Stalin, and the Comintern, had gone, on the basis of Socialism In One Country, and its requirement to stave off imperialist intervention in Russia, from attempts to appease the bourgeoisie and imperialism to the extreme opposite, in the form of Third Period sectarianism, and adventurism. The national communist parties remained as gatekeepers to the USSR, but, now, not to be sacrificed by selling out their own revolutions, in order to curry favour with imperialism, but by having them engage in guerrilla war, and armed insurrection, as diversions to draw away the attention of imperialism.
“In the meantime, it must be said openly: calculations based upon guerrilla adventure correspond entirely to the general nature of Stalinist policy. Two years ago, Stalin expected gigantic gains for the security of the soviet state from the alliance with the imperialists of the General Council of the British trade unions. Today, he is quite capable of calculating that a rebellion of the Chinese Communists, even without any hope, would bring “a little profit” in a precarious situation. In the first case, the calculation was grossly opportunist, in the second, openly adventurist, but in both cases, the calculation is made independently of the general tasks of the world labour movement, against these tasks and to the detriment of the correctly understood interests of the soviet republic.” (p 229)
The social-democrats, reformist socialists and centrists have always put themselves at the disposal of the bourgeoisie, in order to sustain their own privileges and comfortable lifestyle. In a sense, the policy of the Stalinists, of Socialism In One Country, was that writ large, as the soviet bureaucracy sought to put itself at the disposal of “democratic imperialism”, in the hope of being left alone, so as to feather their own nests, at home, justified as "providing breathing space". But, no benefit was gained from this position. The social-imperialists of the TUC General Council betrayed the General Strike, and lined up behind British imperialism in China, just as they had done in WWI, and would do, again, in WWII, and as they did throughout the period of British colonialism and imperialism.
The hope of avoiding further intervention, in Russia, was quickly dashed, as the British, and other ruling classes, rushed to welcome the coming to power of Il Duce, and then Hitler. Britain, in 1935, signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, in a period when the various imperialist powers, particularly in Europe, were jostling for dominance, and when they could have formed up in all sorts of alliances. The agreement was reached without consultation with or agreement with Britain's long-time imperial rival, France, and against the terms of the Versailles Treaty. At the time, sections of both the British and US ruling classes talked openly about some kind of deal, if not alliance, with Nazi Germany, that would have left his hands free to launch a war against the USSR.
Even after the war started, sections of the US ruling class continued to support Hitler, and their German factories, like those of GM and Ford, were turned over to Nazi war production, whilst, in Britain, Lord Halifax, representing a faction of the ruling class, continued to seek a peace deal with Hitler. They all maintained normal relations with the German central bank, even during the war.
These social-imperialist agents of the bourgeoisie have always existed, and the alliance of the CP with them arose from this attempt to preserve the USSR from further attack, which is the same sentiment of providing “breathing space”, used by opportunists and centrists, today. It was the consequence of the theory of Socialism In One Country, and of the stages theory, in opposition to that of Permanent Revolution. But, what is the excuse of those on the “Left”, today?
In the 1980's, sections of the “Left”, around the WRP, acted as apologists for Gaddafi's regime in Libya, and the basis of it was money channelled from that regime. The CP always obtained money from the USSR, channelled through support for The Morning Star. Elements of social-imperialism, in the camp of Putin and Xi, are undoubtedly provided with similar support, in all sorts of ways, as was also seen with the financial and other support for the Brexit campaign. Some are given TV shows, and so on. But, the same applies to the social imperialists in the opposing camp of NATO/Ukraine, in which former leftists no doubt look forward to their capitulation being rewarded by being provided with safe Labour parliamentary seats, peerages, offers of future ministerial posts, with defence portfolios, and so on, or else jobs as special advisors, members of think tanks and so on, not to mention the simple provision of cash to organisations and fronts, as bungs in brown paper envelopes.
The Stalinists were unable to provide the details explaining why the about face had taken place, in China, and so kept schtum, seeking to close the mouths of their critics. Within a short period, after the start of the Third Period, in 1929, it again had to be reversed, in similar manner, following the victory of Hitler in 1933, and renewed fears of a war against the USSR, as Germany, Italy and Japan created the Anti-Comintern Alliance. The social-imperialists on the “Left” are similarly unable to explain or justify their own swings in position, today, and so respond with silence, dishonesty and distortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment