Introduction
The initial
trigger for the writing of this document was the Sino-Soviet split, its
importance for the world Communist movement at the time, and its significance
for the forces of genuine Marxism, the Trotskyists. In the first place Ted
declares that the split confirms Trotsky’s brilliant prediction, “That the
theory of ‘socialism in one country’ would lead inevitably to the degeneration
on nationalist lines of the parties of the Communist International.”
Secondly the
split was important for the course of the colonial revolution, a huge movement
shaking the world at the time. This was a movement whose course Marxists had to
analyse and understand. It produced an entirely new world situation, not
predicted by Trotsky. Here are the new features identified by Ted.
“The failure
of the revolution in the West, the degeneration of Stalinism, the failure of
successive waves of the social revolution in Western Europe, the thwarting of
the social revolution in the West and the expansion and consolidation of
Stalinism in the East, have been the world background on which the
revolutionary awakening of the colonial peoples has been taking place.”
Ted
naturally looked at the colonial revolution in terms of Trotsky’s theory of
permanent revolution. The core of the theory of permanent revolution is the
recognition that the bourgeoisie in the colonial and ex-colonial countries are
incapable of taking society forward and establishing genuine independence from
imperialist domination. Yet this was the central task posed by the colonial
revolution. These tasks, Trotsky predicted, fell to the working class to carry
out. Unfortunately the working class was under the influence of reformists and
Stalinists, who urged them not to take the power but mobilise behind the
non-existent ‘revolutionary national bourgeoisie.’
The impasse
in society produced by this paralysis allowed the state to apparently rise
above the classes and assume a certain independence. Marxists call this
bonapartism. Nevertheless in the last analysis the state always defends a
certain form of property relations. So we can have bourgeois bonapartism defending
capitalism or proletarian bonapartism – regimes in the image of Stalinism.
| Gamal Abdel Nasser |
In the document
Ted speculates as to whether Nasser would embark on the path of proletarian
bonapartism. It is now known that Nasser wanted Egypt to go down that road, but
was dissuaded by Brezhnev, who feared that the appearance of Egypt in the
Stalinist camp would upset the global balance of forces with the USA and the
West.
In Algeria,
Ben Bella was also very close to the Russians. This called the class nature of
Algerian society into question. In 1964 he was made a Hero of the Soviet Union.
But in 1965 Ben Bella was overthrown by Boumedienne. Though the significance of
this was not immediately apparent, over time Boumedienne was able to lead
Algeria firmly into the capitalist camp.
The collapse
of the Soviet Union led inevitably to the collapse of its satellite countries
in what is called the ‘third world.’ On August 12th we published an
article by Matt Wells, which analysed precisely the distorted development of
the colonial revolution in the case of Ethiopia (Ethiopia: which way forward?). Today we publish a short article on
the case of Benin. Ted Grant identified Benin as a case of proletarian
bonapartism in another document, ‘The Colonial Revolution and the Deformed
Workers’ States’ 1987.
In Benin, Kerekou certainly seems to have had a fine
instinct for the art of self-advancement and self-preservation. From a not very
radical background in 1972 he suddenly embraced Stalinism in 1974. Just as
smoothly, he foresaw the breakup of his mentor country and led the way back to
capitalism in 1989. Finally he took over as President of Benin again from 1996
to 2006, this time as ‘capitalist statesman’..
The two countries we have carried articles on serve as
examples of the distorted development of the colonial revolution addressed in
theoretical terms by Ted Grant in this 1964 document.
The Colonial Revolution and the Sino-Soviet Dispute
By Ted Grant, 1964
The Second
World War ended with a revolutionary wave in Western Europe which, thanks to
the aid of Stalinism and social democracy, capitalism survived. Stalinism in
the Soviet Union, temporarily for a whole historical period, emerged
strengthened.
In the
history of society there have been many methods of class rule. This is
especially true of capitalist society, with many peculiar and variegated forms:
republic, monarchy, fascism, democracy, Bonapartist, centralised and federal,
to give some examples.
In a period
where the revolution (apart from Czechoslovakia) has taken place in backward or
undeveloped countries, distortions, even monstrous distortions in the nature of
the state created by the revolution are inevitable, so long as the most vital
industrialised areas of the world remain under the control of capital.
A decisive
cause of the developments is the Bonapartist counter-revolution in the Soviet
Union. The malignant power of the state and the uncontrolled rule of the
privileged layers in the Soviet Union have served as a model for “socialism” in
these countries. Bourgeois Bonapartism reflects a society in a state of crisis,
where the state raises itself above society and the classes and obtains a
relatively independent role, only in the last analysis directly reflecting the
propertied classes, because of the defence of private property on which it is
based.
The
proletariat is not a “sacred cow” to which analogous processes cannot take
place. Proletarian Bonapartism represents a most peculiar form of workers’
rule. Contradictions in a largely backward society in which the proletariat
represents a small minority, as Lenin pointed out, can lead to the dictatorship
manifesting itself through the rule of one man.
A
proletarian form of Bonapartism by its very nature represents a caricature of
workers’ rule. In a society where private ownership has been abolished and
there is no democracy, the powers of the state gain enormous extension. The
state raises itself above society and becomes a tool of the bureaucracy in its
various forms: military, police, party, “trade union” and managerial. These are
the privileged strata within the society. They are the sole commanding stratum.
In the transition from capitalist society to socialism the form of economy can
only be state ownership of the means of production, with the organisation of
production on the basis of a plan. Only the democratic control of the workers
and peasants can guarantee such a transition. That is why political revolution
in these countries is inevitable before workers’ democracy is instituted as an
indispensable necessity if the state is to “wither away”, but such “transition
regimes” can only be workers’ states—deformed workers’ states—because the
economy of these states is based on nationalisation of the means of production,
the operation of the economy on the basis of a plan.
Marx never
considered the problem of revolution in backward countries as he considered the
revolution would come in the advanced capitalist countries first. These
Bonapartist regimes—regimes of crisis—reflect the unresolved economic and
social problems, both on the narrow national plane and internationally—crises
which can only be resolved by world revolution, especially in the advanced
countries.
The
development of the Chinese revolution, next to the Russian revolution the
“greatest event in human history” as the documents of the Revolutionary
Communist Party proclaimed in advance, took place with a mighty deformed
workers’ state at its back, plus the frustration of the revolutionary tide in
the West. Without the existence of the monstrously deformed workers’ state in
the East, and the paralysing of the hands of imperialism by the radicalisation
of the workers in the West, the Chinese revolution could not have taken the
form which it did.
The Chinese
revolution unfolded as a peasant war (see documents where this is developed)
led by ex-Marxists. Thus as in Eastern Europe the revolution from the beginning
assumed a Bonapartist character, with the classical instruments of Bonapartism,
the peasant army. It was the complete incapacity of the Chinese bourgeoisie to
solve a single one of the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, which
resulted in the revolution taking the form which it did.
Trotsky in
the pre-war period had posed the problem of what would happen in the case of
the Chinese “Red” Armies emerging victorious in the civil war against Chiang
Kai-Shek. He had tentatively forecast that the tops of the Red Army would
betray their peasant base, and in the cities, with the passivity of the
proletariat, would fuse with the bourgeoisie, leading to a classical capitalist
development.
This did not
take place because on the road of capitalist development there was no way
forward for China. With the model of Russia, the Stalinist leadership of the
peasant armies manoeuvred between the classes, at one time resting on the
“national” bourgeoisie, or the peasants, and at others on the working class and
constructed a strong Stalinist leadership in the image of Moscow. At no time
was there a period of workers’ rule such as in Russia in 1917, when the workers
through their Soviets controlled the state and society.
Just as
bourgeois Bonapartism, manoeuvring between the classes, nevertheless in the
last analysis, defends the basis of capitalist society, so in the same way
proletarian Bonapartism rests in the last analysis on the base created by the
revolution: the nationalised economy.
The Chinese
revolution solved all those problems which bourgeois society was incapable of
solving. The three decades of rule by Chiang Kai-Shek, the Bonapartist
representative of finance capital, revealed the complete incapacity of the
bourgeoisie to unify China, to carry through the agrarian revolution, to
overthrow imperialism. It could only usher in a new period of decay for Chinese
society. It was this which gave the impulse to the leadership of the peasant
armies to overthrow the bourgeoisie and, thanks to the model of Russia at her
back, construct a state on the Stalinist model.
The
leadership was without international or Marxist perspectives. The conscious
role and leadership of the proletariat, without which socialism is impossible,
was absent. The Stalinist leadership, in the conquest of the cities, used the
passivity of the proletariat, and where elements of proletarian action emerged
spontaneously, met these with the execution of the leading participants.
However, the
welding of the atomised and separate provinces into a single unified national
state on modern lines, for the first time in the history of China; the agrarian
revolution; the nationalisation of the means of production: all these gave a
mighty impulse to the development of the productive forces. China advanced as
no colonial economy has advanced for decades.
The Chinese
bureaucracy, like all bureaucracies of a similar character, is interested
mainly in advancing its own power, privileges, income and prestige. It defends
the base of nationalised property on which it rests, because this is the basis
of its income and power.
As predicted
in advance, before the Chinese bureaucracy came to power, the possibility of a
conflict between it and the Russian bureaucracy, was inherent in the situation.
The attempt of the Russian bureaucracy to arrive at an agreement with American
imperialism, without giving consideration to the needs and interests of the
Chinese bureaucracy, precipitated the split between the two tendencies.
The
rationalisation of the split by “ideological” considerations was a means to try
and gain support within the Communist Parties, on a world scale. The Chinese,
for the moment, have used radical slogans as a means of mobilising support in
the Stalinist world movement against the Russians, especially among the
colonial peoples. Their open support of Stalin, repelling the workers in the
Soviet Union and the West, among other calculations, is intended to draw a line
of blood and confusion between the Communist workers looking for a Marxist
solution, and “Trotskyism”, ie genuine Marxism-Leninism.
Because of
their radical slogans, at this time, the Chinese appeal to the cadre elements
in the Stalinist parties looking for a revolutionary road. In that sense, every
nuance, every cranny, must be utilised by the Marxist tendency for the purpose
of finding a way to the sincere Stalinist workers.
The real
face of Chinese Stalinism is revealed in the opportunism of the leadership in
the colonial world, where they have given support to the rotting, feudal,
bourgeois upper strata in many countries. The support of the Imam in the Yemen,
the loans to Afghanistan, to Sri Lanka, to Pakistan, support of Sukarno in
Indonesia, etc. Without being able to compete in resources, they have used the
slender means of the Chinese economy in competition with the Russian
bureaucracy and with imperialism. Their ideology, their conceptions, cannot
rise above the narrow national interests of the Chinese bureaucracy.
Their
“internationalism” consists in trying to build an instrument of support similar
to that possessed by the Russian Stalinist bureaucracy. Their ideology, methods
and attitudes are a counterfeit of Marxism, as much as that of the Russian
bureaucracy, at various stages of its development.
The
idealisation of Stalinism in its crudest and most repressive form, is for the
above-mentioned reason of the need to prevent any tendency of the militant
workers to drift towards “Trotskyism” and because of the nature of the Chinese
economy. Like the Russian before it, such a regime, on the basis of the Chinese
economy alone, may endure for decades, with its slender base in industry, in
comparison with the hundreds of millions of peasants. Only the socialist
revolution in the West, or the political revolution in the Soviet Union, could
alter this perspective.
The
viciousness with which the bureaucracy of the Soviet Union supported India in
the conflict with China, withdrew their technicians and destroyed plans and
blueprints in their endeavours to weaken China, is an indication of the real
character of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union. They have been ready to
lavish loans and aid on the bourgeoisie and parasitic upper layers of the
colonial countries, in order to prop up these regimes in competition with
imperialism. But to the bureaucracy of another workers’ state coming into
conflict with them, they demonstrated their selfish national aims.
