The Stalinists, like the social-patriots, protest that the bourgeoisie does fight imperialism. The American bourgeoisie fought British imperialism, as, indeed, a century and a half later, did the Indian and Chinese bourgeoisie etc. This same argument is used by social-patriots, in WWII, to argue that their own bourgeoisie is fighting the imperialism of some other state, which seeks to remove their national independence.
“This argument too is an empty commonplace. The compromisers of every country, in similar cases, have always assured the workers that the liberal bourgeoisie is fighting against reaction. The Chinese bourgeoisie utilized the petty-bourgeois democracy only in order to conclude an alliance with imperialism against the workers. The Northern expedition only served to strengthen the bourgeoisie and weaken the workers. A tactic that prepared such a result is a false tactic.” (p 31)
In America, in 1776, there essentially was no working-class. As Marx describes, despite large levels of immigration, from Europe, the workers who moved there, quickly, used high wages, based on the shortage of labour, to move West, and settle land, becoming peasants once more. And, as in many cases, the American bourgeoisie fought British colonialism by aligning with French colonialism.
The bourgeoisie only fights colonialism/imperialism, just as it only fights fascism, so far as doing so meets its own needs. As soon as that is not the case, it aligns itself with imperialism or fascism, against the workers to protect its interests. That is all the more the case with imperialism, because the national bourgeoisie always has a financial tie to imperialism, and that tie is much stronger than any national bonds to the working-class. As Lenin says, in his writings on self-determination, the bourgeoisie always use such “anti-imperialism” as a means to dupe their own workers, which is why we insist not on a right to national self-determination, but a on a right of workers' self-determination, across all borders.
“And the results? A colossal success of the bourgeois counter-revolution, the consolidation of shattered imperialism, the weakening of the USSR. Such a policy is criminal. Unless it is mercilessly condemned, we cannot take a step forward.” (p 31)
In China, the Stalinists merged the Communist Party into the Kuomintang, the nationalist party of the bourgeoisie, headed by Chiang Kai Shek. Such Popular Fronts are always based on the policies and interests of the bourgeoisie, because, unless the workers organisations subordinate themselves, the bourgeoisie will not support them. That is seen in China, Spain, Czechoslovakia, France, Brazil and so on, as Trotsky sets out in his writings. But, it is also seen in numerous popular frontist movements since, such as CND, the ANL, and so on, all of which can never achieve their aims, because those aims require the overthrow of the rule of that same bourgeoisie whose interests these movements are limited by.
If we take CND, its opposition to nuclear weapons was always limited by a failure to recognise that, so long as capitalism exists, there will be wars. Moreover, thousands of workers, employed in war production industries, could only see the prospect of the dole, and plans for alternative production remained utopian, so long as workers, themselves, do not control the means of production, and the ability to determine where and how they are used.
Similarly, the ANL, in order to enlist the support of vicars and liberals, could not fight on the basis that the breeding ground for fascism is the conditions that capitalism creates, despite the fact that the majority of its foot soldiers were members of the SWP. In fact, in failing, adequately, to build an independent, working-class movement, in opposition to war and fascism, based on the need to overthrow capitalism, instead, we got Thatcher's government, of the 1980's, that joined with Reagan in bringing the world close to nuclear destruction, and destroyed the fascists of the National Front, only by, effectively, incorporating their racist and nationalistic agenda into that of the Tories!
The strategy of those that propose these cross-class alliances is based upon presenting some wide, common front against the chosen target, as though fascists and imperialists, and so on, would be intimidated by such a rotten bloc, rather than seeing the obvious weakness of the chasms within them, which would fracture as soon as it faces any real challenge. Nor is it that those who propose such alliances, believe they can last forever, but they always believe they can last for longer than is possible, and because they believe they are using their bourgeois allies to gain respectability, wider appeal and so on, they are always led to subordinate themselves to those elements for longer than they thought would be the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment