2. The Perspectives of the Revolution According To Stalin
The social-imperialists of the USC, and its component organisations, demand the arming of Zelensky's corrupt, anti-working-class government, just as Stalin armed the anti-working-class government of the KMT. Social-imperialists like the AWL's Jim Denham, argue that imperialism and the capitalist state are the defenders of workers' interests. Exactly the same arguments were made, by Stalin, in support of the subordination of Chinese workers to the KMT, as the social-imperialists, and social patriots subordinate, today, workers to Zelensky and NATO.
Trotsky quotes the same “scandalous” arguments made by Stalin, as those seen, today, from the likes of Jim Denham and the social-imperialists.
““The revolutionary armies in China [that is, the armies of Chiang Kai-shek] are the most important factor in the struggle of the Chinese workers and peasants for their liberation. For the advance of the Cantonese means a blow at imperialism, a blow at its agents in China, and freedom of assembly, freedom of press, freedom of organization for all the revolutionary elements in China in general and for the workers in particular.” [Perspectives on The Chinese Revolution, p 46]” (p 264)
And, today, Jim Denham of the AWL, argues, similarly, that imperialism (NATO), and the Ukrainian capitalist state defends workers interests. Stalin claimed that the army of Chiang Kai Shek was the army of workers and peasants, bearing freedom for the whole population, “for the workers in particular”. The social-imperialists make the same false argument, today. Of course, all national armies comprise, mostly, foot soldiers from the labouring classes, even in professional armies, but they are under the control of bourgeois commanders, themselves instruments of a bourgeois state, fighting for bourgeois interests, not those of workers!
The social-imperialists of the AWL, of course, simultaneously deny that they are "pro-NATO", even as they promote it as a defender of workers' interests. Responding to such a charge, from the SWP and Morning Star, Jim Denham writes, citing various articles on the AWL website,
"The latter article states plainly: “NATO remains far from a benign force. It is imperialist. We oppose NATO expansion, call for British withdrawal and advocate the organisation’s dissolution.”
But, that is no different to their methodology in general, in which they make these abstract statements that say one thing, to give cover to the pretence of continuing to be adherents of Marxism, whilst, in practice, for example, in supporting NATO's role in Ukraine, Serbia/Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya makes the abstract statements of opposition to NATO meaningless, and just a lie. Their position is "Please, God, make me an opponent of NATO, but not, yet!" It is similarly, "Please God, make me a Marxist, but not yet".
The lying, hypocritical nature of the AWL an be seen in this. On the one hand, as the abstract statement of aims, above, sets out they seek the dissolution of NATO. Here and now, however, they call on that same NATO to provide weapons and logistical support to the imperialist state in Ukraine, and even condemn NATO for not having supplied enough or the latest weapons to the Ukrainian military. They condemn those Marxists that oppose the supply of weapons by NATO imperialism to its Ukrainian proxy. But, if they want NATO to supply those arms and logistical support, why do they, at the same time, call for NATO's dissolution? If they achieved that latter aim, the former aim makes no sense, and could not be raised let alone achieved! You could not demand that a non-existent NATO supplied weapons and logistics to Ukraine!
As Trotsky pointed out, the Stalinists did exactly the same in China, setting out numerous statements of their opposition to putschism, but, in practice, on a day to day basis encouraging the Chinese communists to engage in such action! Not only did it sow confusion and demoralisation, but those of its rank and file, in China, tat tried to argue the official position, in opposition to putschism, when it came to these insurrections, found themselves expelled.
According to Stalin, little was required for the success of the revolution.
““The student youth (the revolutionary youth), the working youth, the peasant youth – all these are a force that can advance the revolution with seven league boots, if it should be subordinated to the ideological and political influence of the Guomindang.” [ibid p 55]” (p 264)
The social-imperialists argue in similar vein, because they have abandoned the concept of socialist revolution, and become bourgeois liberals, whose goal in life, now, is limited only to the perspective of bourgeois-democracy, and the continued exploitation of workers, under its auspices, but, perhaps, only with some amelioration of its condition.
“In this manner, the task of the Comintern consisted not of liberating the workers and peasants from the influence of the bourgeoisie but, on the contrary, of subordinating them to its influence. This was written in the days when Chiang Kai-shek, armed by Stalin, marched at the head of the workers and peasants subordinated to him, “with seven-league boots”, towards. the Shanghai coup d’état.” (p 264)
Today, Zelensky and NATO, and the EU, march to the reconstruction conference, in London, salivating at the prospect of extracting even more surplus value from Ukrainian workers, whose leaders have capitulated and completely abased themselves, and from the pillaging of Ukraine's considerable natural resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment