The colonial policy was the result of a debate between Lenin and M. N. Roy at the Second Congress of the Communist International. The center of this debate was: What attitude should the communist parties in developing countries take towards the bourgeois ? Here Lenin (and Stalin) stressed the need to ally with the national bourgeois in a colonial revolution. Roy made a Trotskyite error in his draft supplementary thesis assuming that all sections of the bourgeois was counter revolutionary.
"Afraid of revolution, the nationalist bourgeoisie would compromise with imperialism in return for some economic and political concessions to their class. The working class should be prepared to take over at that crisis the leadership of the struggle of national liberation and transform it into a revolutionary mass movement."
This was made in response to Lenin's original draft thesis that said:
"All the Communist parties must assist the bourgeois democratic liberation movement in these (i.e. colonial type countryside).. The Communist International (CI) must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in colonial and backward countries."
"I would like to particularly emphasize the question of the bourgeois democratic movements in backward countries. It was this question that gave rise to some disagreement. We argued about whether it would be correct, in principle and in theory, to declare that the CI and the CP's should support the bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries. As a result of this discussion we unanimously decided to speak of the nationalist- revolutionary movements instead of the 'bourgeois-democratic' movement. There is not the slightest doubt that every nationalist movement can only be a bourgeois-democratic movement.. But it was agreed that if we speak about the bourgeois-democratic movement all distinction between reformist and revolutionary movements will be obliterated; whereas in recent times this distinction has been fully and clearly revealed in the backward and colonial countries, of the imperialist bourgeois is trying with all its might to implant the reformist movement also among the oppressed nations.. In the Commission this was proved irrefutably, and we came to the conclusion that the only correct thing to do was to take this distinction into consideration and nearly everywhere to substitute the term "nationalist- revolutionary" for the term » bourgeois -democratic". The meaning of this change is that we communists should, and will, support bourgeois liberation movements only when these movement do not hinder us in training and organising the peasants and the broad masses of the exploited in a revolutionary spirit.. The above mentioned distinction has now been drawn in all the theses, and I think that, thanks to this, our point of view has been formulated much more precisely. "
In the above thesis, Lenin is using the word "must assist the bourgeois democratic liberation movement" and not "must lead the bourgeois democratic liberation movement.
However Lenin saw a positive feature in Roy's analysis: That in a national-democratic movement, when the working class takes control over it, the national bourgeois would betray it and go over to the imperialist side. The national bourgeois would prefer a subordinate exploiting position to the imperialist bourgeois rather than the possibility of the working class to transform the revolution into a socialist one. This was the position adopted at the 4th Congress of the CI in November 1922 in a document called the "Theses on the Eastern Question"
"At first the indigenous bourgeois and intelligentsia are the champions of the colonial revolutionary movements, but as the proletarian and semi-proletarian peasant masses are drawn in, the bourgeois and bourgeois-agrarian elements begin to turn away from the movement in proportion as the social interests of the lower classes of people come to the forefront."
This is completely in line with Stalin's view :
"The situation is somewhat different in countries like India. The fundamental and new feature of the conditions of life in countries like India is not only that the national bourgeoisie has split up into a revolutionary part and a compromising part, but primarily that the compromising section of the bourgeoisie has already managed, in the main, to strike a deal with imperialism. Fearing revolution more than it fears imperialism, and concerned with more about its money bags than about the interests of its own country, this section of the bourgeoisie is going over entirely to the camp of the irreconcilable enemies of the revolution, it is forming a bloc with imperialism against the workers and peasants of its own country." (University of the Toilers of the East)
Also it should be noted that Stalin took great care to distinguish the different types of colonial countries:
"Firstly countries like Morocco who have little or no proletariat, and are industrially quite undeveloped. Secondly countries like China and Egypt which are under- developed industries and have a relatively small proletariat. Thirdly countries like India.. capitalistic ally more or less developed and have a more or less numerous national proletariat. Clearly all these countries cannot possibly be put on a par with one another." In countries like Egypt and China, where the national bourgeoisie has already split up into a revolutionary party and a compromising party, but where the compromising section of the bourgoise is not yet able to join up with imperialism, the Communists can no longer set themselves the aim of forming a united national front against imperialism. In such countries the Communists must pass from the policy of a united national front to the policy of a revolutionary bloc of the workers and the petty bourgeoisie. In such countries that bloc can assume the form of a single party, a workers and peasants' party, provided, however, that this distinctive party actually represents a bloc of two forces - the Communist Party and the party of the revolutionary petty bourgeois. The tasks of this bloc are to expose the half- heartiness and inconsistency of the national bourgeoisie and to wage a determined struggle against imperialism. Such a dual party is necessary and expedient provided it does not bind the Communist Party hand and foot, provided it does not restrict the freedom of the Communist Party to conduct agitation and propaganda work, provided it does not hinder the rallying of the proletarians around and provided it facilitates the actual leadership of the revolutionary movement by the Communist party. Such a dual party is unnecessary and inexpedient if to does not conform to all these conditions for it can only lead to the Communist elements becoming dissolved in the ranks of the bourgeoisie to the Communist Party losing the proletarian army. The situation is somewhat different in countries like India. The fundamental and new feature of the conditions of life in countries like India is not only that the national bourgeoisie has split up into a revolutionary part and a compromising part, but primarily that the compromising section of the bourgeoisie has already managed, in the main, to strike a deal with imperialism, Fearing revolution more than it fears imperialism, and concerned with more about its money bags than about the interests of its own country, this section of the bourgeoisie is going over entirely to the camp of the irreconcilable enemies of the revolution, it is forming a bloc with imperialism against the workers and peasants of its own country."
About China 1927
Contrary to the Trotskyites', Stalin never insisted that in the 2 stages of revolution, the 2nd stage of socialism be put off i n the far off future.
"To attempt to raise an artificial Chinese wall between the first and second revolutions, to separate them by anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of unity with the poor peasants, is monstrously to distort Marxism, to vulgarize it, to put liberalism in its place".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky' (November 1918), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 7; London; 1946; p. 191).
"Lenin himself maintained the point of view of uninterrupted revolution".
(Josef V. Stalin: 'The Foundations of Leninism' (April/May 1924), in: 'Works', Volume 6; Moscow
So now we have established the correct line on colonial revolution established by Lenin and the ComIntern in 1922. Now, what happened to first revolution in China ? Was it wrecked by Stalin as Trotsky maintained ? No. The revolution was wrecked by the Chinese CP itself which ignored Roy's contribution on the vacillations of the native bourgeoisie. Here is Stalin's thesis on the subject.
"What are the stages in the Chinese Revolution? In my opinion there should be three:
The first stage is the revolution of an all-national united front, the Canton period, when the revolution was striking chiefly at foreign imperialism, and the national bourgeoisie supported the revolutionary movement;
The second stage is the bourgeois democratic revolution, after the national troops reached the Yangtze River, when the national bourgeoisie deserted the revolution and the agrarian movement grew into a mighty revolution of tens of millions of the peasantry. The Chinese revolution is now at the second stage of its development;
The third stage is the Soviet revolution which has not yet come, but will come."
The CCP would refuse Stalin and the ComIntern's advice to move from the first stage to the second allowing for Trotsky and Zionvev to criticize Stalin for not showing the Chinese CP the betrayal of the Kumitang in the revolution. But Stalin did warn them:
"It is necessary to adopt the course of arming the workers and peasants and converting the peasant committees in the localities into actual organs of governmental authority equipped with armed self-defence, etc.. The CP must not come forward as a brake on the mass movement; the CP should not cover up the treacherous and reactionary policy of the Kuomintang Rights, and should mobilise the masses around the Kuomintang and the CCP on the basis of exposing the Rights... The Chinese revolution is passing through a critical period, and.. it can achieve further victories only by resolutely adopting the course of developing the mass movement. Otherwise a tremendous danger threatens the revolution. The fulfilment of directives is therefore more necessary than ever before."
In February 1926, the Executive Council of the CI wrote a directive sent to the CC of the CCP stating that they had 2 choices: to either attempt to maintain the alliance with the national bourgeoisie, who were on the point of desertion of the national democratic revolution; Or; cement an alliance with the peasantry through the agrarian revolution. Failing to choose the latter would be disastrous. Emphasized in this was the need to carry out the agrarian struggle.
"In the present transitional stage of the development of the revolution, the agrarian stage of the development of the revolution, the agrarian question becomes the central question. The class which .. succeeds in giving a radical answer to it will be the leader of the revolution".
Stalin repeatedly urged the CCP, through 1926 and early 1927 to break the bloc with the right KMT and move to a militant revolutionary struggle. Stalin commented on the betrayal of Chiang Kia Shek with the revolution when the Koumitang launched its coup on April 12 killing Shanghai militant workers and communists.
"In the First period of the Chinese revolution.. the national bourgeoisie (not the compradors) sided with the revolution...Chiang Kai-Shek's coup marks the desertion of the national bourgeoisie from revolution". April , 1927.
In May 23, 1927 Roy warned the CCP that a coup was eminent and to carry out the agrarian struggle. Instead Chen Tu-hsiu wrote a telegram to the ECCI :
"90% of the National Army are.. opposed to excesses in the peasants' movement. In such a situation, not only the KMT but also the CCP is obliged to adopt a policy of concessions, It is necessary to correct excesses and to moderate the activities of the confiscation of land."
The CCP failed to carry out the advice of Stalin and the Comitern. In July the coup came. On the 15th, the Communist ministers resigned from the Wuhan government to make the government look "more respectible." It was to no avail, the the KMT expelled members of the CCP from the KMT and the army. Stalin characterized this period as the Stalin characterized the new development as the desertion of the petty -bourgeois intelligentsia from the revolution:
"The present period is marked by the desertion of the Wuhan leadership of the KMT to the camp of counter- revolutionary intelligentsia from the revolution.. This desertion is due firstly to the fear .. In face of the agrarian revolution and to the pressure of the feudal landlords on the Wuhan leadership, and secondly to the pressure of the imperialists in the Tientsin are who are demanding that the KMT break with the Communists as the price for permitting passage Northwards."
But Stalin pointed out that NOW it was correct to propagandize in favor of the formation of soviets. This was made contrary to Trotsky who wanted Soviets from the beginning when it was not a correct tactic.
"If in the near future - not necessarily in a couple of months, but in 6 months or a year from now, a new upsurge of the revolution should become a fact, the question of forming Soviets of Workers and peasant' deputies may become a live issue as a slogan of the day, and as a counterpoise to the bourgeoisie. Why? Because if there has been an upsurge of the revolution in its present phase of development, the formation of Soviets will be an issue that has come fully mature. Recently a few months ago it would have been wrong for the CCP to issue the slogan of forming soviets, for that would been adventurism, which is characteristic of our opposition, for the KMT leadership had not yet discredited itself as an enemy of the revolution. Now on the contrary, the slogan of forming Soviets may become a really revolutionary slogan if (If!) A new and powerful revolutionary upsurge takes place in the near future. Consequently alongside the fight to replace the present KMT leadership by a revolutionary leadership it is necessary at once even before the upsurge begins to conduct the widest propaganda for the idea of Soviets among the broad masses of the working people, without running too far ahead and forming Soviets immediately, remembering that Soviets can only flourish at a time of powerful revolutionary upsurge."
Instead of moving to the correct line, the CCP would later swing from right opportunism to left opportunism. On December 11, 1928 the CCP carried out an ill prepared insurrection. It was drowned in blood at the hands of the KMT. They would also try to carry out the ComIntern's advice on land reform but it was to late; the revolution was destroyed. The cost to the party was 4/5's of its membership. A reduction of 50,000 to 10,000 by the end of 1927.
No comments:
Post a Comment