Often and willingly, and increasingly recently, opposition movements
have been arguing that, within the current "piecemeal Third World War,"left-wing movements should defend the BRICS countries, broadly speaking
(Russia and China in particular), against imperialism. This position is
obviously present in what is called "brown-redism," but it is actually
widely held in many areas that draw on Leninism in its various forms,
and, albeit to a lesser extent, also outside these areas. Let's
summarize the arguments usually advanced in favor of this stance, and
then analyze its limitations and contradictions.
First of all, it is said that these countries are either capitalist but
not imperialist-this would be the case with Russia, for example, a
country stuck in a backward stage of the capitalist economy and not
developing an imperialist policy-or they are somehow socialist countries
and, in any case, not developing an imperialist policy-this would be the
case with China. These countries are under attack by the imperialist
powers grouped under the military umbrella of NATO: not actively
defending them, proposing universal "revolutionary defeatism," therefore
means, beyond subjective intentions, effectively siding with imperialism.
In reality, these are not new theses at all: in Lenin (but also in
Trotsky) and their heirs, we find the roots of these theses,[1]according
to which any (and I emphasize any: even the slave-owning countries that
existed at the time) backward country at war against an imperialist
country had to be supported regardless, even if it were the "aggressor."
The general idea was that any defeat of imperialism by these countries
would be, internationally, a victory for the working class and,
therefore, that there was no "third camp": either one defended not only
the people but also the governments of these countries, or one
effectively sided with imperialism. Either/or.
Let's begin by analyzing the meaning of the term "imperialism" used
here. Lenin's conception of imperialism is a cornerstone of
twentieth-century revolutionary Marxist thought. Lenin developed it in
his famous essay "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Capitalism":[2]imperialism is the final stage of capitalism,
characterized by monopolistic concentrations of ownership of the means
of production, the centrality of finance capital, direct investment of
capital in less developed countries, the formation of international
cartels and trusts, and, finally, the division of the world among
imperialist powers.
Why is this condition the "highest stage" of capitalism? Lenin argued
that capitalism, having reached maturity, no longer finds internal
outlets for its development: to continue generating profits, it must
expand abroad, exploiting territories and populations. This leads to
inevitable conflict between powers, to a permanent state of war, with
imperialist nations attacking the rest of the world.
Here lies the first contradiction: the Leninist definition of
imperialism, in the terms we have just recalled, can easily be applied
to the BRICS countries, particularly Russia and China. In these
countries, but also in other countries within this region, we find
monopolistic concentrations of ownership of the means of production, the
centrality of financial capital, direct capital investments in less
developed countries, and the formation of international cartels and
trusts. Indeed, among the same current proponents of the "defensive"
thesis, we almost always find the argument that NATO countries are now
developing a militarily aggressive policy because they are no longer the
dominant capitalist countries and are desperately seeking, through
reckless acts of force, to regain their lost dominant role. The
"multipolar" world has become de facto dominant over the old "monopolar"
world. In short, the Leninist-origin campist logic should paradoxically
push its proponents to side with NATO...
Now let's move on to the idea that China is a socialist country or, in
some Trotskyist version, a bureaucratically deformed workers' state.
This seems like a bit of a Red Cross slam, but let's see why such a
claim is made: essentially, in China we see significant wage growth
compared to declared capitalist countries, a marked decrease in poverty,
and a low number of deaths from COVID-19 thanks to the "socialist"
organizational superiority of the Chinese state.
Each of these claims is highly controversial, but let's pretend they're
true, especially the first two.
Each of these claims is highly controversial, but let's pretend they're
true, especially the first two, with which we can draw comparisons. If
these results are a sign of "socialism," of a transition to a classless,
stateless society, then what were the NATO countries, especially those
of Northern Europe, during the "thirty golden years" of the Welfare
State, with the same parameters vastly higher and superior to those of
the "socialist" area, not to mention those of today? Anarchist Communism
achieved?
These contradictions of the "campist" position expose its intrinsic
weakness. Beyond this, however, there is a banal empirical
consideration: contrary to what the Leninist thesis would seem to
suggest, namely, a fixed balance of imperialist power between nations
once they reach a certain level of development of their productive
forces, throughout history imperialist countries often switch places.
Indeed, to be precise, today's imperialist countries are almost always
formerly dominated countries that militarily defeated the imperialist
countries of the time and took their place. To stay in the contemporary
era, the most striking case is precisely that of the United States of
America-but it is certainly not the only one.
For example, take the case of one of the countries partnered with the
NATO area: Israel. Its creation was welcomed and supported by Western
countries and organizations of a Marxist-Leninist nature, precisely
within the campist logic, as a shining example of a landless people
finally conquering it by fiercely opposing Anglo-Saxon imperialism. This
support lasted until the late 1950s, with complete disregard for the
fate of the Palestinian people. Today, the State of Israel is pursuing a
staggering and ferocious imperialist policy aimed at conquering "Greater
Israel," and the pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian headlines from the
left, when they resurface, create considerable embarrassment, to say the
least.
In short, the "campist" idea that any defeat of imperialism by certain
countries would be a victory for the working class internationally is
nonsense. It would be like rooting for the Camorra against the Mafia, or
vice versa. The victory of a "non-imperialist" camp against the
imperialist camp would only mean a change in who holds power, not the
disappearance of power as such. If universal revolutionary defeatism is
a "betrayal," it is a betrayal of the irrationality of the logic of
power in favor of the development of an autonomous vision and practice
of the international proletariat.
Enrico Voccia
[1]We limit ourselves to quoting Lenin, Vladimir, Socialism and War,
1915, https://www.marxists.org/italiano/lenin/1915/soc-guer/index.htm
[2]Lenin, Vladimir, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1916,
https://www.marxists.org/italiano/lenin/1916/imperialismo/index.htm
https://umanitanova.org/le-maschere-del-nemico-contraddizioni-del-campismo/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten