Greg Maughan's article in the latest Socialist concerning 50 years of when the Dalai Lama were military defeated by China shows that leading SP elements are more Third Campist which is becoming clear is a left cover for supporting semi-Feudal reactionary forces which Imperialism and Capitalist/Capitalist restorationist forces are attempting to utilise for the overthrow of China's workers' state. In the last few months the SP boasted in the Socialist newspaper of supporting the colour attempted counter-revoutions in the ex-Soviet Union.
Except for Kyrgystan (and Serbia which I deal with its pecularities in the next sentence) these movements were led by a wing of Stalinism which were concillationist to Imperialism which Capitalists/Capitalist restorationist pushing it to move in their direction of going back to Capitalism. In Serbia the overthrow of Milosevic during October 2000 were mostly led dynamically by workers. Outside of Albania in 1997 this was the best example of what a Political Revolution which begins to seriously challenges these Bureaucratic Castes rule will resemble. Workers mobilised in several factories/industries for the removal of pro-Milosevic managers and began a battle to begin to run them through occupations.
There are renmants of Trotskyism in Maughan's article when he contradicts the general Third Camp approach of his artcicle when he speaks what an historic breakthrough the Chinese Socialist Revolution of 1949-50 and defines the regime in China as Bureaucratic! This latter formula contradicts the SP's majority line which defines China as "Capitalist". As I explained in my statement "Birmingham Socialist Resistance makes a left turn on Russia!" that it is only a Bureaucratised workers' state where the Bureaucracy has more autumony than in a Capitalist society where all Bureaucracies are subordinate to Capitalist profit.
There is a bizare re-writing of history by Maughan where he attempts to jusifty as "progressive" of what he admits were a reactionary leadership of the uprising they attempted against Chinese miltiary rule in Tibet during 1959. His main justication for supporting this counter-revolutionary Damai-Lam-led uprising of 1959 it was a distorted reflection of the masses rejecting opportunist concessions of Chinese Stalinim to landlordism! Trotskyism correctly analyses that Chinese Stalinism's dual character involves them carrying out largely opportunist or ultra-left adventures but also out of self-preservation carry out concrete measures which is the workers' state's interest and therefore strengthens the working class which Trotskyists critically support. As Trotsky argued in "In Defence of Marxism" when a Stalinist Bureaucratic caste has to overthrow Capitalism elsewhere it effects all classes including the working class however Bureaucratically controlled and has to win the workers over in order to secure the new caste ruling. If the old ruling class resists the workers are sometimes mobilised in order to control them, and to bargain with the old ruling class of being physically destroyed by millions rising in revolutionary action. This is what happened in Tibet during 1959 where workers and peasents were mobilsied in a Socialist revolution. That is why it is absurd of Maughan to define that particular policy of Chinese Stalinsim as "opportunist towards the Landlords!" when they were at that time beig expropriated.
More research will have to be done by me (which I might do in several months time when I have more time) to show the Trotskyist attitude at the time to the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism in 1959. James Roberston when he was in regroupment talks with the American SWP gave crtiical support to the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism. Trotskyists in my opinion should have supported the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism while opposing national oppression. By Trotskyists critically supporting the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism we are in a position to weaken the Bureaucracy by supporting pro-working class battles by Tibetans against Chinese national oppresson as part of a Political Revolution. As Trotsky said in "In defence of Marxism" when Capitalism is being overthrown or a workers' State is fighting a Capitalist state the Political Revoltuion is subordiante to defending the social conquests of a workers' state.
Maughan is semi-Third Campist when he says the Tibeatan masses have gained very little in overthrowing Capitalism. The industrialisation of Tibet in recent years and establishing of modern transporation systems such for example for Trains would have been impossible without the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism. This vindicates the theory; programme; and strategy of Permanent Revolution. It is through this industrialisation and urbanisation that the working class will strengthen itself in its battle to overthrow the Bureaucracy.
Trotskyists have to oppose counter-revolutioanry led movement in Tibet by the Dali Lima because all the gains of a Workers' State in terms of its rapid development of its productive forces (which for Marxists as Marx says is the main criterian for analysing whether a particular mode of production is historically progressive or reactionary) and its indepedence from Imperialism would be smashed, which is part of Imperialism's strategy to dismember and re-Semi-Colonise China. It was clear Imperialism was behind the Tibet protests of last year. This is defence of a Trotskyist attitude of defending the gains which the Permanent Revolution has brought in practice to Chinese workers and peasents (even although the Bureaucracy dispute apscts of our theory of Permanent Revolution in China) You only have to read the West European Bourgeois press and the Iranian news agency which documented how the CIA was behind those protests. Lenin and Trotsky in the 1920s argued against mixing the banners! Trotskyists support moves towards Political Revolution however distorted or contradictory (that is why we are not sectarian) but also oppose moves to restore Capitalism by counter-revolutionary movements!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment