In 1914, the big imperialist powers went to war with each other, driven by the economic factors, discussed earlier, the need to create ever larger, single markets, in order that capital could produce on ever larger scales, and be able to sell into them. At first, the new large workers' parties that had been created, at the end of the 19th century, during a period of long wave expansion, and which, nominally, adhered to the ideas of Marxism, opposed the drive to war by their own ruling classes. But, in the end, having failed to overthrow those ruling classes, mostly because those parties clung to the ideas of reformism and Fabianism, they found themselves having to deal with the reality that a large section of workers themselves were being drawn in behind the war wagon. They capitulated, and found “socialist” reasons as to why they had to back their own rulers in slaughtering the workers of other countries.
In other words, they became “social patriots”, arguing that they needed to ally with their own ruling class to “defend the fatherland”. That soon became a justification, not only for such defence, but, also, for offence, for the invasion of other nations, for the annexation of their land and so on, in other words “social imperialism”. That same approach exists today on the part of the social patriots and social imperialists. The latter, for example, line up behind their own ruling class, and NATO to promote the war against Russia, using the same arguments used to support the war against Germany in 1914, invading “poor little Belgium”, and so on. Now Ukraine sends NATO produced munitions to blow up bits of Russia in Moscow, and as far away as Vladivostok! Those in the labour movement who back Brexit, whether they call it Lexit or not, simply follow the example of the “social patriots”, in 1914 and 1939, in lining up with their own national bourgeoisie. Except that, today, unlike 1914 or 1939, when it comes to Brexit, they are not even lining up with their own bourgeoisie, but worse, with the most reactionary sections of the petty-bourgeoisie!
They are like their Russian equivalents, the Narodniks, described by Lenin, who, as representatives of the peasantry and petty-bourgeoisie, despite their own intentions, ended up, actually being reactionary compared to the liberal bourgeoisie (Enlighteners).
“The enlightener believes in the present course of social development, because he fails to observe its inherent contradictions. The Narodnik fears the present course of social development, because he is already aware of these contradictions. The “disciple” (Marxist) believes in the present course of social development, because he sees the only earnest of a better future in the full development of these contradictions. The first and last trends therefore strive to support, accelerate, facilitate development along the present path, to remove all obstacles which hamper this development and retard it. Narodism, on the contrary, strives to retard and halt this development, is afraid of abolishing certain obstacles to the development of capitalism. The first and last trends are distinguished by what may be called historical optimism: the farther and the quicker things go as they are, the better it will be. Narodism, on the contrary, naturally tends to historical pessimism: the farther things go as they are, the worse it will be.”
This, of course, illustrates the reactionary nature, itself, of what has passed for Marxism, at least over the last 80 years. As Lenin says, genuine Marxism has more in common with the bourgeoisie and its liberal ideologists than it does with the petty-bourgeoisie and its illiberal, reactionary and protectionist ideologists, and yet much of the Left has put itself in the position of forming alliances with, and usually playing second fiddle to, the latter. In pursuing Brexit, “anti-imperialism”, and “anti-capitalism”, it has necessarily associated itself with those sentiments expressed by the petty-bourgeoisie, and its ideologists, even though their criticisms are derived from a reactionary and pessimistic perspective, as opposed to the revolutionary and optimistic perspective of genuine Marxism.
No comments:
Post a Comment