The USC, and other social imperialists, use the same Stalinist tactic of the amalgam, today. They respond to any Marxist criticism of their position and betrayal of the class struggle, by claiming that it acts to support the position of Putin, and, usually, explicitly accuses those that make such a Marxist analysis of being in alliance with Putin, or, at least, being taken in by Russian propaganda, no matter how clearly those involved also oppose Putin and his regime.
“The fact that the big bourgeoisie, represented by Chiang Kai-shek, needs to break with the proletariat, and the revolutionary proletariat on the other hand needs to break with the bourgeoisie, is not an evidence of their solidarity, but of the irreconcilable class antagonism between them. The hopeless compromisers stand between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and accuse both the “extreme” wings of disrupting the national front and rendering assistance to the reaction. To accuse the Opposition of playing the game of Chamberlain, Thomas or Chiang Kai-shek is to show a narrow-minded opportunism, and at the same time to recognize involuntarily the proletarian and revolutionary character of our political line.” (p 60)
And, this, also illustrates the difference between the Marxist position of revolutionary defeatism, and the opportunist position of bourgeois defencism. Revolutionary defeatism does not mean either actively seeking the defeat of your own nation, nor refusal to defend the workers of your own nation from attacks by an invading state. The basis of revolutionary defeatism - “The Main Enemy Is At Home” - does not say it is the only enemy. The policy means not subordinating the class struggle against your own ruling class to the war that state is waging against some other state.
The manifestation of that is the refusal to vote for war credits to that state to engage in such wars, as the German and Russian revolutionaries did, in 1914. But, as Trotsky points out, when German forces invaded Russia, the revolutionaries in the Russian army, at the same time as seeking to get their comrades to mutiny, also sent messages to the German troops calling on them to do the same.
The strategy of revolutionary defeatism is, again, a strategy based on developing workers' self-government, and independent political organisation, to defend the interests of workers. So long as we are not strong enough to create independent workers' militia etc., and workers are drafted into capitalist armies, it is necessary to adopt those other positions outlined earlier, of democratic rights for soldiers and so on, whilst giving no political or financial support to the war drive of the ruling-class. Once we are strong enough to establish workers' militia etc., this implies, also, the creation of soviets, and developing dual power, in which we posit the defence of the workers' interests by these militia, not by the capitalist army, and, in the first instance, that defence is posed in terms of the need to overthrow our own capitalist state. Only then is a stance of defencism acceptable.
There is clearly a difference, here, between the position of revolutionaries inside nations where territory is invaded, and those outside. Ukrainian and Russian revolutionaries may find themselves drafted, but revolutionaries in Britain, the US, France etc. are not. The former, as a result of weakness and circumstances are forced to fight, and adopt the stance outlined. The latter are not. That makes the position of the USC, and also of the pro-Putin social imperialists all the more miserable.
“The Berlin Conference of the Anglo-Russian Committee which coincided with the beginning of British intervention in China, did not even dare to allude to the question of effective measures to take against the hangman’s work of British imperialism in the Far East. Could a more striking proof be found that the Anglo-Russian Committee is incapable of moving as much as a finger towards really preventing war? But it is not simply useless. It has brought immeasurable harm to the revolutionary movement, like every illusion and hypocrisy.” (p 60)
No comments:
Post a Comment