In practice, even the Chinese Stalinists, and the ECCI representative, had to acknowledge this was the case, and that it had the character of permanent revolution. But, Stalin, and the Comintern, as a result of making PR the basis of their factional struggle with Trotsky, had to deny it.
“The resolution of the February (1928) Plenum, the key to the corresponding parts of the draft program of the Sixth Congress, says concerning the Chinese revolution:
“It is wrong to characterize it as a ‘permanent’ revolution [the position of the representative of ECCI]. The tendency to skip [?] over the bourgeois-democratic phase of the revolution with a simultaneous [?] appraisal of the revolution as a ‘permanent revolution’ is a mistake similar to that which Trotsky made in 1905 [?].”” (p 129)
The Opposition had described the position of the Chinese CP's Central Committee, as influenced by the Comintern, as opportunist. But, Stalin and his supporters, said this was slanderous, and described the leadership of Tchen Duxiu, and the Central Committee, as flawless. That same leadership, according to Tang Pingshan,
“... as soon as the first manifestations of Trotskyism made their appearance, the Communist Party of China and the Young Communist League immediately adopted a unanimous resolution against Trotskyism.” (p 130)
That was before those same opportunist errors led to the coup by Chiang Kai Shek, and, then, the betrayal of their hopes by Wang Chin Wei. Then,
“the leaders of the Communist Party of China, from having been a model, were re-christened in twenty-four hours as Mensheviks, and turned out. At the same time, it was declared that the new leaders fully represented the line of the Comintern. But as soon as another serious phase came, the new Central Committee of the Communist Party of China was accused of having passed over (as we have always seen, not in words, but in deeds), to the position of the so-called “permanent revolution”. This was the path chosen also by the representative of the Comintern. This striking and unbelievable fact can be explained only by the glaring “scissors” between the instructions of the ECCI and the real dynamics of the revolution.” (p 130-1)
A look at the argument put forward by the Stalinists for opposing PR, in China, also shows what is wrong with the Popular Front, in general, whether it is motivated on the basis of carrying through a bourgeois-democratic revolution, a national independence struggle, or a fight against fascism. In all these cases, the need to establish, or support, bourgeois-democracy, so as to bloc with the bourgeoisie, as some kind of staging post, is posited as the goal, and to which the proletarian revolution, and interests of workers is then subordinated. The ECCI resolution stated,
“The present period of the Chinese revolution is a period of the bourgeois-democratic revolution which has not been completed either from the economic viewpoint (the agrarian revolution and the abolition of feudal relations) or from the viewpoint of the national struggle against imperialism (the unification of China and the establishment of national independence), or from the viewpoint of the class nature of the government (the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry).” (p 131)
No comments:
Post a Comment