Stalin presented his theses “Problems of the Chinese Revolution”, in Pravda, on April 21st. 1927, though they had never been discussed by the Central Committee.
“Moreover, the theses of comrade Stalin are erroneous to such a point, they turn the matter upside down to such a degree, they are so permeated with the spirit of chvostism, they are so inclined to perpetuate the mistakes already made, that to remain silent about them would be a positive crime.”
(Trotsky “Problems of The Chinese Revolution, p 17-18)
The term “chvostism”, loosely translated, means “tailism”, and is also characteristic of large sections of the “Left”, today, which is influenced by the public opinion of the middle-class, largely studentist milieu in which it operates. It is certainly true of the social-democrats, as a result of their electoralism and lesser-evilism, which drives them increasingly to the Right. That pressure of public opinion, also feeds down, through social-democracy, on to those sections of the petty-bourgeois Left. Trotsky, also, later, describes this same process.
The Stalinists argued against any open discussion, on the basis that it could be utilised by the enemies of the USSR. The same line is used to justify bureaucratic censorship, and denial of debate, today, not just by Stalinists, but also by others on the Left, whose ossified sects have grown used to blind obedience, and whose fragile shells would easily shatter. It is used, also, by Starmer, for example, to prevent discussion over the racist, colonialist nature of Zionism, by equating it with anti-Semitism, as a pretext for expelling the Left, which, like all such witch hunts, escalates into an ever widening net in which any opposition or criticism becomes intolerable.
But, as Trotsky points out, any debate would only cover the ground already set out by Stalin, in his Theses, and so could pose no greater threat. Moreover, without such open debate, how could a proper, Marxist appraisal be formulated?
“It is not true that the interests of the Communist International conflict with the state interests of the USSR. The renunciation of discussion of the mistakes is not dictated by the interests of a workers’ state, but by a false “apparatus-like”, bureaucratic attitude towards the Chinese revolution as well as towards the interests of the USSR.” (p 18-19)
And, given the severity of the defeat of the Chinese revolution, not just for China, but for the world working-class, a discussion of the mistakes that led to it were all the more vital.
“The April defeat of the Chinese revolution is not only a defeat for the opportunist line but also a defeat for the bureaucratic methods of the leadership, through which the Party is confronted with every decision as an accomplished fact: the decision, it is explained, does not justify criticism until facts demonstrate its annulment, whereupon it is just as automatically, that is, behind the back of the Party, replaced by a decision which is frequently more erroneous, like the present theses of Stalin.” (p 19)
No comments:
Post a Comment