5. Appendix – A Remarkable Document
Theoretical science can make predictions about the nature of reality that may not be immediately verifiable by empirical observation. For example, it predicts the existence of chemical elements whose actual existence has not been observed. It predicted the existence of planets, in the solar system, which, at the time, had not been observed, and so on.
Of course, theoretical science, itself, is based upon past and current observation of that real world, and analysis of it, without which the theories themselves could not be formulated. Without chemistry analysing the atomic composition of known elements, it could not have developed the laws that enabled it to draw up The Periodic Table, and, thereby, to identify the gaps within it, indicating the existence of elements which, currently, have not been, physically observed. Without studying existing planets, and planetary movement, science could not have developed the theory of gravity, and so could not have, likewise, identified the existence of other planets, not then observed.
The reason this document, produced by the Kiangsu District Committee of the Chinese Communist Party on May 7, 1928, is remarkable is that those that produced it were adherents of the ideas and theories of Stalin/Bukharin, and not Trotsky, whose ideas and statements they, almost certainly, did not know. Yet, what is contained in this document is an observation of the real world as they experienced it, and this observation confirms the theory, not of Stalin/Bukharin, but that of Trotsky and the Opposition. Its for that reason that it can be said that its authors were unaware of the statements of the Opposition, because, if they were, they would not have produced a document so in conformity with them, as they knew, by this time, what costs, in the regime of Stalinism, they would incur for doing so.
“This resolution, as has already been said, constitutes a truly remarkable document, in spite of the errors in principle and the political misunderstandings it contains. The essence of the resolution amounts to a deadly condemnation not only of the decisions of the Ninth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, but in general, of the whole leadership of the Comintern in the questions of the Chinese revolution. Naturally, in conformity with the whole régime existing in the Comintern, the criticism directed against the Executive Committee of the CI bears a camouflaged and conventionally diplomatic character. The immediate point of the resolution is directed against the Central Committee itself as against a responsible ministry under an irresponsible monarch who, as is known, “can do no wrong”.” (p 211)
That was typical of the bureaucratic degeneration of the International, and its component parties. Gone was open political debate and self-criticism, as each individual sought to protect themselves, and everything was couched in vague terms, able to be used to justify future events as conforming to the infallibility of the leaders.
““After the August 7 (1927) conference,” the Kiangsu Committee relates, “the Central Committee formulated a judgement on the situation which was tantamount to saying that even though the revolution had suffered a triple defeat, it is nevertheless going through a rising phase.”
This appreciation is entirely in conformity with the caricature which Bukharin makes of the theory of the permanent revolution, a caricature which he applied first to Russia, then to Europe and finally to Asia. The actual events of the struggle, that is, the three defeats, are one thing and the permanent “rise” is another.” (p 211-2)
No comments:
Post a Comment