tory Party, particularly in respect of Brexit, gave the nationalists of the SNP, and Plaid an opportunity to appear as progressive, solely because they could present their nationalism as also internationalism, as they oriented to the EU, whilst the Tories pushed ahead with Brexit, and an English nationalist agenda. But, even within the SNP their are also opponents of the EU, and the reality is that for any nationalist party, support for the EU will only ever go as far as it is compatible with pursuing purely national interests, which ultimately means the interests of the national bourgeoisie. Again, in the age of imperialism, and large scale multinational capital, that national bourgeoisie, amounts almost exclusively to the petty-bourgeoisie.
The agenda of those nationalist parties, in so far as it is social-democratic, is only so in the way that social-democracy itself is contradictory, and so whilst representing the interests of large-scale socialised capital, does so whilst presenting itself as the defender of the small producer as well as the worker. There is no reason for socialists to offer any support for such nationalist parties, however much they present themselves as more radical social-democrats.
But, that does indeed present socialists with a problem. Although the Labour Party itself, in terms of its half million or so members, remains a largely progressive social-democratic, and internationalist party, committed to re-joining the EU, and opposing Brexit, the PLP has effectively split from it to form a separate and independent party. The PLP is now under the control of the reactionary nationalism of Blue Labour. It has freed itself from any real control by the party, whilst it has used its control over the party machinery to impose itself on the party in the country. That condition cannot continue, and a formal split, or the effective destruction of the party outside parliament must follow.
There is no more reason for socialists to vote for, let alone give active support for Blue Labour nationalism than there is any other form of nationalism. Yet, absent an alternative Workers Party, socialists are obliged to support the only Workers Party that does exist, which is the Labour Party. We have faced this dilemma before, when socialists needed to back Labour, but could not do so uncritically, when it meant voting for Callaghan. At that time, it was resolved by creating an alternative socialist campaign for labour victory, with its own programme and candidates for the elections around which it organised.
Even that, today, looks hard to achieve, signifying just how far backwards the labour movement has gone. But, there are international socialists standing as candidates in the elections, who will be standing under a Labour banner. It is necessary to mobilise support for those candidates, by Labour Party members from anywhere in the country directing themselves to those candidates, rather than campaigning in their own areas.
International socialists cannot vote for candidates that stand on a nationalistic and chauvinist platform of the type that Starmer and Blue Labour have been promoting, in which they have wrapped themselves in the flag and promoted the worst forms of jingoism. We have to actively support all those in the party that are offering an alternative to that nationalistic agenda. But, in many areas that will not be possible. In those cases, international socialists as well as going to other areas to support internationalist candidates, can come together in an internationalist united front, or utilise existing internationalist campaigns such as Another Europe Is Possible, organising public meetings, rallies, leaflets and so on, to promote an internationalist agenda. Given the witch hunting campaign organised by Starmer, however, caution will be required in doing so, so as not to give grounds for the Right to expel members engaged in such action.
In France, voters will be likely to face the choice of voting for the Thatcherite/Blairite Macron, or the fascist Le Pen. In reality, this is no choice at all. The reactionary policies pursued by Macron have simply opened the door for Le Pen, just as the policies of Biden opened the door again for Trump, and the policies of Starmer have not only allowed Johnson to prosper, but for any likely replacement to him to be something even worse. Marxists certainly do not make the sectarian error of the Stalinists in their Third period madness, in which they failed to distinguish between fascism and bourgeois-democracy, but our response to that is never to simply choose the lesser-evil, when it comes to parliamentary elections. Marxists are the most militant opponents of fascism, but our opposition comes in the form of actual organisation of the working-class to fight fascism on the streets, in the factories and communities, and to oppose them by putting forward our own independent programme, not subordinating ourselves to the bourgeoisie and its liberal representatives as a lesser-evil. Down that road lies ruin, as the elections in Hungary have again just illustrated.
Unfortunately, the programme of the Left candidate, Melonchon, is as disastrously nationalistic as that of Le Pen, and can also offer no way forward for French workers, rather like that put forward by Corbyn, or now by TUSC, and the other reactionary Left nationalists in Britain. The run off will undoubtedly be between Macron and Le Pen, which itself should be a disgrace for the French socialists, spurring them to action, but in such a run-off, socialists will be left to call for an active abstention, as part of the start of building a progressive, international socialist alternative for the years to come.
In Britain, in many areas, it will also be the case that socialists will be left with no progressive choice other than an active abstention, having done all they can to organise a progressive international socialist voice in the election campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment