The Kiangsu Committee reported,
“After the conference of August 7 (1927), the Central Committee should have assumed the responsibility for the putschist tendencies, for it demanded rigorously of the local committees that the new political line be applied; if anybody was not in agreement with the new line, without further ceremony he was not permitted to renew his party card and even comrades who had already carried out this operation were expelled. At this time, the putschist mood was making headway throughout the Party; if anybody expressed doubts about the policy of uprisings, he was immediately called an opportunist and pitilessly attacked. This circumstance provoked great friction within the Party organizations.” (p 219-20)
The consequence was also a disorganisation of the party, because, whilst it made public and theoretical declarations, warning against “putschism”, its own theory was based on the theory of the “permanent” rise of the revolutionary tide, and the manifestation of it was in the organisation of armed insurrections. Consequently, only those who “silently” accepted the organisation of such insurrections could be allowed to remain in the party, because, either, open advocacy of such adventurism conflicted with the public party line, of the danger of putschism, or else, an active opposition to the organisation of such insurrections meant challenging the party line about the permanent rise of the revolutionary tide. It introduced an inevitable dishonesty into the character of the party, and its membership, a feature that is again seen with the nature of the petty-bourgeois sects, today. Such behaviour is itself corrosive and inevitably leads to defeat.
“The Kiangsu resolution sets forth that
“The Central Committee continues not to take notice of the defeats and the depressed mood of the workers; it does not see that this situation is the result of the mistakes of its leadership.” (p.6.)
But that is not all:
“The Central Committee accuses someone or other [just so! – L.T.] for the fact that:
“a) the local committees have not sufficiently well checked up on the reorganization;“b) the worker and peasant elements are not pushed ahead;“c) the local organizations are not purged of opportunist elements, etc.”
All this happens abruptly, by telegraph: somehow or other, the mouth of the Opposition must be closed.” (p 220)
The contradiction of the party's position, both in theory and as observed in its practice, and against reality, are inevitably made apparent, when compared to the warnings of the Opposition. The same is seen, today, so that the warnings of authentic Marxists against the theories and actions of the petty-bourgeois “Left” that tries to claim that it is acting in line with Marxist, or even Trotskyist principles, cuts like burning knives into the flesh of these organisations, each time some new test of them arises, as with the Ukraine-Russia war. The sects are, then, as with the Stalinists, in 1925-7, led to try to respond to that criticism by closing it down, by any means, including bureaucracy, abuse, calumny and systematic dishonesty.
Its interesting that the social-imperialists, backing NATO/Ukraine, dishonestly accuse the authentic Marxists of being supporters of Putin, whilst the opposing camp of social-imperialists backing Russia-China accuse them of backing NATO! It is evidence of the fact that these campists, on both sides, have to resort to this obvious dishonesty, in order to justify their own line, as against the position of the authentic Marxists of opposing both imperialist camps, and, instead, supporting the independent camp of the international proletariat.
No comments:
Post a Comment