The same is seen with the Ukraine-Russia war. On one side, the social-imperialists of the USC, AWL, ACR, like the Stalinists, in China, in the 1920's, proclaim that they know that imperialism and the Ukrainian capitalist state is acting only in its own interests, and, presumably, know, likewise, that, like the KMT, it will betray them, at a time of its choosing. Yet, despite that, they proclaim that imperialism and the capitalist state defends workers' interests!!! Not only that, but despite the fact that both imperialism and the Ukrainian state are already attacking workers' interests, they fail to warn against it, or prepare workers to fight against it, physically or ideologically. They cannot do so, because, despite their fantasies, their whole outlook relies on NATO and the capitalist state fighting their battles for them, of being the agent of achieving its moral imperative.
Rather than organising workers to fight that imperialism, and the capitalist state, they sow illusions in it, and, like the liberal media, they have put in a locked draw all of those earlier accounts of the corrupt, illiberal nature of the Ukrainian regime, of Zelensky, all of the accounts of its connections to neo-Nazis and white supremacists, etc. Zelensky even offended the Jerusalem Post with his whitewashing of the role of Ukrainian nationalists in the Holocaust. Yet, even sections of the liberal media have been unable to deny it, Now, as with Stalin's suppression of Khitarov's account, any attempt to refer back to those previous criticisms, by the liberal media, is labelled propaganda for Putin! Some of the same elements, i.e. the AWL, adopt a similar position, in their support of Zionism, by portraying opposition and criticism of the genocidal actions of the Zionists, as being support for Hamas!
But, that is equally mirrored by the social-imperialists backing Russia, who, in an attempt to justify their support for Putin, talk about an “anti-imperialist” war, and similarly dismiss criticism of his regime as NATO propaganda, with both camps talking in hallucinatory terms about the war on both sides being a liberation struggle, conducted by workers, as against what it most clearly is, a reactionary war, fought by capitalist states, both components of competing global imperialist blocs!
Khitarov noted,
“The Communist government, in the first place, did not begin to work for a long time under the excuse that, on the one hand, the bourgeois part of the government did not want to get to work, sabotaging it, and, on the other hand, because the Wuhan government did not approve of the composition of the Shanghai government. Of the activity of this government three decrees are known, and one of them, by the way, speaks of the preparation of a triumphal reception to Chiang Kai-shek who was expected to arrive in Shanghai.” (p 269)
In other words, the Stalinists knew that Chiang Kai Shek was preparing a coup against them, and yet, rather than warn the workers of it, they hid it from them, and even prepared a triumphal reception for him, as they continued to appease the bourgeoisie. This picture has been repeated endless times, and would have been seen in Russia, in 1917, on the basis of the Menshevist approach, were it not for Lenin and Trotsky, mobilising and warning against it. It was seen, in France, after 1934, in Spain, in Chile, and so on. It is being repeated, again, now, in Ukraine and Russia.
On a smaller scale, its seen again with the Popular Front in France. In order to obtain the limited, bourgeois-democratic goal of defeating the National Rally in an election, the left cobbled together an unprincipled, lowest common denominator, rotten bloc that even gave social-imperialist backing to Ukrainian/NATO imperialism. It was obvious that, even if it achieved the limited, ephemeral objective of electorally defeating the NR, it would simply enable a further erosion of working-class consciousness and support, and strengthening of the petty-bourgeois forces backing NR. More significantly, it was obvious that, as with the French PF in the 1930's, its unprincipled basis would see its Right flank, break away, and betray the Left.
That was seen in the second round of voting, when the PF stood down its own candidates in favour of those of Macron, in those contests where the Macronists had come second, denying workers even the chance of voting for them. Inevitably, that meant that the Macronists gained more votes and seats than they otherwise would have done, and allowed Macron to claim support way in excess of what he actually has. He repaid the Left of the PF, by immediately appealing to the Socialist Party component of the PF to break from it, to isolate the Left, and to join with his supporters, and elements of the Republicans/Gaullists. These are the same Republicans, the leader of which had already broken away to the Right to join with Le Pen!
Of course, if, subsequently, the Left, having been isolated, and despite its own inadequate politics, were still to advance, then, as with the experience of Germany in the 1930's, it would not just be a splinter of the Republicans that would back Le Pen, but large sections of the centre-Right, including the Macronists. As seen also, in Britain, where, having expelled large sections of the Left, Starmer's Blue Labour still lost, in elections to them, it was quite happy to see that Left and defeated by the Right, as a price worth paying, as they stated openly in the case of the defeat of Faisa Shaheen by Ian Duncan Smith.
No comments:
Post a Comment