The same thing was seen in the period of stagnation from the mid 1870's to 1890, and, was also seen in the period of stagnation from the mid 1980's to 1999, as, during that time, there was a rapid growth of the Asian Tigers and China, some South American countries, as well as of former Eastern bloc countries.
“There are many facts that speak for the possibility and the likelihood of a new revolutionary rise in the near future. Among other things, it is indicated by the fact that Chiang Kai-shek is forced to flirt with the masses, to promise the workers the eight-hour day, and all sorts of relief to the peasants, etc. In the event of a further extension of the agrarian movement and a turning of the petty-bourgeois masses of the city against Chiang Kai-shek as an open agent of imperialism, more favourable conditions can arise in the near future under which the now battered proletarian vanguard will reassemble the ranks of the toilers for a new offensive.” (p 45)
A similar thing was seen, in the late 1980's, and into the 90's. As Asian and South American economies enjoyed relative outperformance, and the working-class and middle-class expanded rapidly, it had political ramifications, as had the upswing in Europe, in 1848, and post-WWII. US imperialism, in particular, as the vanguard of multinational, industrial capital, and so no longer tied to the old model of 19th century colonialism, with its monopolies and protected markets, meeting the needs of mercantilist profits based on unequal exchange, also saw the bureaucratic, Bonapartist political regimes that tended to go with it, as an encumbrance, with costly overheads.
As Lenin notes, in State and Revolution, the bourgeoisie found that the most effective political regime for its dictatorship was that of bourgeois-democracy, albeit one whose limitations are always more or less constrained, dependent upon the extent to which the working-class is led, and able to use it for its own advantage.
A series of former Bonapartist regimes, and military junta were eased out of power, in these regions, and replaced with bourgeois democracies, as also happened in South Africa, and Central and Eastern Europe. A similar process was unfolding in the Middle East and North Africa, in the first two decades of this century, under the tutelage of the EU, but was largely undermined by the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and its aftermath. The EU had created many of the same kinds of structures to MENA, drawing it into its orbit, and potential membership of the EU that it had done previously with the former Stalinist states in Central and Eastern Europe. But, the instability caused by the military intervention of US imperialism, destroyed that process, creating instability, also, on the EU's borders, and inside its economy, of course, simultaneously benefiting US imperialism, and reinforcing its dominance over EU imperialism.
The US had pumped large sums of money and weapons into the hands of jihadists, to fight the USSR, in Afghanistan, and also, later to fight Russian allies, such as Serbia. When Saudi Arabia saw the potential for its own feudal regime being overthrown, it also ploughed its considerable resources into developing Wahabism, via its global network of madrassas, through which financing, training and weapons were spread to jihadists across the region. The Iraq War created the conditions for the spread of jihadism, across the region, derailing the potential for bourgeois-democratic revolutions in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Tunisia etc.
These same subterranean currents were detectable in China, in the 1920's, meaning that, at some point, they would re-emerge, and so requiring the Communist Party to prepare for that event. It should have meant orienting to the renewed growth and confidence of the workers, but the reality was that the further mistakes and betrayals of the Stalinists meant they failed to win back the workers, and artificial attempts to create soviets, and centres of power, in rural areas, led to the party becoming a peasant party, based upon a guerrilla Peasant War, whilst, nominally, adhering to a Marxist ideology.
In fact, it has many similarities with today's “Left” sects. They continue to, nominally, adhere to the ideas of Marx, but they are comprised of petty-bourgeois students and ex-students that orient their activities to that milieu. Their activity is, then, determined by that, also being akin to a guerrilla strategy of parachuting into and out of the latest social movement, in the hope of winning the odd new recruit, and achieving some ephemeral strategic success over their rivals, all of which tends to drive them further away from the mass of workers. It is a long way from the approach of Marx and Engels, or the Bolsheviks, or even the concept of “Wiganisation”, or colonisation, adopted in the 1950's and 60's, which sought to place revolutionaries in important workplaces, and develop revolutionary cells, deep within the working-class communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment