Social-Patriotic Sophistry

The social-patriots in the Ukrainian labour movement, and the social imperialists in Europe and North America have engaged in the same sophistry, to justify their support for the Ukrainian capitalist state, and its NATO backers, that was used by their kind prior to WWI and II. One such piece of sophistry is that the defence of the Ukrainian capitalist fatherland, is really just a war of national independence, even though Ukraine is already politically independent! They use a perverted concept of the ideas of permanent revolution to argue that such a war of independence can turn into something more, emptying that concept of all real content. They are not the first to do that either. The Stalinists/Bukharinist and Mensheviks did the same thing in relation to the Chinese Revolution, after they had already betrayed it in 1927.

As part of the social-imperialists sophistry, they have had to lie about the nature of the actual war taking place, creating the fantasy that it is some kind of “people's war” for national liberation, undertaken by the Ukrainian workers. Their equivalents in the opposing camp of social-imperialists backing Russia, have done the same thing, in creating the fantasy that Russia is engaged in an “anti-imperialist” struggle against NATO, waged by its working class. In both cases it tries to deny the reality that it is a war waged between two imperialist blocs – NATO and Russia-China – and is reactionary on both sides.

The Stalinists/Bukharinists and Mensheviks did the same thing in China in the 1920's. They had argued that the Kuomintang of Chiang Kai Shek was an anti-imperialist, “bloc of four classes”, engaged in a People's War for national liberation of China, and the carrying through of its bourgeois-democratic national revolution. The KMT certainly was the largest force fighting for the bourgeois-democratic, national revolution, but, as Trotsky pointed out, it was not a “bloc of four classes”, but simply the party of the Chinese bourgeoisie, and what is more, as with all such national bourgeoisies, one that itself had deep ties to imperialism. In all such cases, the anti-imperialism of such forces is superficial not only because it reflects reliance on one imperialism as against another, and always means that it will align with imperialism against the proletariat and revolutionary peasants, if its own interests are threatened.

The policy of the Stalinists/Bukharinists and Mensheviks of subsuming the Chinese Communist Party, which, in 1925 had the support of tens of thousands of Chinese industrial workers, into the KMT, was a repetition of the same position the Mensheviks as well as Stalin, had adopted in February 1917, of supporting the Popular Front, Provisional Government, and against which Lenin and Trotsky had to wage an intense battle. When that battle was joined, Stalin made a tactical retreat, leaving it to Kamenev and Zinoviev to argue the Menshevist position, which, as Trotsky describes, involved presenting the Provisional government, and the Russian state, as being some kind of “non-class” formation, so as to justify a position of bourgeois defencism. The position, today, of the social-patriots and social imperialists is the same.

They talk of “Ukraine”, the “Ukrainian people”, and so on, as some abstract concept, thereby, avoiding the reality that what is involved is a class society, and class state, with antagonistic class interests, and that the war is being fought by that class state, and for class interests. In the same way that Stalin/Bukharin and the Mensheviks subsumed the class struggle of the Chinese workers into the struggle of the Chinese bourgeoisie, for the bourgeois-democratic, national revolution, so the social-patriots and social imperialists do in relation to Ukraine.

Lenin and Trotsky had pointed out, in February 1917, that the reality was that the Russian workers and revolutionary peasants were already the ones taking the lead in the revolution, which, at that stage, was still one fulfilling the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. They were doing so by proletarian revolutionary means via the creation of soviets, the creation of factory committees and demands for workers' control and so on. In other words, the exact opposite of what Stalin/Bukharin and the Mensheviks strategy was. In 1917, the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution became subsumed within the overall struggle for proletarian revolution, as Marx had first described in 1850, and as Trotsky and Lenin later theorised, as the process of permanent revolution.

In 1925-7, Trotsky had made a similar evaluation as far as China was concerned. In other words, it was the Chinese industrial workers, and revolutionary peasants that were in the position to carry through the bourgeois-democratic national revolution, and by the same process of permanent revolution, having carried out the former via proletarian revolutionary means, would be able to carry forward to the proletarian revolution itself, a process which, if China were to be truly independent, was itself required. But, Stalin/Bukarin and the Mensheviks had sneered at this Trotskyist formula, just as Stalin had rejected it in favour of Socialism In One Country, in relation to Russia.

Nevertheless, in one policy after another, Stalin/Bukharin implemented, belatedly, crude versions of the very “Trotskyist” positions they had earlier attacked. Here too. In his report to the Executive Committee of the Communist International, Bukharin smuggled in the very analysis that they had previously sneered at. But, as with all such occurrences they did so, without understanding the actual content of the formulation. They denuded the concept of permanent revolution of all meaning. In Russia, in 1917, it required the active role of the Bolsheviks, in encouraging the development of the soviets, of continually, using these proletarian revolutionary means to develop the class consciousness of the workers and peasants, and to undermine their existing illusions in bourgeois-democracy.

In China, the Stalinists and Menshevists had already prevented that by subsuming the workers parties and organisations into the KMT, which was simply the party of the Chinese bourgeoisie. They subordinated the workers and peasants interests to those of the Chinese bourgeoisie, and even opposed the spontaneous creation of soviets by workers and peasants, on the basis of seeking not to frighten off the bourgeoisie from the Popular Front they had created with it. All real content of permanent revolution, based upon the independent organisation of the workers and revolutionary peasantry, and the struggle against the illusions in bourgeois-democracy, was, thereby, removed.

After Chiang Kai Shek launched his coup in April 1927, slaughtering thousands of communists in Shanghai, and following the similar debacle with Wang Chin Wei, and the Left Kuomintang, the Stalinists tried to cover their betrayals by invoking the concept of permanent revolution, but now, they interpreted it as meaning that, because the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution remained unfulfilled, and because the underlying antagonisms that lead to revolution still existed, the situation in China was still revolutionary, and this condition of permanent revolution, would last for years to come. That was meaningless, as Trotsky sets out, given that following the defeats and betrayals, what existed in China was not a revolutionary, but a counter-revolutionary condition.

“Naturally, absolute stabilization is absolutely opposed to an absolute revolutionary situation. The conversion of these absolutes into each other is “absolutely impossible”. But if one descends from these ridiculous theoretical summits, it turns out that before the complete and final triumph of socialism, the relatively revolutionary situation will very likely be converted more than once into relative stabilization (and vice versa). All other conditions remaining equal, the danger of the conversion of a revolutionary situation into bourgeois stabilization is all the greater the less capable is the proletarian leadership of exploiting the situation.”

(Problems of The Chinese Revolution, p 174-5)

Not only are the objective material conditions necessary, and the conditions of the long-wave cycle favourable to labour rather than capital, but also the subjective factor of adequate revolutionary leadership is required. That was also seen, in the period after WWII. The long wave cycle was highly favourable to proletarian revolution, but the subjective factor of revolutionary leadership most demonstrably was not, and that condition has worsened, as the long-wave cycle turned, in the 1980's against labour, and in favour of capital.

In the post-war period, imperialism pressed down on Stalinism, most visibly in the form of the adoption of “peaceful co-existence” by the USSR, and its active role in sabotaging proletarian revolution wherever it arose spontaneously. It was channelled into the policies of the individual Stalinist parties, across the globe, which became merely national, social-democratic parties, often to the Right of the left wing of the actual social-democratic parties. But, that, in turn, was transmitted into those social democratic parties themselves. In turn, as the “Trotskyists” and New Left competed for influence, it was also transmitted into those organisations too, most clearly seen in their collapse into economism and workerism, in relation to domestic activity, and into petty-bourgeois nationalism/anti-imperialism, and popular frontism in respect of international activity. They became cheerleaders for these petty-bourgeois forces and ideas.

“The leadership of the Chiang Kai-shek clique was superior to that of Chen Duxiu and of Tang Pingshan. But it is not this leadership that decided: foreign imperialism guided Chiang Kai-shek by threats, by promises, by its direct assistance. The Communist International directed Chen Duxiu. Two leaderships of world dimensions crossed swords here. That of the Communist International, through all the stages of the struggle, appeared as absolutely worthless, and it thus facilitated to the highest degree the task of the imperialist leadership. In such conditions, the transformation of the revolutionary situation into bourgeois stabilization is not only not “impossible”, but is absolutely inevitable. Even more: it is accomplished, and within certain limits it is completed.”

(ibid, p 175)

And, the worthless nature of the leadership manifest in the post-war period, has similarly become apparent, now, in relation to the war in Ukraine, as it has turned full circle through its cheerleading of petty-bourgeois nationalism, and “anti-imperialism”, into the kind of social-patriotism and social imperialism seen prior to WWI, and justified on the same bogus basis of “national self-determination”, as bourgeois cover for defence of the capitalist fatherland.

As Trotsky set out, in his writings, in the 1930's, the Stalinists were to become even more overt in seeking to enable imperialism to bring about such stabilisation on the bones of workers. It was the basis of their Popular Front policy in France and Spain, which bourgeois propagandists like Paul Mason, now also promote, and of their attempt to form an international military bloc with “democratic imperialism” against Hitler and Mussolini. Today, one camp of social imperialists represented by the USC, seek a bloc with NATO/Ukraine, whilst the opposing camp of social-imperialists seek a bloc with Russia and China. At the same time, the social-pacifists of the Stop The War Coalition sit in the middle, pointlessly calling for peace, as though peace, in the short-term, is possible without the victory of one of these camps over the other, or, in the longer-term, without a revolutionary war, conducted by the working-class, to overthrow the ruling classes of both camps and their capitalist states!

The reality, today, is little different than it was in China, as described by Trotsky, in also setting out why the “anti-imperialism” was a lie, outside this conception.

“The domestic depression, in the face of the available resources, makes more than likely an extensive economic intervention in China by the United States, before which the Guomindang will evidently hold the door wide “open”. One cannot doubt the fact that the European countries, especially Germany, fighting against the rapidly aggravated crisis, will seek to debouch upon the Chinese market.”

(ibid, p 176-7)

Yeltsin performed that role in Russia, and Zelensky is performing it in Ukraine.

Trotsky elaborates the conditions, in China, which made possible a recovery in its economy, and opening for direct investment, particularly in infrastructure, by the US and other imperialist states. Such investment was desirable, not least because the economic recovery creates the best conditions for the rebuilding of the working-class and its organisations. However, it was inevitable that any such investment would be undertaken on terms highly favourable to the imperialist powers, making a mockery of the idea of “anti-imperialism” on the part of the KMT, and the same is true in relation to Ukraine. In both cases that is also facilitated by the corrupt nature of the political regime in the recipient country, just as it was in Russia under Yeltsin.

Trotsky makes the point that the US would be keen to build roads in China, as a necessary condition of it, then, being able to sell its surplus vehicle production in China. Ironically, it is China, today, that directly invests billions of Dollars in infrastructure projects in developing economies, in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and Latin America, as part of its Belt and Road program, which not only facilitates its access to resources, but also opens markets for its manufactured products, and extends its global strategic influence.

China is already positioning itself for the point where NATO's war against Russia, in Ukraine, hits the buffers, as with its previous wars against more limited opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul Mason, who long since abandoned any pretext of socialism and has become simply a professional propagandist for NATO, and sales representative for western arms producers, as seen in his latest missive, “Ukraine: Making Sense of the Kinzhal War”, has again promoted the idea of an imminent Russian defeat, just as he did around the same time last year. Unfortunately, again, his claim came more or less on the same day that western news media had to admit that, contrary to the claims of Zelensky, Bakhmut had indeed fallen to the Russian forces. We know from the leaked US Defence Department papers that the US itself does not see any significant Ukrainian advances this year, and the so called Spring Offensive failed to materialise, as we now enter Summer.

The more likely scenario, then, is a stalemate, with inevitable pressure later in the year for a peace deal. China will be able to offer cheap financing and experience in rapid, large-scale infrastructure construction to a shattered Ukraine. The US will lose interest, as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, and the EU will not want, and be in no position to take in a bankrupt Ukraine. For China, however, it fits perfectly into its ambition of creating a Eurasian politico-economic bloc. The further advantage, for China, is that the social-patriotic leaders of the Ukrainian labour movement will have proved themselves bankrupt, by their opportunism and support for NATO imperialism, just as the Stalinists had done in China in the 1920's.

As Ukraine does a deal with Russia, and the vast might of NATO/EU imperialism is found impotent, the Ukrainian workers will be set back, as happened with the Chinese workers after 1927. They will be in a poor condition to resist the onslaught of Ukrainian capital, and its state, as it seeks to do deals with China for large-scale direct investment, conditioned on Ukrainian workers being screwed. Something similar is already happening with Chinese direct investment in Afghanistan following the defeat and withdrawal, there, of NATO imperialism. Its rather like the way US imperialism expanded after WWII, after the old colonial empires were disbanded.