Let us then make this opposite assumption that the majority in the breakaway regions do not want to become separated from Ukraine, and incorporated into Russia, much as the Falkland Islanders did not wish to be separated from Britain, and annexed by Argentina. There is a difference between supporting that right and desire in the abstract, and supporting a war to bring it to effect. In The Discussion On Self-Determination Summed Up, cited above, Lenin goes on,
“Let us assume that between two great monarchies there is a little monarchy whose kinglet is “bound” by blood and other ties to the monarchs of both neighbouring countries. Let us further assume that the declaration of a republic in the little country and the expulsion of its monarch would in practice lead to a war between the two neighbouring big countries for the restoration of that or another monarch in the little country. There is no doubt that all international Social-Democracy, as well as the really internationalist section of Social-Democracy in the little country, would be against substituting a republic for the monarchy in this case. The substitution of a republic for a monarchy is not an absolute, but one of the democratic demands, subordinate to the interests of democracy (and still more, of course, to those of the socialist proletariat) as a whole. A case like this would in all probability not give rise to the slightest disagreement among Social-Democrats in any country.”
Marxists would then have been opposed to a Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine, to enforce a desire for independence from Ukraine, if it, inevitably, resulted in a war between Russia and Ukraine, with a potential to draw in other powers standing behind them, as happened in WWI, but, likewise would oppose a Ukrainian bombardment, or ground assault, on those regions, to prevent them breaking away, which would likewise, likely lead to a Russian military response, as indeed, it did.
Does that mean that Marxists can support no national liberation wars? Clearly not, but it means that each one must be treated concretely, rather than some abstract principle of support being applied. Wars of national liberation, by colonies, for example, could be supported, though, even, here, as the Theses On The National and Colonial Questions states, consistent with the principles of Permanent Revolution, Marxists only give their support in such struggles to the truly revolutionary forces, and insist that where they are forced, by material conditions, to fight in a tactical alliance with other class forces, they maintain a strict organisational and political independence from them. As Lenin puts it, in The Discussion On Self-Determination Summed Up,
“If we do not want to betray socialism we must support every revolt against our chief enemy, the bourgeoisie of the big states, provided it is not the revolt of a reactionary class.”
Trotsky emphasises these points in relation to the Chinese Revolution, and the Stalinist policy, applied there.
“What tasks did Lenin set before the Comintern with regard to the backward countries?
“It is necessary to carry on a determined struggle against the attempt to surround the bourgeois democratic liberation movements in the backward countries with a Communist cloak.”
In carrying this out, the Guomindang, which had promised to establish in China “not a bourgeois régime”, was admitted into the Comintern.”
And, this is similar to the way the USC, dress up the role of socialists in Ukraine, and play down the reactionary nature of the Zelensky regime. In fact, the Stalinists, based upon ideas developed by Bukharin, argued that, because a colonial bourgeoisie was engaged in a struggle against imperialism, it, objectively, became more progressive than the bourgeoisie of a non-colony, or non-annexed country, simply as a result of its anti-imperialist struggle. This is the basic idea that underpins all idiot anti-imperialism, but, as Trotsky points out, not only is it absurd, and has no foundation in Lenin's writings, but, if anything, the opposite is true, and, in his words, such bourgeoisies are “even more vile” than those of the developed capitalist states. Yet, the USC do not even try to base their argument for supporting Zelensky's reactionary regime on that basis, but only on the basis of trying to pretty up just exactly how reactionary it is! Trotsky continues.
“Lenin, it is understood, recognized the necessity of a temporary alliance with the bourgeois-democratic movement, but he understood by this, of course, not an alliance with the bourgeois parties, duping and betraying the petty-bourgeois revolutionary democracy (the peasants and the small city folk), but an alliance with the organizations and groupings of the masses themselves – against the national bourgeoisie. In what form, then, did Lenin visualize the alliance with the bourgeois democracy of the colonies? To these, too, he gives an answer in his thesis written for the Second Congress:
“The Communist International should enter into a temporary alliance with the democratic bourgeoisie of the colonies and backward countries, but should not fuse with it and must unconditionally maintain the independent character of the proletarian movement – even in its embryonic form.”
It seems that in executing the decisions of the Second Congress, the Communist Party was made to join the Guomindang and the Guomindang was admitted into the Comintern. All this summed up is called Leninism”.
In fact, Trotsky's quote is not quite accurate, and the full quote is even more damning of the Stalinists, and petty-bourgeois nationalists. The second paragraph should actually read,
"the need for a determined struggle against attempts to give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in the backward countries; the Communist International should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations. The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form" (emphasis added)
Notice the repeated statement that the only forces we actually support are the truly revolutionary, communist forces, that any alliance they enter into is purely tactical, and temporary, and is with the petty-bourgeois masses not the political parties, and certainly not the bourgeois state, in those countries, for the obvious reason that the struggle is not just against imperialism, but also against the national bourgeoisie, which still represents the main enemy at home!
No comments:
Post a Comment