Similarly,
China—as with the diplomatic agreement with Pakistan and the tour of Prime
Minister Chou En Lai, in Africa—apes the Russian bureaucracy in its endeavour
to find friends. In Zanzibar they came to an agreement with the Sultan, before
he was overthrown; they made no criticism of the governments of Tanganyika,
Uganda and Kenya for calling British troops against their own mutinous troops.
The Chinese
Stalinists, not accidentally, advised the Algerians to “go slow” with their
revolution. This was because of the forthcoming diplomatic agreement with
French imperialism. The basic perspectives of Chinese Stalinism are determined
by their national aims of obtaining a seat in the United Nations, and for
strengthening the Chinese national state through whatever means possible,
agreement with imperialism for trade etc. They have attempted to mobilise the
Afro-Asian bloc with this in mind and not at all with the international perspectives
of socialism and the social revolution.
The split
between Russia and China, as with the split between Yugoslavia and Russia and
now the development of new national Stalinism in the countries of Eastern
Europe, Poland, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc., is a symptom of
Stalinist decay and, simultaneously, of the weakness of the revolutionary
forces of Marxism on a world scale at the present time. Had there been in
existence mighty Marxist revolutionary forces of the proletariat, consciously preparing
the revolution in the industrially advanced countries of the world, such a
phenomenon would have been impossible. As at the time of the Hungarian
political revolution of 1956, before which the bureaucracies of these countries
trembled and drew together for mutual protection and support, the Chinese
bureaucracy would not have dared to launch the campaign against Russian
“revisionism”. All these bureaucracies would have been facing collapse and
overthrow.
The split
between the Stalinist bureaucracies on national lines adds further confusion
among the broad masses throughout the world. Even among the advanced workers,
while creating certain opportunities for the ideas of Marxism, it further
complicates the task of revolutionary Marxism. However, in the long term, it
undermines completely the former monolithism of Stalinism and its hold on the
masses. The way is prepared for, on the basis of great events, tens and
hundreds of thousands of workers to enter the revolutionary road. In the next
great upheavals, both East and West, of social and political revolutions,
Stalinism will crumble away.
Nevertheless,
one of the basic tasks of the period is the education of the most conscious
workers not to be infected by any of the variants of Stalinism. There is as
great a gulf between Stalinism in its various forms, both of state and ideology
and real workers’ democracy and Marxism as there is between Bonapartism,
fascism and bourgeois democratic state and ideology.
While
defending the progressive aspects of the economy in Russia, China, Cuba and
Eastern Europe, at the same time it is necessary to draw a fundamental
distinction between the rotten nationalist bureaucratic ideology of Stalinism
and its states, and the conscious control of the economy and of the movement
towards socialism of the working class as explained in the methods and
conceptions of international socialism.
The Colonial Revolution in Asia, Africa and Latin
America
Following
the failure of the post-war revolutionary wave in the West, capitalism succeeded
in stabilising itself for an entire epoch. Consequences became cause. A new
period of capitalist growth was ushered in for all the metropolitan countries,
of greater or lesser strength. The increasing power of the Soviet Union with
its far faster tempo of industrial growth, together with the growth of the
workers’ states and the stabilisation of a mighty China, resulted in a new
balance of forces on a world scale between the capitalist forces of the West
and the workers’ states of the East.
This is the
background on which, in one country after the other, there has been the
continual upheaval of national upsurge and revolution against imperialist
domination and national oppression. At a time of rapid growth of productive
forces in the metropolitan countries the gap between the industrially developed
countries and the so-called “undeveloped” areas of the world has become twice
as great as before the Second World War. The growth of industry on a modest
scale in these latter countries has exacerbated the social contradictions.
In all these
countries, the problems of the national revolution, the agrarian revolution,
the liquidation of feudal and pre-feudal survivals, could not be solved on the
old basis. This has been the period of national awakening of the oppressed
peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Faced with
this upsurge of the colonial masses, the imperialists have been compelled to
retreat. A century ago, Marx explained that only the lack of national
consciousness among the peasant masses allowed the imperialists to conquer and
dominate the East and Africa. Once they were aroused, it was practically
impossible to hold a whole nation in chains. Trotsky in the year prior to the
Second World War, had observed that the task of “pacification” of the colonial
revolts had become far more expensive than the fruits of the exploitation of
the colonies. And this in a period when colonial uprisings were at an early
stage.
Already in
1945, Britain had drawn the conclusion from the revolt of the Indian people, of
the necessity to arrive at some sort of compromise with the Indian bourgeoisie
and landlords. Partly this was due to the impossibility, because of the radical
mood of the soldiers of Allied imperialism and of the working class in Britain,
of waging a large scale war of conquest or re-conquest of India and partly for
fear of the upsurge of the Indian people.
French and
Dutch imperialism had to learn the lessons after the squandering of blood and
treasure in Indonesia, Indo-China, Algeria, etc. The Bourbons(1) of Portugal are in the process of learning
the lesson at the present time.
Thus the lag
of the revolution in Europe and other metropolitan countries has pushed the revolution
to the extremities of the capitalist world, to the weakest links in the chain
of capitalism. However, the development of Stalinism in Russia and its
extension to China and Eastern Europe, the frustration of the revolution in the
industrially decisive areas of the capitalist world, has meant that the
development of the permanent revolution in these underdeveloped countries has
taken a distorted pattern. The degeneration of the Russian revolution, the
Bonapartist form of the Chinese revolution, in spite of its splendours, has
meant in its turn that the revolution in the colonial countries begins with
nationally limited perspectives and with fundamental deformations from the very
beginning.
The
revolution in Russia, which began as a bourgeois-democratic revolution, ended
in a proletarian revolution of the most classic proportions, with the
dominating role of the proletariat as the main decisive force of the
revolution. It culminated in the October insurrection of the working class, which
throughout was based on internationalist and Marxist perspectives. The Chinese
peasant revolt, which culminated in the peasant war of 1944-9, was in a sense
derived from the defeated revolution of 1925-7, but entirely different from it
in the role of the working class. It was a peasant war carried out first
as a guerrilla war, and culminating in the conquest of the cities by the armies
of the peasants.
The
socialist revolution, in contrast with all previous revolutions, requires the
conscious participation and control of the working class. Without it, there can
be no revolution leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat as understood
by Marx and Lenin, nor can there be a transition in the direction of socialism.
A revolution
in which the prime force is the peasantry cannot rise to the height of the
tasks posed by history. The peasantry cannot play an independent role; either
they support the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. Where the proletariat is not
playing a leading part in the revolution, the peasant army, with the impasse of
bourgeois society, can be used, especially with the existence of ready-made
models, for the expropriation of bourgeois society in the Bonapartist
manoeuvring between classes and the construction of a state on the model of
Stalinist Russia.
The bourgeoisie
of the colonial areas has come too late on the world arena to be enabled to
play the progressive role which the Western bourgeoisie played in the
development of capitalist society. They are too weak, their resources are too
narrow to hope to compete with the industrial economies of the capitalist West.
The disparity between the weak and underdeveloped economies of the colonial
world and the metropolitan areas, far from being ameliorated, is gathering
speed. It has been further emphasised during the last two decades by the
upswing of capitalist economy in the metropolitan areas. Whereas in the
capitalist economy in the West, the standard of living of the masses has
increased in absolute terms, even though the rate of exploitation has
increased, there has been an absolute decline in living standards in the East.
By the peculiar dialectic of the revolution, the colonial revolution itself has
actually helped the economies of the metropolitan countries by creating a
market for capital goods.
The imperialists,
except for the Portuguese, were forced to abandon the old method of direct
military domination in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Economic domination
with nominally independent states became the norm.
The [period
since the] Second World War has seen unprecedented upheavals in the colonial
areas. The period of national awakening of all oppressed peoples has been on a
scale and in a measure that military means are doomed to failure, as evidenced
by the British in even such as small island as Cyprus, the French in Algeria,
and tomorrow the collapse of the attempt to pacify Angola.
All these
revolutions and national awakenings have taken place with a lag and delay of
the revolution in the West. However, the greatest force for change in society,
which must always be regarded from an internationalist perspective, still lies
in the decisive areas of Western Europe, Britain, Japan and the United States
in the capitalist world, and Russia and Eastern Europe in the deformed workers’
states. From the point of view of the change from one society to another, while
of fundamental importance to revolutionaries involved in the actual struggle, a
decade or two in the development of society is of secondary significance. The
very growth of the capitalist world, the very development of the economy in the
underdeveloped areas of the world, are all drawing together the threads of
change on a world scale. In the endeavour to compete with the advancing
economies of the Stalinist countries, capitalism has been compelled to use up a
great part of its social reserves. Direct domination and colonial tribute as a
consequence of a military overlordship, have disappeared or are in the process
of disappearing.
Economic
domination and the crushing preponderance of the metropolitan economies over
the frail economies of the colonial or ex-colonial states is even greater and
further increasing than in the past. At the same time, in the metropolitan
countries themselves, the very growth of the productive apparatus has led to a
situation where the social reserves of the ruling class are becoming narrowed.
The growth of monopoly, the growth of industry, the industrialisation of
agriculture, have all led to the contraction of the peasantry and the
petit-bourgeoisie and a further increase in the decisive weight in society of
the proletariat.
From the
point of view of Marxism, no more favourable situation could be envisaged. The
potential power of the proletariat in both the deformed workers’ states on the
one side, and the capitalist countries on the other, has never reached a
greater scope than in the present epoch. From this point of view, a
tremendously optimistic perspective opens out for the future. The tremendous
upsurge of productive forces will inevitably reach its end and result in a new
period of paralysis and decay, such as the inter-war period, in the capitalist
countries. In the Soviet Union and the East, the further development of
productive forces will come increasingly into collision with the stranglehold
of bureaucratic control. The bureaucracy will become more and more incompatible
with the development of society. A new period of social revolution in the West
and of political revolution in the East will be opened out.
It is on
this background and with this perspective constantly in mind that the colonial
revolution in Asia, Africa and Latin America must be regarded. Had Russia been
a healthy workers’ state, or even a state with the relatively mild deformations
of the era of Lenin and Trotsky, then undoubtedly the revolution in all backward
countries would most likely have taken a different form. As Lenin had
optimistically declared with the first wave of revolutionary awakening in the
backward countries of the world, it would have been possible for even tribal
areas of Africa to “go straight to communism” without any intervening period
whatsoever. This could only have been, of course, on the basis of the
integration of the economies of these countries with that of the mightily
developed Soviet Union, on the basis of a genuine and fraternal federation, for
the benefit of all. Of course, in any event, the problem would have been posed
entirely differently; a healthy workers’ state in Russia would have led to the
victory of the revolution in Europe and the industrially advanced countries of
the world, thus posing the problem for undeveloped areas in an entirely
different way. That was the scheme of Marx, who had thought that with the
accomplishment of the revolution in Britain, France and Germany, the rest of
the world (with the crushing industrial preponderance of these areas at the
time) would have been compelled to follow willy nilly.
The
explanation for the way in which the revolution is developing in the colonial
countries lies in the delay and over-ripeness of the revolution in the West, on
the one side, and the deformation of the revolution in Russia and China on the
other side. At the same time, it is impossible to continue on the old lines and
old pattern of social relations. If, from an historical view, the bourgeoisie
has exhausted its social role in the metropolitan capitalist countries, in the
present stage of world society, it is even more incapable of rising to the
tasks posed by history in the colonial areas of the world.
The rotten
bourgeoisie of the East and the nascent bourgeoisie of Africa are quite
incapable of rising to the tasks solved long ago by the bourgeoisie in the
West. Meanwhile the bourgeois-democratic and national revolution in the
colonial areas cannot be stayed. The rise in national consciousness in all
these areas imperatively demands a solution to the tasks posed by the pressure
of the more developed countries of the West.
The decay of
world imperialism and the rise of two mighty Stalinist states, of Russia in
Europe and China in Asia, has resulted in a peculiar balance of world forces.
The bourgeoisie and to a certain extent the national petit-bourgeoisie and
upper layers of colonial society, was allowed a role which would have been
impossible without the world relationship of forces which emerged as a result of
the Second World War. Even the heightened role which the Afro-Asian bloc plays
in the United Nations (albeit on secondary questions—they cannot play the same
role when it comes to a fundamental issue) is an indication of this change. The
competition between the West and Russia—and now China, Russia and the West—for
the aid and support of the ruling circles in Africa and Latin America and Asia,
is an indication of the result of this precarious balance of forces.
The
degeneration of the Russian Revolution and the strengthening of Stalinism for a
whole historical epoch was the main reason why the revolution in China began
right from the start on Bonapartist lines. This in its turn has meant that the
revolution in other countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America had a
ready-made Bonapartist model – which is associated in the minds of the
leading circles of the intellectual strata as “socialism”. Whilst the Chinese
revolution was accomplished largely through a peasant war, and a peasant army
as an instrument of proletarian Bonapartism, at least lip service was given in
the later stages of the revolution, after the conquest of power, to the rule of
the proletariat. This was the case in Cuba also, where the peasant army and the
guerrilla war played the dominant role in the revolution, until the uprising of
the proletariat in Havana. After the transformation of the bourgeois-democratic
revolution under Castro’s leadership into a state on the model of Yugoslavia,
China and Russia, also a dominant role of the proletariat was conceded, but
again in words.
All history
has demonstrated that the peasantry by its very nature as a class, can never
play the dominant role in society. It can support either the proletariat or the
bourgeoisie. Under modern conditions, it can also support the proletarian
Bonapartist leaders or ex-leaders of the proletariat. However, in doing so,
a distortion of the revolution is inevitable. A distortion in one form or
another on the lines of a military-police state.
Every
Marxist who claims to base themselves on the scientific theory of Marx and
Engels, with its deepening and extension in the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky, has
explained the necessary role of the proletariat—and in the role of the
proletariat of socialist consciousness—as the driving force of the changeover
from capitalism into the new society. Without socialist consciousness, there
can be no socialist revolution and no transition of society to socialism.
Marxists like Lenin and Trotsky have not emphasised the role of socialist
consciousness and the conscious participation of the proletariat in the course
of the socialist revolution in the overthrow of the old society for idealist or
sentimental reasons. They did so because without the participation of the
proletariat in the socialist revolution (in the West, the success of such a
revolution is impossible without the mobilisation of all the forces of the
proletariat) and its conscious control and organisation of the transitional
society, a development towards socialism is absolutely impossible.
There is no
automatism of the productive forces without the control [by the workers of the
state]—even in a highly industrialised state like Britain or America, the very
existence of a state would be a capitalist survival from the past. Without conscious
control on the part of the proletariat, whose dictatorship is intended to
speedily dissolve all elements of state coercion into society, the state as
evidenced in Russia and China, inevitably gains an impetus and a movement of
its own.
If in China
the bourgeoisie revealed its utter incapacity to solve a single one of the
tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, events will demonstrate the even
greater incapacity of the Indian, still less of the other Asian and African,
bourgeois elements to solve a single one of the problems posed in front of
these countries by history.
It is the
incapacity of the bourgeois, semi-bourgeois, upper middle class, landlords and
petit-bourgeois to solve these tasks, that poses the problem of the permanent
revolution in a distorted way. Had there been in existence strong Marxist
parties and tendencies in the colonial areas of the world, the problem of power
would have been posed somewhat differently. It would have been posed with an
internationalist perspective. But even then a prolonged isolation could only
have had the same effect as in Russia and China. Even more than in the
industrially developed countries of the West, socialism in one country, or, one
might add, in a series of backward countries, is an impossible chimera.
Nevertheless, the tasks of development in these countries are imperiously
posed. With the world balance of forces, with the delay of the revolution in
the West, with the lack of Marxist parties in these countries and with the
balance of social forces between West and East, between imperialism and these
countries, and with the social classes in these countries themselves, new and
peculiar phenomena are inevitable.
For example,
with a mighty Chinese revolution on its borders, developments in Burma have taken
a peculiar form. Since the end of the War Burmese society has been
disorganised. The national minorities have waged a constant struggle for
self-determination and national autonomy in their own states (Kachins, Shans,
etc.) and at the same time, different factions of the Stalinist party have
waged a terrific guerrilla war. One government has succeeded another, but each
has been incapable of solving the problems of Burmese society. The weak
bourgeoisie has been incapable of putting its stamp on society. Like the
Chinese bourgeoisie before it, it has been incapable of unifying society,
giving it social cohesion and satisfying the land hunger of the peasants, or
breaking the economic power of imperialism. It is a striking symptom of the new
developments in these backward countries that all the factions in Burma claim
to be “socialist”. Imperialism dominated the economy, by its ownership,
largely, of whatever industry existed and [of] the main economic forces such as
teak plantations, oil and transport.
With the
example of China on the border, it became more and more apparent to the upper
layers of the petit-bourgeois that on the road of bourgeois society there was
no way forward for Burma. As in China, in the decades before the revolution,
the bourgeoisie was incapable of bringing the guerrilla war to an end and
ensuring the development of a stable society and the inauguration of
industrialisation and the creation of a modern state.
Each
succeeding government made only the feeblest attempts to try and develop the
economy. The weakness of imperialism, the balance of forces nationally and
internationally, led to a situation where the officer caste posed the problem
before itself of finding some stability within society. In all these countries,
the development of the bourgeois revolution, a bourgeois democratic state, and
a development towards a modern bourgeois democracy, given the existing
relationship of class and national forces and with the pressure of the world
economy, at any rate for any lengthy period is impossible.
Consequently,
some form of Bonapartism, some form of military-police state, was inevitable in
Burma. The army officer caste saw itself in the role of the only strata which
could “save” society from disintegration and collapse, as the feeble bourgeoisie
obviously offered no solution. Consequently, the officer caste which had
participated as one of the “socialist” factions, decided that the only way
forward was on the model of “socialist” China, but called a “Burmese model” of
“socialism”. They have moved rapidly on familiar lines—a one-party totalitarian
state, and the nationalisation of foreign-owned interests, including oil, teak,
transport etc. They have begun the expropriation of the indigenous
bourgeoisie. They even threatened the nationalisation of the small shops. They
based themselves on the peasants and the working class. But they do not have a
model of scientific socialism, on the contrary, their programme is one of
“Burmese-Buddhist socialism”.
Thus we see
the same process at one pace or another in all the colonial countries. At the
moment the process is becoming marked in the Arab countries, which have been in
a state of ferment for the last decade. In Egypt the revolution against the
incompetent and corrupt Farouk(2) regime, agency of imperialism, was led by
the officer caste. Over a period, Nasser has adopted the policy of “Arab
socialism”.
The monotony
with which such tendencies appear in all these countries is striking. Already a
great part of the economy of Egypt is nationalised. The Great Aswan Dam, from
the beginning, was owned by the state. During this year the Nasser regime has
nationalised the greater part of industry. Under the impact of economic crisis
on a world scale, it can be predicted that the ruling caste, with the support
of the workers and peasants, will nationalise the rest of the economy. The
bourgeoisie is so weak and impotent that they are incapable of resistance. The
officer caste which carried out the revolution, with the support and sympathy
of the masses undeniably, did so because there was no perspective of modern
development for the nation under the old system. There were no forces capable
of resisting such change. Imperialism is too weak and has learned the lesson in
the failure of the wars against the national revolutions in the post-war
period. With the model of Russia, China and now a whole series of states, with
the example of developments in Algeria, there is no doubt that the ruling
petit-bourgeois castes (as well as the basis that the Bonapartist regime of
Nasser has among the workers and peasants) will support the complete
nationalisation of the productive forces, stage by stage. Only thus can the
Egyptian state enter into world developments.
It is easy
for this caste to play this role because their [own] privileges and income,
their social role, can be reinforced and increased. The bourgeois system in
these areas is so effete and prematurely decayed that it can offer no perspective
of development.
The most
striking demonstration of the correctness of this thesis are the events in
Iraq. The Communist Party, through its cowardly opportunism and the policy of
Kruschev not to disturb the imperialists in this area, failed to take advantage
of the revolutionary situation provoked by the fall of the old regime. The
impulsion of the masses ended in disappointment and demoralisation.
Nevertheless, the Kassem (3) regime, while waging war on the Kurds, at
the same time was preparing measures of nationalisation.
The recent
counter-revolutionary coup of the army took place to prevent these measures.
But now to maintain themselves in power, and in view of the hopelessness of the
situation, this very caste which is carrying on the reactionary war
against the Kurdish people and which carried out the bloody
counter-revolutionary coup against the temporising regime, has itself now
announced measures of nationalisation, which embrace all important industry and
banks. A great part of these were foreign owned, but nevertheless this coup has
taken place. Like Algeria, for the present, the oil industry has been exempt
from these measures, for fear of reprisals from the powerful international oil
interests. But the tendency is there and will be further reinforced in the next
period.
In Asia the
remorseless peasant war of liberation in Vietnam, which has continued
uninterrupted for 20 years, is nearing success. The American position in South
Vietnam, tomorrow in South Korea, is becoming untenable. The attempt to prop up
the old semi-feudal landlord capitalist state is doomed to failure, especially
with the example of China in the near vicinity. The most far-sighted representatives
of capitalism are well aware of this process. De Gaulle, after his experience
in Algeria, has understood this problem clearly and wishes to take advantage of
it in the national interests of France. They understand that the American war
of oppression is as hopeless as the French stand in Algeria. They see that
landlordism and capitalism in this area are doomed. How to face up to this
problem? There is no question with a peasant war under Stalinist leadership and
with only limited nationalist perspectives of revolutionary contagion of the
West. The area is doomed to be lost in any event. Why not then try and ensure
the victory of a nationalist-Stalinist regime in Vietnam and the rest of
Indo-China, independent of China, like Yugoslavia is independent of Russia?
They want a
Vietnam—once the regrettable and inevitable end of capitalism in the area is
accepted as the perspective—which would look to France and even America for aid
and assistance, in order to prop it up as a force independent of Red China. The
perspective of America in relation to Yugoslavia, Poland and Rumania is their
perspective for South East Asia. Their policy is that of the lesser evil. Why
not make the best of a bad job and make the most of the contradictions of the
national Stalinist regimes? After all, they pose no direct social threat to the
metropolitan areas, no more than Algeria under nationalist leadership did to
France.
In Africa,
Nkrumah(4) in Ghana speaks of “African socialism”.
Under the impact of events it is not excluded that Ghana might take over all
industry. This would be so in the event of economic crisis on a world scale.
A similar
process is taking place in the Algerian revolution. Beginning as a national
revolutionary war against colonial oppression, Algeria finds itself in an
impasse. On the lines of capitalist society, there can be no solution of its
problems. With the result, step by step, that Ben Bella and the FLN (National Liberation
Front) are being pushed in the direction of a “socialist solution”.
Algeria
lacks an industrial proletariat at the present time. The war was waged largely
by the peasant-guerrilla army plus a large stiffening of rural proletarians and
semi-proletarians. Had the leadership of the French proletariat conducted
itself in a revolutionary way, it would have had its effect on the Algerian
struggle but the betrayal of the French Socialist and Communist Parties in
their turn pushed the struggle of the Algerian people through the FLN on to a
purely nationalist basis.
This in turn
led to the situation where the French workers, and technicians in Algeria,
small colons and shopkeepers were pushed into the arms of the fascist OAS
(Secret Army Organisation). The elements in Algeria supporting the Socialist
and Communist Parties deserted to the OAS. This in its turn exacerbated the
conflict. The victory of the revolution led to the fleeing of the French
technicians, artisans and skilled workers to France, creating exceptional
difficulties for the new Algerian state. Right from the start, the control of
Algeria has been on the basis of Bonapartism. If in the early stages, the
elements of a weak workers’ control existed in the enterprises and partially in
the estates expropriated from imperialism, these cannot be of decisive
significance in the future. Without an industrial proletariat and without a
conscious revolutionary party, with half the population unemployed, the regime
will assume a more and more Bonapartist character.
