The Stalinists accused the Opposition of calling for soviets, in China, in 1926, whilst opposing the call for them in Germany, in the Autumn of 1923, but, that simply showed that they did not understand that, failing to establish them at the point of a rising revolutionary wave is opportunist, whereas calling for them when that wave has ebbed is adventurist.
“On no other point, perhaps, has the scholastic spirit in political thought been expressed so strikingly as on this. Yes, we demanded for China, at the right time, the creation of soviets as independent organizations of workers and peasants, when the wave ran high. The chief significance of the soviets was to be that of setting up the workers and peasants against the bourgeoisie of the Guomindang and its left-wing agency. The slogan of soviets in China meant, in the first place, the break-up of the suicidal, shameful “bloc of the four classes” and the withdrawal of the Communist Party from the Guomindang. The centre of gravity consequently lay not in a sterile organizational form, but in a class political line.” (p 149-50)
The epigones and social-imperialists of the USC/AWL would do well to listen to Trotsky, here, compared to their attempt to turn him into a tame supporter of bourgeois-democracy, and the Spanish Popular Front, in an attempt to cover their own alliance with the reactionary government of Zelensky. Similarly, the other "idiot anti-imperialists", who believe that Marxists have to form a "bloc of four classes" with the Palestinian nationalist bourgeoisie, let alone the reactionary, clerical-fascists of Hamas, will find no succour in the positions of Marx and Engels, nor Lenin and Trotsky.
“In the autumn of 1923 in Germany, on the contrary, it was a question of organizational form only. As a result of the extreme passivity, the backwardness, and the tardiness of the leadership of the Comintern and of the Communist Party of Germany, the favourable moment for a call for the organization of soviets was missed; under pressure from below, the factory Committees occupied in the labour movement of Germany, by the autumn of 1923, the place which, provided the Communist Party had followed a correct and daring policy, would no doubt have been occupied much more successfully by soviets.” (p 150)
But, then, to belatedly call for soviets would have led to confusion and delay. Soviets, created at the time of the revolutionary upsurge, would have been preferable, but, now they would simply duplicate a role already being performed – though not as well – by the factory committees.
“The acuteness of the situation had in the meantime reached its highest degree. To lose further time would mean definitely to miss a revolutionary situation. The uprising was finally put on the agenda with very little time left. To advance the slogan of soviets under such conditions would have been the greatest doctrinaire stupidity conceivable. The soviet is not a talisman which has within itself the power of saving everything. In a situation such as had then developed, the creation of soviets in a hurry would only have duplicated the factory committees. It would have become necessary to deprive the latter of their revolutionary functions and to pass these over to the newly created soviets which enjoyed no authority as yet. And at what time? Under conditions when each day counted. This would have meant to substitute for revolutionary action a most injurious game of playing with trifles in the field of organization.” (p 150-51)
Soviet organisation is a powerful tool if utilised at the right time, and on the basis of a correct political line. The same is true of workers' control, or other transitional demands, like a sliding scale of wages. But, workers' control can be used by bourgeois reformists to simply dupe the workers and incorporate them, as with Mondism etc. The Heath Government, in the 1970's introduced the indexing of wages to prices, as a means of demobilising workers strikes over pay.
“German soviets, created at the very last moment in the autumn of 1923, would have added nothing politically, they would only have caused organizational confusion. What happened in Canton was even worse. The soviet which was created in a hurry, only so as to observe the ritual, was merely a camouflage for an adventurist putsch. That is why we found out, after it was all over, that the Canton Soviet was just one of those old Chinese dragons – it was simply drawn on paper. The policy of marionettes and paper dragons is not our policy. We were against improvising soviets by telegraph in Germany in September 1923. We were for the creation of soviets in China in 1926. We were against carnival soviets in Canton in December 1927.” (p 151)
No comments:
Post a Comment