That the massed ranks of social-democracy adopted a position of bourgeois-defencism, and social imperialism, in relation to Ukraine, is inevitable, because that flows from its raison d'etre as the main ideology of the bourgeois ruling class. Its why it backed the proletariat into the mass slaughter of WWI, and II, on the basis of defending national independence and without the blink of an eye, or hint of irony, simultaneously supported the continued colonial empires of its own ruling class, and acted as recruiting sergeants for them in sending armies to invade soviet Russia in support of its old autocratic rulers. But, on what basis can those that continue to call themselves Marxists, however untenable that description has become, for them, justify their social-imperialism, either in support of NATO/Ukraine, on the one hand, or Russia~China on the other?
In War and the Fourth International, Trotsky sets out the arguments again. He explains, as described above, that the nation state, once a progressive development of capitalism, in its own infancy, was now a fetter on further development, and defence of it, was, now reactionary.
“The national state created by capitalism in the struggle with the sectionalism of the Middle Ages became the classical arena of capitalism. But no sooner did it take shape than it became a brake upon economic and cultural development. The contradiction between the productive forces and the framework of the national state, in conjunction with the principal contradiction – between the productive forces and the private ownership of the means of production – make the crisis of capitalism that of the world social system...
The defence of the national state, first of all in Balkanised Europe – the cradle of the national state – is in the full sense of the word a reactionary task. The national state with its borders, passports, monetary system, customs and the army for the protection of customs has become a frightful impediment to the economic and cultural development of humanity. The task of the proletariat is not the defence of the national state but its complete and final liquidation.
Were the present national state to represent a progressive factor, it would have to be defended irrespective of its political form and, of course, regardless of who “started” the war first. It is absurd to confuse the question of the historic function of the national state with the question of the “guilt” of a given government. Can one refuse to save a house suited for habitation just because the fire started through carelessness or through evil intent of the owner? But here it is precisely a case of the given house being fit not for living but merely for dying. To enable the peoples to live, the structure of the national state must be razed to its foundations.
A “socialist” who preaches national defence is a petty-bourgeois reactionary at the service of decaying capitalism. Not to bind itself to the national state in time of war, to follow not the war map but the map of the class struggle, is possible only for that party that has already declared irreconcilable war on the national state in time of peace. Only by realizing fully the objectively reactionary role of the imperialist state can the proletarian vanguard become invulnerable to all types of social patriotism. This means that a real break with the ideology and policy of “national defence” is possible only from the standpoint of the international proletarian revolution.”
It is the antithesis of the position of those “Marxists”, and even “Trotskyists”, who have hitched their wagon to the defence of the capitalist nation state, and even the promotion of the idea of creating new capitalist states where none existed. They are anti-Marx Marxists, and anti-Trotsky Trotskyists.
No comments:
Post a Comment