The fundamental lessons were known by Marxists, by the 1920's, and yet the Stalinists, as well as the social-democrats, reformists, centrists and anarchists ignored them, instead pursuing an opportunist and tailist policy of seeking a broad “popular” or “people's front” with the bourgeoisie, and its political representatives. The same approach has characterised the “Left” ever since, largely under the influence of Stalinism, but also the role of the petty-bourgeois, liberals, in the various “anti-colonial”, “anti-imperialist”, movements of the post-war period. In each case, it resulted in, or, at least, contributed to, the same betrayal of workers' interests, for the sake of limited bourgeois goals. In one national independence struggle after another, in China, Korea, Algeria, Vietnam and across Asia, the Middle-East, and Africa, support was given to petty-bourgeois, anti-working class movements, which, on assuming power, set about exploiting and oppressing the working-class in ways, at least as bad as those of the former colonial rulers.
“Foresight must be the foundation of action. We already know what has happened to the predictions of comrade Stalin: one week before the coup d’état of Chiang Kai-shek, he defended him and blew the trumpet for him by calling for the utilization of the right wing, its experiences, its connections (speech to the Moscow functionaries on April 5).” (p 66)
Even when these nationalist forces acted as pawns of a regional sub-imperialist power, as with the role of India in Bangladesh, the petty-bourgeois “Left”, were still so engrossed in their commitment to the goals of bourgeois nationalism that they threw aside the basics of Marxism, to act as cheerleaders, for the bourgeoisie. Lenin, and the Comintern set out the Marxist principles, in precisely such conditions.
“The several demands of democracy, including self-determination, are not an absolute, but only a small part of the general-democratic (now: general-socialist) world movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be rejected. It is possible that the republican movement in one country may be merely an instrument of the clerical or financial-monarchist intrigues of other countries; if so, we must not support this particular, concrete movement, but it would be ridiculous to delete the demand for a republic from the programme of international Social-Democracy on these grounds.”
Describing the subordinate role of bourgeois-democratic demands, such as self-determination, Lenin gives the example of two large kingdoms, and a smaller one. The people of the small kingdom seek to establish a democratic republic. If the expulsion of the monarch would then lead to a war between the two larger kingdoms, in order to restore either that or some other monarch then,
“There is no doubt that all international Social-Democracy, as well as the really internationalist section of Social-Democracy in the little country, would be against substituting a republic for the monarchy in this case. The substitution of a republic for a monarchy is not an absolute, but one of the democratic demands, subordinate to the interests of democracy (and still more, of course, to those of the socialist proletariat) as a whole.”
(ibid)
And, this is emphasised in the Theses On The National and Colonial Questions.
“In all their propaganda and agitation—both within parliament and outside it—the Communist parties must consistently expose that constant violation of the equality of nations and of the guaranteed rights of national minorities which is to be seen in all capitalist countries, despite their “democratic” constitutions. It is also necessary, first, constantly to explain that only the Soviet system is capable of ensuring genuine equality of nations, by uniting first the proletarians and then the whole mass of the working population in the struggle against the bourgeoisie; and, second, that all Communist parties should render direct aid to the revolutionary movements among the dependent and underprivileged nations (for example, Ireland, the American Negroes, etc.) and in the colonies.
Without the latter condition, which is particularly important, the struggle against the oppression of dependent nations and colonies, as well as recognition of their right to secede, are but a false signboard, as is evidenced by the parties of the Second International.
10) Recognition of internationalism in word, and its replacement in deed by petty-bourgeois nationalism and pacifism, in all propaganda, agitation and practical work, is very common, not only among the parties of the Second International, but also among those which have withdrawn from it, and often even among parties which now call themselves communist...
sixth, the need constantly to explain and expose among the broadest working masses of all countries, and particularly of the backward countries, the deception systematically practised by the imperialist powers, which, under the guise of politically independent states, set up states that are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and militarily. Under present-day international conditions there is no salvation for dependent and weak nations except in a union of Soviet republics.”
No comments:
Post a Comment