History will
demonstrate whether this will be a proletarian form of Bonapartism or a
bourgeois variant of Bonapartism. The development of events should push the
leadership of the FLN and the army in the direction of establishing the regime
of nationalised property and of state ownership. It can only be, with the
nationalist perspective of the leadership, with the social organisation of
Algeria, with the lack of a conscious proletariat and in the world setting of
the present time, a Stalinist dictatorship of the familiar model—a deformed
workers’ state.
Symptomatic
of the process is the development of the ideology as put forward by Ben
Bella—of Algerian “Muslim” socialism. This Buddhist socialism, African
socialism, Muslim socialism and various other aberrations of a similar
character sum up themselves the process as it has taken place in the backward
countries of the world. The difference between these revolutions and the
proletarian revolutions as conceived by Marx and Lenin, is summed up in the difference
between “Buddhist-Muslim-socialism” and conscious “scientific” socialism. Of
course, every revolutionary worth their salt would hail enthusiastically the
development of the colonial revolution even on bourgeois lines; every blow
against imperialism, every lifting of the chains of national oppression, marks
a step forward in the struggle for socialism and would even be welcomed by all
enlightened elements of society.
Thus in the
last 15 years the development of the colonial revolution in whatever form, is
an enormous step forward for the world proletariat and for the mass of mankind
as a whole. It marks the stepping onto the stage of history of peoples who have
been kept at the level of animal existence by imperialism, an existence hardly
worthy of being called human.
Thus if the
revolutionary working class would hail as a step forward the victory of the
colonial revolution and national independence, even in a bourgeois form, the
defeat of capitalism and landlordism, the destruction of the elements of bourgeois
and landlord society obviously marks an even greater step forward in the
advance of these countries and the advance of mankind.
In the
process of the permanent revolution, the failure of the bourgeoisie to solve
the problems of the capitalist democratic revolution, under the conditions of
capitalist society of modern times, is pushing towards revolutionary victory.
Even the
victory of a Marxist party, with the knowledge and understanding of the process
of deformation and degeneration of Russia, China and other countries, would not
be sufficient to prevent the deformation of the revolution on Stalinist lines,
given the present relationship of world forces.
Revolutionary
victory in backward countries such as Algeria, under present conditions, whilst
constituting a tremendous victory for the world revolution and the world
proletariat, to be enthusiastically supported and aided by the vanguard as well
as by the world proletariat, cannot but be on the lines of a totalitarian
Stalinist state.
Whilst constituting
an enormous step forward from the point of view of ending the stagnation and
restriction of productive forces imposed by imperialism, capitalism and
landlordism and bringing these countries onto the road of a modern
industrialised society, it cannot solve the problems posed in front of these
societies. New contradictions on a higher level will inexorably be posed. The
delay in the revolution in the West has, as a penalty for colonial peoples,
meant that the revolution against imperialism and landlordism, moving forward
to the proletarian revolution, takes place on the basis of Bonapartist
deformation.
It is a
striking indication of the weakness of “Marxist” theorists and their lack of
conscientiousness towards the problems of the socialist revolution, that
nowhere are the problems of the different countries considered from the point
of view of world revolution and world socialism. Even within the ranks of the
“Fourth International”, under the pressure of the great historical regression
in theory and ideas, panaceas are put in the place of Marxist perspective.
Of all [the]
historical tendencies, that of Bolshevism alone began with a clear
internationalist perspective. The Russian revolution was carried through
clearly and consciously as the beginning of revolution in Europe. This
internationalist perspective, an indispensable necessary basis for socialist
revolution, permeated not only the leading cadres but the masses of people led
by the Bolsheviks.
Internationalism
was not conceived as a holiday or sentimental phrase, but as an organic part of
the socialist revolution. Internationalism is a consequence of the unity of the
world economy, which was capitalism’s historical task to develop into a single
economic whole. If Russia, with all her immense resources, and a most
highly-conscious proletariat, with the finest Marxist leadership, could not
solve its problems despite its continental basis and resources, it is ludicrous
for Marxists even to think that in the present world conjuncture it would be
possible in any of these backward countries, in isolation from any healthy workers’
state to maintain anything but a Bonapartist state of a more or less
repressive character.
Internationalism
and conscious leadership—the two go together — are an organic part of Marxism.
Without them, it is impossible to take the necessary steps in the direction of
socialist society. Not one of these states is, in proportion to population,
even as industrially developed as was Russia at the time of the revolution.
Industrial development of a backward economy with the pressure of imperialism
and Soviet and Chinese Bonapartism, the pressure of internal contradictions
which a developing economy would mean, inevitably, in an economy of scarcity,
would lead to the rise of privileged layers.
The
independence of the state from its mass base, which all these countries possess
in common (even where they have had or have the support of the mass of the
population, either enthusiastically or passively), all indicate that on the
basis of backwardness, it is impossible to start the process of dissolution of
the state into society. The necessary dismantlement of the temporary structures
of the state, which would be involved in a society with real democratic control
and participation on the part of the population is in itself an indispensable
prerequisite of a healthy transition to socialism. Thus, the further
development of these states is dependent on the development of the world
revolution.
In those
colonial or ex-colonial countries where the bourgeoisie has been enabled to
maintain a precarious balance for a temporary period, such as India and Sri
Lanka, they have maintained a semblance of bourgeois democracy. In many of the
states in Asia and Latin America, bourgeois democracy in one form or another
has been maintained on the basis of the economic upswing developed since the
war. In India, which had perhaps the strongest bourgeoisie of all the
ex-colonial countries, this regime has succeeded in maintaining itself but the
bourgeoisie in the colonial world has no real perspective.
Thus, on the
onset of the first deep economic crisis, if capitalism maintains itself in
India, bourgeois democracy will be doomed. To maintain itself, the bourgeoisie
will launch on the road of capitalist Bonapartism. The process was clearly
demonstrated in Pakistan(5). In the other countries of Asia and in
practically all the countries of Africa, the upper layers of that society have
only been able to maintain themselves on the basis of a one-party Bonapartist
state—Ghana, Egypt etc.
