14. The Period of Putschism
The policy and strategy of Stalinism had demobilised the Chinese workers, subordinating them to the Chinese bourgeoisie, via the KMT, in the name of petty-bourgeois nationalism, and “anti-imperialism”. It replaced the goal of the Communist Party, to fight for International Socialism, and the self-determination of the working-class, with the limited goal of bourgeois-liberalism, for bourgeois-democracy and national self-determination.
Having done so, it led the Chinese workers into the slaughter of, first, Chiang Kai Shek's coup, then, the counter-revolution of the KMT, and, then, the adventurist disaster of the Canton insurrection. The Opposition had correctly warned of these errors and betrayals, from the start. The Stalinist response was predictable – expel and silence the Opposition.
At its Ninth Plenum, in February 1928, the ECCI passed the following resolution.
“The ECCI makes it the duty of all its sections to fight against the slanders of the Social Democrats and the Trotskyists who assert that the Chinese revolution has been liquidated.” (p 287)
The Stalinists had been the ones that had adopted the opportunist and tailist policies of social-democracy, with their adherence to the Menshevist “stages theory”. The Mensheviks, who had supported Stalin in that strategy, throughout, saw Chiang Kai Shek's coup as the victory of the bourgeois, national revolution, just as, today, the USC identify the victory of Zelensky and NATO with such success.
“The Left Opposition considers that the victory of Chiang Kai-shek is the defeat of the national revolution.” (p 287)
And, of course, the Opposition had never said that the Chinese Revolution had been liquidated, only that the Second Chinese Revolution (1925-7) had been liquidated, as a result of the errors and betrayals of Stalinism. Before long, the ECCI would be forced to, also, accept that reality, if not its culpability. The Opposition had analysed the situation and warned that the revolution was ebbing. However, Stalin claimed it was heading for insurrection.
“On February 7, 1928, Pravda wrote:
“The Chinese Communist Party is heading towards an armed insurrection. The whole situation in China speaks for the fact that this is the correct course. Experience proves that the Chinese Communist Party must concentrate all its efforts on the task of the day-to-day and widespread careful preparation of the armed insurrection.”” (p 288)
As discussed, previously, the Stalinists couched their analysis in vague terms, to enable them to reinterpret it, at a later date, claiming their infallibility, and blaming the local leaders for any failures. As I have set out some time ago, Starrmer, has operated on a similar basis, in the Labour Party, as for example, with his pushing of the environmental agenda, and reduction in emissions, followed by the blaming of Saddiq Khan, and the ULEZ scheme, for Labour's loss of the Uxbridge by-election. But, Starmer lies and changes position so readily that no one can believe anything he says, as this video also sets out vividly.
The Stalinists made generalised statements about putschism, but the day to day instructions encouraged adventurism.
“The Ninth Plenum of the ECCI, with ambiguous bureaucratic reservations on putschism, approved this adventurist line. The object of these reservations is known: to create holes for the “leaders” to crawl into in the event of a new retreat.
The criminally light-minded resolution of the Ninth Plenum meant for China: new adventures, new skirmishes, breaking away from the masses, the loss of positions, the consuming of the best revolutionary elements in the fire of adventurism, the demoralization of the remnants of the Party. The whole period between the conference of the Chinese party on August 7, 1927, and the Sixth Congress of the Comintern on July 8, 1928, is permeated through and through with the theory and practice of putschism. This is how the Stalinist leadership was dealing with final blows to the Chinese revolution and the Communist Party.” (p 288)
From a rising revolutionary wave and inevitability of armed insurrection that drove forward the disaster of the Canton rebellion, the Stalinists were, ultimately, forced to conclude, at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International, in July 1928,
““The Canton uprising was objectively already a ‘rearguard battle’ of the receding revolution.” [Pravda, July 27, 1928.]” (p 289)
That was clearly true “objectively”, but what about subjectively, in the minds of the Stalinist leaders, Trotsky asks. Did they recognise, now, that this was the case, and their role in bringing it about?
“At the Sixth Congress the Chinese delegate, Chan Fi-Yun, reported:
“The defeat of the Canton insurrection has delivered a still heavier blow to the Chinese proletariat. The first stage of the revolution was in this manner ended with a series of defeats. In the industrial centres, a depression is being felt in the labour movement.” [Pravda, July 17, 1928, No.164.]” (p 289)
Of course, the Stalinists did not recognise their culpability. The Second Revolution that had been liquidated, was claimed to be still ongoing, but paused, having completed its first phase, the next phase to resume at some future date. This was justified, theoretically, by Bukharin's bowdlerised theory of permanent revolution, devoid of any historical or class dynamic.
No comments:
Post a Comment