Stalin had claimed that they would toss away the bourgeoisie like a squeezed out lemon, but his statement was never released, because Trotsky points out,
“a few days later the squeezed-out lemon seized power with his army.” (p 85)
The Menshevik/Stalinist stages theory is based on the idea that the bourgeois-national revolution is progressive, and, of course, it is, but the argument they derive from this is petty-bourgeois Proudhonism, not Marxism. As Marx says, in The Poverty of Philosophy, what Proudhon failed to see is that what is progressive in capitalism is what Proudhon saw as its “bad” side, which he sought to remove, leaving only its “good” side. That “bad” side is the creation of an industrial proletariat, whose exploitation, by capital, is the basis of class struggle, which, in turn, leads to Socialism.
“To be sure, capitalist development in backward countries is also progressive. But its progressive character is not conditioned by the economic co-operation of the classes, but by the economic exploitation of the proletariat and the peasantry by the bourgeoisie. Whoever does not speak of the class struggle but of class co-operation in order to characterize capitalist progress, is not a Marxist but a prophet of peace dreams. Whoever speaks of the bloc of four classes so as to emphasize the progressive character of the political exploitation of the proletariat and peasantry by the bourgeoisie, has nothing to do with Marxism, for herein really lies the political function of the opportunists, of the “conciliators”, of the heralds of peace dreams.” (p 87)
And the same is true of capitalism's most developed form – imperialism. It is also progressive, but, in the same way that capitalism develops the productive forces, by exploiting labour-power, imperialism creates ever larger single markets via imperialist wars. Just as workers embrace the development of the productive forces – we are not Luddites - but resist capitalism's exploitation of their labour, by seeking control over those productive forces and over their surplus labour, so they embrace the creation of larger single markets, and the destruction of nation states, whilst opposing imperialist wars, and seeking to put in its place the voluntary cooperation of workers across borders.
Bukharin, as Stalin's theoretician, countered these arguments, by claiming the KMT was something different. This is always the line of opportunists and centrists that this time there is something unique about the specific conditions. It was the line taken by Nin, in Spain, and Pivert in France. Yet, as Trotsky points out, in Spain, France, Czechoslovakia, Brazil etc., despite these supposed unique conditions, the opportunists and centrists still ended up arguing for the same thing, the Popular Front with the bourgeoisie, in each case following the line of the Stalinists, and, in each case, with the same disastrous results.
Again, for those who think the Marxist position on the national question is merely to support that party or movement that represents the mass of the population, irrespective of its class character, Trotsky's attack on the Stalinists' approach, in China, is instructive. The Stalinists presented the KMT as a bloc of four classes. No, Trotsky says, it is a party of the Chinese bourgeoisie.
“In China we have the bourgeois revolution, and the dictatorship of the Guomindang is directed not only against the imperialists and the militarists but also against the proletarian class struggle. In that way, the bourgeoisie, supported by the petty bourgeoisie and the radicals, curbs the class struggle of the proletariat and the uprisings of the peasantry, strengthens itself at the cost of the masses of the people and the revolution. We stood for this, we made it easier for them to go on with it, we want to sanction it now also by talking nonsense about the “special nature” of the Guomindang without showing the proletariat the vicious class manoeuvres that have been and are concealed behind this “peculiarity”. (p 88-9)
That illustrates, also, what was wrong with the petty-bourgeois nationalist position of most of the “Left”, in the post-war national liberation struggles, including Vietnam. It shows the wholly treacherous position of the USC, in its support for Zelensky's government. Something similar can be said of the LP, and other such parties, like the US Democrats, German SPD etc. These parties are based on the working-class, and its organisations, but, like the KMT, they are bourgeois parties.
Their ideology is wholly bourgeois, their leadership is wholly bourgeois, and the permanent bureaucratic machinery is set up to ensure it stays that way. If Marxists are forced, by their weakness, to operate inside these parties, in order to gain the ear of workers, it can only be on the basis of this understanding, and with no illusion about turning them into something they are not. Marxists have to operate as politically and organisationally independent within them, to achieve that, and do so openly where possible, covertly where not. Entryism is a tactic, dictated by weakness, not a strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment