China, whose economy had developed rapidly, as a consequence of imperialism, but whose development was also shaped by that imperialist involvement, which still, predominantly, took the form of colonialism and unequal exchange, needed to shake itself free from those semi-colonial shackles.
“The war of China for its national independence is a progressive war, because it flows from the necessities of the economic and cultural development of China itself, as well as because it facilitates the development of the revolution of the British proletariat and that of the whole world proletariat.” (p 20)
That didn't mean opposition to “imperialism”, defined as capitalism in its mature phase of large-scale, multinational, industrial capital, operating within a global economy. In his writings on the Balkan Wars, Trotsky described that. It meant opposition to the military intervention by the imperialist powers, even if they dressed it up as “liberation from above”, but not at all opposing the commercial activities of imperialist capital, vital for the more rapid development of those countries. After the Civil War, Lenin put great effort into trying to get large companies in the West to make direct investments in Russia, and Trotsky, writing on Mexico's Second Six Year Plan, also set out why it was vital to get such foreign investment. Indeed, one reason for the need for national independence is to break down the trade monopolies that the old colonial empires established, and which are the basis of unequal exchange, so as to open the economy to direct investment from all other economies.
“But this by no means signifies that the imperialist yoke is a mechanical one, subjugating “all” the classes of China in the “same” way. The powerful role of foreign capital in the life of China has caused very strong sections of the Chinese bourgeoisie, the bureaucracy and the military to join their destiny with that of imperialism. Without this tie, the enormous role of the so-called “militarists” in the life of modern China would be inconceivable.” (p 20)
This is also one reason why the claims of the USC, in regard to Ukraine's war being an “anti-imperialist” war, are nonsense, because, of course, the very regime that is fighting the war is, itself, inextricably tied to NATO, and to western imperialism, as the source of billions of Dollars in revenues for the Ukrainian ruling class, but continued exploitation, by that imperialism, of Ukrainian workers.
“It would further be profound naiveté to believe that an abyss lies between the so-called comprador bourgeoisie, that is, the economic and political agency of foreign capital in China, and the so-called “national” bourgeoisie. No, these two sections stand incomparably closer to each other than the bourgeoisie and the masses of workers and peasants. The bourgeoisie participated in the national war as an internal brake, looking upon the worker and peasant masses with growing hostility, and becoming ever readier to conclude a compromise with imperialism.” (p 21)
The regime of Zelensky was tied to imperialism to begin with, and despite the weak position of Ukrainian workers, has acted, still, as a brake upon them, passing further anti-labour laws, attacking their organisations, and so on. Yet, the petty-bourgeois, liberal "Left" still blindly supports this regime, and its war, whilst pretending that the war being fought is not between two two heavily (nuclear) armed, imperialist camps, but is, somehow, a “people's war” fought by Ukrainian workers!!! The USC use quotes about arms supply to rebels, but the arms are supplied to Zelensky not rebels, and certainly not workers. Indeed, Trotsky pointed to the supply of weapons to the KMT, by Stalin (which Trotsky opposed), and the use of those weapons against Chinese workers and peasants by the KMT!
No comments:
Post a Comment