On a
bourgeois basis, such countries will be condemned to decay and degeneration.
Economically, politically, socially, the bourgeoisie can only develop and aggravate
the problems of society. In India, the bourgeoisie has not solved the problem
of landlordism, the national problem or even the problem of caste. The standard
of living, despite the industrial construction that has taken place, has
actually declined relative to the increase in population. Of all these states,
the Indian bourgeoisie had possibly the best opportunity of taking the road of
the development of a modern economy and a modern state.
Imperialism
with one hand has rendered assistance to India and with the other hand, through
terms of trade and tribute extracted from investments, has undermined the
position of the Indian bourgeoisie. If there has been a certain development in
industry, the exports of such countries have been of light goods such as
textiles, while the imports have been of heavy machinery. With the enormous
development of trade through the division of labour between the metropolitan
countries themselves, the imperialists could allow a certain latitude in the
import of light goods from the colonial countries.
However, the
last couple of decades have been the best economic circumstances under
which these countries could function within the world market, to which they are
bound like Prometheus to the rock, and from which there is no escape. Even in
this most favourable period for capitalism as a whole, the colonial countries’
economics, relative to those of the advanced countries, have suffered an even
greater deterioration than in the period of colonial dependence in the years
before the war. When it will be a question of the mighty imperialist states
looking to find a way to save themselves from the crisis which the economic downswing
will bring, the “concessions” which they give to the colonial countries,
because of fear of revolutions within them, will be terminated in an endeavour
to prevent the mighty social explosions which impend in their own metropolitan
areas. Thus new convulsions and new storms will develop in the metropolitan
areas and certainly in all the colonial countries.
No one,
neither Marx nor Lenin nor Trotsky, could put forward a blueprint for the
development of society. Only the basic and broad perspectives could be
outlined. The failure of the revolution in the West, the degeneration of
Stalinism, the failure of successive waves of the social revolution in Western
Europe, the thwarting of the social revolution in the West and the expansion
and consolidation of Stalinism in the East, have been the world background on
which the revolutionary awakening of the colonial peoples has been taking
place.
In Asia, the
Chinese revolution has imposed its imprint on the development of events.
American imperialism’s endeavours in Vietnam, in South Korea and other areas
adjacent to China, has merely underwritten the rotting social formations of the
past. They have endeavoured to step into the vacuum caused by the expulsion of
Anglo-French and Japanese imperialism from these areas. The military police
states in Vietnam and South Korea and other areas in South East Asia can only
be compared to the rotting regime of Chiang Kai-Shek in the period before the
Second World War.
The weak
bourgeoisie in these countries cannot solve the problems of the bourgeois
democratic revolution. Without the intervention of American troops and money in
Vietnam and South Korea, these regimes would collapse overnight. Even with the
support of American imperialism, the implacable peasant war in South Vietnam,
which has continued uninterrupted since the end of the Second World War, is
undermining the regime and making the victory of the peasant armies, in the
long run, certain. South Vietnam is as much a liability as was Chiang Kai-Shek.
Only the resources of American imperialism permit the throwing of dollars down
a bottomless sink.
In the
immediate post-war period, only the treacherous policy of Stalinism, above all
of the Russian bureaucracy, helped to maintain the precarious balance of forces
in Asia especially in the South East. But the impossibility of finding a road
to the development of modern society in these areas dooms these regimes to the
dustbin of history. Consequently, at any stage, when the pressure of American
imperialism will be relaxed, for whatever reasons, and even in spite of this,
the collapse of all these regimes is certain.
Developments
in Burma, in Laos, in Cambodia [Kampuchea], are all indicative of the way in
which the process will develop. On the road of capitalism there is no way
forward, for all the countries of Asia. In one form or another, there will
be an impulse in the direction of social revolution. In India and Sri
Lanka, particularly the former, with a developed proletariat, it is possible
that the bourgeois democratic revolution could be transformed into the
socialist revolution on the basis of the classical idea of the permanent revolution.
The installation of a workers’ democracy would be its crowning achievement,
once the bourgeois democratic revolution has been accomplished, with the
proletariat, directly through a revolutionary party, leading the struggle for
power.
However, in
these countries, even under the leadership of a Trotskyist party, such as that
of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party(6) in Sri Lanka, the conquest of power by the
proletariat and the firm establishment of a workers’ democracy could only be an
episode, to be followed by deformation or counter-revolution in the Stalinist
form, if it were not followed, in a relatively short historical period, by the
victory of the revolution in the advanced capitalist countries. It would, of
course, even as an “episode” be of enormous historical significance for the
proletariat of the advanced capitalist countries as well as the peoples of the
underdeveloped areas of the world. But even the greatest revolutionary theory
cannot solve the problem without the necessary material base.
It is only
the complete incapacity of outlived capitalism to solve the problems on its
periphery which could allow the conquest of power in these countries. Of
course, with a sub-continent such as India, the victory of the proletariat
would have enormous consequences in Britain and other European countries as
well, if it developed on the lines of China of 1925-7, with the proletariat
playing the decisive part. On the other hand, any development of revolution on
the lines of the Chinese revolution of 1944-9, with the peasantry playing the
decisive role through guerrilla war, would unfold in the same way as the
Chinese revolution of 1944-9.
However, the
development of industry in India, the different traditions of the country, give
the proletariat a preponderant weight in the social life of the country. Given
that Indian Marxists should create a revolutionary party in time, then they
could lead the working class to power, with the aim of creating a workers’
democracy; with the aim of leading the peasantry to the overthrow of the
landlord regime in the countryside; with the aim of unifying the country as a
step towards the international socialist revolution.
Stalinist
China, in its whole outlook, in its methods, in its ideology, [is] not
accidentally saturated with the narrow nationalism of a bureaucratic caste. If,
in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, a whole variety of regimes in
all the kaleidoscopic colours have revealed themselves historically, it is
because in this transition the development of productive forces themselves has
assured a certain autonomism of progress; once the decisive [bourgeois] revolution
had been accomplished in Britain, France and
