In the document In
Defence of Leninism: In Defence of the Fourth International,
we specified four points of Marxist theory on the national
question in the imperialist epoch, points that seemed
dangerously misunderstood by the majority of the Canadian
section:
- The need to make a
distinction between supporting all demands for
self-determination advanced by the oppressed nationalities
on the one hand, and support to nationalism, a bourgeois and
petty-bourgeois ideology that can be used against the
struggle for the emancipation of the exploited and oppressed
masses on the other.
- The need, since the
beginning of the revolutionary process in the backward
countries, to consider the national question as inextricably
linked to the agrarian question and to other tasks of the
bourgeois-democratic revolution that have not been carried
out in these countries; that is, the need to avoid
considering a phase of “national liberation” as a
separate entity distinct from the overall process of
permanent revolution in these countries.
- The need to make a
distinction between the role of the national question (and
of democratic demands in general) in the backward countries
and its role in the imperialist countries.
- The need to approach the
national question, as Lenin said, by beginning:
“... not on abstract and
formal principles but, first, on a precise appraisal of the
specific historical situation and, primarily, of economic
conditions; second, on a clear distinction between the
interests of the oppressed classes, of working and exploited
people, and the general concept of national interests as a
whole, which implies the interests of the ruling class; third,
on an equally clear distinction between the oppressed,
dependent and subject nations and the oppressing, exploiting
and sovereign nations ...” (Preliminary Draft Theses on
the National and Colonial Question, Collected
Works, Vol.31, p.145.)
We believe that fundamental
aspects of the Marxist theory on the national question are
involved (not just those cited above, obviously, but rather all
the aspects on which there was disagreement during the
discussion). After reading Comrade Gus Horowitz’s discussion
bulletin, Comrade Germain’s Errors on the National
Question (International Internal Discussion
Bulletin, Vol.10, No.10, July 1973), the least that can
be said is that his position is not clear in this regard. In
fact, he has succeeded in covering twenty-four densely packed
pages without giving the slightest resemblance of a reply to the
questions that have been raised; instead he dredges up spurious
quarrels over interpretations, presents us with a scholastic
study of “quotations” and “counter-quotations,” and
refrains from dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s where
this is required for clarity in the debate.
Unfortunately, resorting to
these subterfuges can only confirm the impression that has
already emerged from the documents of the Canadian section cited
in In Defence of Leninism: In Defence of the Fourth
International. We are confronted with the beginning of a
revision of Marxism, a beginning whose implications are pregnant
with consequences in many areas.
Once Again:
Permanent Revolution and Revolution by Stages,
Or How to Unscramble Scrambled Eggs
We have emphasized what in our
opinion constitutes the fundamental basis of the theory of
permenent revolution, that is, the fact that semi-feudal,
imperialist, “national” capitalist, and other relations of
exploitation overlap to such an extent in the backward
countries that it is absolutely impossible to make a distinction
between “stages” in the revolutionary process. The dynamic
of the class struggle is decisive, no matter whether the
revolutionary struggle first breaks out against a foreign
colonial or imperialist power, whether it first breaks out
against despotic “national” oppression, or whether it is
first set off by the agrarian revolution or by strikes of
students or workers. And if the revolutionary process is to
escape being throttled by counterrevolution, its leadership must
pass over to the working class allied with the poor peasantry.
This is true not only because the “national bourgeoisie’s”
ties to imperialism render it incapable of leading to victory
the struggle for national independence, but also and above all
because the peasants begin to occupy the land that belongs to
them, and the workers begin to challenge the exploitation in
their factories. By virtue of its class interests the
bourgeoisie inevitably passes over into the camp of
counterrevolution: this is the basic reason why proletarian
leadership is indispensable for a victorious revolution, even in
backward countries.
The fact that the bourgeoisie
only vacillates in the struggle for national liberation is just
a single and minor aspect of a much broader phenomenon: its
opposition to the interests of the proletariat and the poor (and
even middle) peasantry compels it to slide over into the camp of
counterrevolution.
Comrade Horowitz makes solemn
declarations to the effect that he is in agreement with this
highly orthodox exposition of the theory of permanent
revolution. He states he is completely satisfied with our
outline of the combined character of the tasks of the
permanent revolution. But once he enters the polemic, he makes
it clear that what he is really trying to do is to unscramble
the white of the egg from its yolk insofar as combined
development is concerned:
“Two experiences are worth
noting in this regard: the liberation struggles in Palestine
and in Bangladesh. In both of these struggles similar
democratic nationalist demands (?) were put forward and won
wide mass support: ‘for a democratic, secular Palestine’
and ‘for a democratic, secular Bangladesh.’ Proponents of
these demands include (!) bourgeois and petty-bourgeois
nationalists. The leadership of Fateh, for example, a
petty-bourgeois nationalist organization, was the main
popularizer of the demand for a democratic, secular Palestine.
Naturally the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalist
leaders did not have any intentions of advancing the socialist
revolution. They interpreted these slogans in their own way,
linking them to their own class programs which are opposed to
the program of Marxism. Does this mean that revolutionary
Marxists are duty bound to oppose these democratic
demands and counterpose to them on all occasions
specifically socialist slogans?
“No, not at all. These
democratic demands corresponded to the interests of the
proletarian and peasant masses: for political democracy; for
separation of religion and the state; for a specific
expression of national self-determination (a unitary
Palestine, an independent Bangladesh). Revolutionary Marxists
have the duty to advance demands like these, at the same time
to show how the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois nationalists
betray the struggle for these demands, and point to the
socialist revolution as the only way to achieve them. For
example, in raising the demand for political democracy,
revolutionary Marxists differentiate themselves from the
Menshe-vik-Stalinist concept for forming a classless
democratic state, a formula which generally conceals
the goal of forming a bourgeois state.
“These demands, linked with
other democratic, immediate, and transitional demands
indicated in our transitional program, have the potential for
mobilizing the oppressed proletarian and peasant masses in
struggle against their oppressors and exploiters.”
(Horowitz, p.9)
Comrade Horowitz’s entire
scholastic confusion is summed up in these two paragraphs.
No one in our movement has ever
denied that even a struggle for an independent bourgeois
state in Bangladesh would be progressive. We have written quite
clearly that it is the duty of revolutionary Marxists to support
every demand that expresses oppressed nationalities’
right to self-determination. The right to their own state is the
most fundamental expression of self-determination. We do not
understand, therefore, who it is among us that Comrade Horowitz
is polemicizing against on this point.
Comrade Horowitz then manages
to say in one sentence the exact opposite of what he said in a
previous sentence. First he says we support the demand for a
“democratic Bangladesh” or a “democratic Palestine”;
then he says we “differentiate” ourselves from the
Menshevik-Stalinist concept of a “classless, democratic
state.” But the slogan for a “democratic and secular
Palestine” or a “democratic and secular Bangladesh” is
characterized precisely by the fact that the class nature of the
state has not been specified! Perhaps by this formulation
Comrade Horowitz means to imply a workers state. But
99.99 percent of the Palestinians and Bengalis who read or heard
his call for a “democratic, secular Palestine” or for a
“democratic, secular Bangladesh” would understand this
slogan as meaning precisely a “democratic state” without a
specific class content, something that could only serve as a
cover for a bourgeois state. Thus if revolutionary
Marxists advance this slogan themselves, that means
(whether one wishes it or not) that they are declaring
themselves in favor of a bourgeois-democratic state.
Comrade Horowitz’s line of
argument focuses exclusively on “slogans” and is totally
propagandistic. Underlying this argument is the concept that so
long as there is no mass revolutionary party it is impossible to
do anything but carry out propaganda work. But once the question
is approached from the point of view of revolutionary
Marxists’ intervention in the struggle, a sage dosage of
slogans is no longer the priority. It is then appropriate to anticipate
the dynamic of mass struggles, and to emphasize in
particular the aspects of the struggles that permit the
dialectic of permanent revolution to unfold fully.
This means that once the Arab
or Bengali revolutionary process is set in motion, revolutionary
Marxists are duty bound to explain the following to the workers
and peasants:
“We are opposed to all
national and imperialist oppression. We support an Arab
republic, an independent Palestine and Bangladesh, even if
bourgeois. But we do not make a distinction between the
struggle for national independence and the struggle for
distributing the land. Take up the arms you are offered, seize
them when they are not offered; fight the imperialist
oppressor, but do not limit yourselves to fighting the foreign
enemy. Occupy the land! Form peasant leagues! Organize the
workers in unions! Never forget your class interests, which
are irreconcilably opposed to those of the landlords and the
‘national’ capitalists. Mobilize the maximum number of
forces possible in the revolutionary process, under a
leadership independent of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois
nationalist leaderships. Your national and social liberation
is at stake, and the one is indissolubly linked to the
other.”
Naturally, it is difficult to
describe this language as “nationalist.” But it is the
language of Trotskyists who understand the combined
character of the revolution.
At the beginning of the growth
of the mass movement, no one can tell whether or not a certain
line will carry the majority of the workers and peasants. In
other words, no one can tell at what point in the revolutionary
process the proletariat, supported by the poor peasantry, will
be able to gain hegemony over the revolutionary process,
wrenching it away from the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois
nationalist parties. But it is certain that it is the duty of
revolutionary Marxists to fight along these lines right from
the beginning. With this aim in mind, demands for agrarian
revolution and for defense of the material interests of the
working class must be linked from the beginning with
demands for national liberation. It is obvious that propaganda focusing
on the slogans “for a democratic, secular Palestine” and
“for a democratic secular Bangladesh” does not permit
attaining this goal. These so-called slogans, incidentally, are
not, as Comrade Horowitz states, advanced by everyone, including
the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leaderships of the national
movement. They are deliberately put forward in the
struggle by the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leaderships in
order to separate the agrarian revolution and the
emancipation of the working class from the struggle for national
liberation. By providing a cover for this classical maneuver, by
going so far as to become an accomplice, Comrade Horowitz
abandons the theory of permanent revolution and goes over to the
concept of revolution by stages.
What is the actual meaning of
his thesis that it is necessary to support the slogans mentioned
above while “at the same time [showing] how the
petty-bourgeois and bourgeois nationalists betray the struggle
for these demands”? Apart from a purely propagandistic concept
of the struggle (“unmask the traitors by driving them into a
corner”), it involves the notion that before the role of the
bourgeois leaderships can be called into question, they must
first be put to a political test to prove that they
will not go “all the way” in a struggle for national
independence.
It is not as easy as Comrade
Horowitz thinks to carry out this political test in a rapid and
convincing manner. Consider the task of “convincing” the
Algerian peasants that the leading wing of the ANL [National
Liberation Army] around Colonel Boumédienne did not go “all
the way” in the struggle for national independence. That will
perhaps convince a few who have already made up their minds, but
it will hardly sway the broad masses before they go through a
number of painful experiences.
It is much easier, however, to
convince them of the fact that the agrarian revolution has not
been achieved. They can see this every day. But making this
argument pay off politically would have required establishing an
indissoluble link between national liberation and the agrarian
revolution from the very beginning of the Algerian revolution.
According to Comrade
Horowitz’s thesis, in the mass movement in the backward
countries the differentiation between the bourgeois and
petty-bourgeois leaders of the national movement on the one
hand, and the revolutionary vanguard on the other, revolves
essentially, if not exclusively, around the question of who is
the best “nationalist.” We counterpose to this the thesis
that the differentiation appears above all through the struggle for
specific (peasants, workers, democratic, and even national)
demands in which class interests place the bourgeoisie and
the well-to-do petty-bourgeoisie on one side of the barricades,
and the workers and poor peasants on the other. Comrade
Horowitz’s thesis leads toward a “revolution by stages,”
while ours leads to the classical application of the theory of
permanent revolution:
“Really to arouse the
workers and peasants against imperialism, is possible only by
connecting their basic and most profound life interests with
the cause of the country’s liberation. A workers’ strike
– small or large – an agrarian rebellion, an uprising of
the oppressed sections in city and country against the usurer,
against the bureaucracy, against the local military satraps,
all that arouses the multitudes, that welds them together,
that educates, steels, is a real step forward on the road to
the revolutionary and social liberation of the Chinese people.
Without that, the military successes and failures of the
Right, semi-Right or semi-Left generals will remain foam on
the surface of the ocean. But everything that brings the
oppressed and exploited masses of the toilers to their feet,
inevitably pushes the national bourgeoisie into an open bloc
with the imperialists. The class struggle between the
bourgeoisie and the masses of workers and peasants is not
weakened, but, on the contrary, it is sharpened by imperialist
oppression, to the point of bloody civil war at every serious
conflict.” (Leon Trotsky: The Chinese Revolution and the
Theses of Comrade Stalin, May 17, 1927, in Problems
of the Chinese Revolution, p.22, University of
Michigan Press edition.)
And further:
“Insofar as a victorious
revolution will radically change the relation not only between
the classes but also between the races and will assure to the
blacks that place in the state that corresponds to their
numbers, thus far will the social revolution in South
Africa also have a national character.
“We have not the slightest
reason to close our eyes to this side of the question or to
diminish its significance On the contrary, the proletarian
party should in words and in deeds openly and boldly take the
solution of the national (racial) problem in its hands.
“Nevertheless, the
proletarian party can and must solve the national problem by its
own methods.
“The historical weapon of
national liberation can be only the class struggle.
The Comintern, beginning in 1924, transformed the program of
national liberation of colonial people into an empty
democratic abstraction that is elevated above the reality of
class relations. In the struggle against national oppression,
different classes liberate themselves (temporarily) from
material interests and become simple ‘anti-imperialist’
forces.” (Leon Trotsky: On the South African Theses,
April 20, 1935, in Writings of Leon Trotsky, 1934-35,
pp.249-50, Pathfinder Press. Emphasis in original.)
Alas, Comrade Horowitz as well
is beginning to “transform the program of national liberation
of colonial people into an empty democratic abstraction” by
focusing his position on Palestine and Bangladesh around such
slogans as “for a democratic, secular Palestine” and “for
a democratic, secular Bangladesh,” and by not putting the combination
of national, democratic, and agrarian tasks, and the defense of
the democratic and material interests of the workers
and poor peasants at the center of the revolutionary Marxists’
propaganda and agitation in the colonies, from the very
first stage of the revolutionary process.
This has nothing to do with
underestimating the importance of national demands. What is
involved is an understanding of the fact that they can only
be fully realized when the poor peasants and workers rise up and
organize themselves independently. And this is only
possible on the basis of defending their own class interests,
not on the basis of some classless “nationalism.”
The deviations Comrade
Horowitz’s thesis can lead to was demonstrated by Comrade Tony
Thomas when he sought in The Militant to defend
Trotsky’s interpretation of the Second Chinese Revolution
against the Maoists. In his article, we find the following:
“The major tasks
confronting a revolution to win national liberation for China
included driving out the imperialists and smashing the
reactionary Chang Tso-lin government; unifying the country;
distributing the big landholders’ lands to the hundreds of
millions of peasants; establishing democratic liberties; and
laying the groundwork for the industrialization and
development of China. In addition to these democratic tasks affecting
the nation as a whole, the growing working class in the
cities was faced with vicious economic exploitation at the
hands of both Chinese and foreign capitalists.” (The
Militant, August 31, 1973. Emphasis added.)
To state that the agrarian
revolution – the distribution of land – is a task that
“affects the nation as a whole” is to close your eyes to the
fact that not only the big landholders (who are also part of the
nation), but also and especially the bourgeoisie, own the
peasants’ land; and the fact that far from “unifying the
country,” the agrarian revolution necessarily divides
it along class lines. In an article published two weeks later,
Comrade Tony Thomas correctly describes how the development of
peasant mobilizations necessarily pushed the Chinese big
bourgeoisie into the counterrevolutionary camp, given its ties
to the big landholders. But, prisoner that he is to revisionist
formulations a la Horowitz, he nonetheless persists in labeling
as tasks that “affect the nation as a whole,” tasks that are
really the tasks of an irreconcilable class struggle between
two parts of the same nation.
The inextricable overlapping
between national liberation and the agrarian revolution, between
all the tasks faced by a revolution in a backward country, means
that national liberation in regard to imperialism cannot be
accomplished without destroying national unity and class
collaboration within the oppressed nation.
This is the dialectic of the
permanent revolution.
Oppressed
Nationalities’ Right to Self-Determination and the Struggle
Against Nationalist Ideology
We now have a better
understanding of the logical connection between revolutionary
Marxists’ unconditional defense of the right of oppressed
nations to determine their own destiny – of the right of
colonial peoples and national minorities to form separate states
if they so desire – and of all concrete demands that express
this right, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, their
relentless struggle against all nationalist ideology.
It is precisely because
national liberation can only be achieved when the proletariat,
allied with the poor peasants, has won the leadership of the
revolutionary process; because it cannot win this leadership
unless it organizes itself (as well as the peasant masses)
independently of the nationalist bourgeoisie, on the basis of
defense of its class interests; and because it can only organize
itself in this way by continually developing the masses’
distrust of and opposition to the “national bourgeoisie” and
its petty-bourgeois nationalist appendages; it is for all these
reasons that the struggle against the nationalist ideology of
national unity, of national exclusiveness, of “classless”
national collaboration, is absolutely indispensable. Above
all, it is indispensable even for accomplishing the national
tasks of the revolution.
Comrade Horowitz can only
extricate himself by either making a pirouette and identifying
the national-democratic demands of the oppressed masses with
bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalist ideology, or
by continuing to drift from Trotskyist positions to
Menshevik-Stalinist positions of revolution by stages:
“It is true, of course,
that the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation tries to use
nationalism for its own class interests – up to a certain
(!) extent and then only as a thoroughly deceptive and
mystifying ideology. But what Comrade Germain fails to see is
that in the era of permanent revolution, the nationalism of
the masses of the oppressed nationalities tends to mesh with
socialist consciousness not bourgeois ideology, because (!)
the real momentum of the struggle for nationalist goals tends
to mesh with the socialist revolution not the bourgeois
revolution.
“Rather than
‘substituting’ or ‘covering’ for internationalism, the
nationalism of the oppressed directed against their oppressors
will tend to impel oppressed nations (!) in the direction of
internationalism – provided, of course, that a revolutionary
Marxist leadership is present to help advance the political
consciousness of the masses. It is in that sense that we
support the nationalism of oppressed nations.” (Horowitz,
p.12.)
Thus we have “nations”
oppressed as a whole, which will become internationalist
provided, of course, that there is a “Leninist combat
party,” the notion our international minority is so fond of.
But aren’t nations, even oppressed nations, divided into
social classes that are already well defined (with the
exception, of course, of those we have called attention to in In
Defence of Leninism: Afro-Americans, Chicanes, South
African Blacks, etc)? Are the bourgeoisie and the well-to-do
petty-bourgeoisie no longer part of the nation? Have they too
become “internationalists”? Isn’t internationalism the
result of educating working people in the spirit of
irreconcilable class opposition, not only in regard to
imperialism but also in regard to their own bourgeoisie?
And how can workers’ class consciousness be labeled
“nationalist” when it combines the struggle against
imperialism with the class struggle against the landlords, the
comprador bourgeoisie, and the “national bourgeoisie”? Does
“nationalist” ideology imply a class struggle within the
nation itself?
Once again, the notion
underlying Comrade Horowitz’s thinking is that of a revolution
that first goes through a national stage. During this stage,
according to his concept, all the classes are united against the
national oppressor, and the “Leninist combat party” wins
leadership of the national struggle bit by bit by proving it is
a better fighter for “nationalism” than the bourgeoisie and
the petty bourgeoisie. But this concept, which is the only one
that provides a logical and coherent basis for glorifying the
nationalism of the oppressed nations, is in total opposition to
the theory of permanent revolution, which holds that
revolutionary Marxists must from the outset educate working
people in the spirit of an irreconcilable class opposition
toward their own bourgeoisie.
Comrade Horowitz agrees with
our definition of nationalism as an ideology that was correct in
the past. But what is the content of this ideology if not
national solidarity, national collaboration, against foreign
enemies? To deny this is to go against the whole of Marxist
literature on the subject. To acknowledge it is to acknowledge
that the nationalism of oppressed nationalities, far from
tending to overlap with socialist consciousness, is an obstacle
on the path toward attaining this consciousness. For
socialist consciousness is a proletarian class-consciousness
based on an understanding of the class struggle, whereas
nationalist ideology seeks to deny or subordinate an
understanding of the need for proletarians to carry out their
class struggle against their own bourgeoisie, and seeks to
establish supposed common national interests against the foreign
oppressor, interests which, as Lenin rightly said, are actually
those of the ruling classes.
Let’s take up once again the
example of Bangladesh. What is the content of the nationalist
ideology of Mujibur Rahman and the Awami League? “East Bengal
is oppressed by Western Pakistan. Everyone will work together to
create an independent Bangladesh – workers, poor peasants,
kulaks, intellectuals, important and minor government officials,
artisans, the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, usurers,
and the agents of imperialism.” How does a revolutionary
Marxist reply to this? Does he simply say, “Fine, but this
struggle will only succeed under proletarian leadership”? That
would be opportunism of the Maoist variety. Does he say on the
contrary, “No, I disagree because we are content with
defending our material interests as workers and peasants”?
This would be economist sectarianism, with a good dose of
opportunism (which, moreover, would become the dominant feature
if this response is suggested from abroad, and still more so if
suggested from a country that is oppressing Bangladesh).
In contrast to these two false
responses, the correct reply is obviously the following:
“We support an independent
Bangladesh 100 percent because the peasants and workers cannot
liberate themselves as a class if they are still oppressed as
a nation. For this reason we will be in the front lines of the
fight for an independent Bangladesh. But we have no desire to
exchange a pack of foreign hangmen and bloodsuckers for a
‘national’ team of hangmen and bloodsuckers. We will
therefore organize independently of you, Mr. Awami League
leader and Mr. representative of the exploiters. We will form
our own workers and peasants organizations. We will fight with
our own arms, although when necessary we are prepared to make
tactical agreements with you for- an anti-imperialist united
front. But we will educate the working masses in a spirit of
fundamental distrust in you, because you are our exploiters.
In addition to independence we want land, bread, and the
cancellation of debts. You are not only incapable of giving us
all this, but when the time comes you will try to disarm us
and crush us completely.”
Is this language, which
conforms completely to the teachings of Trotsky, the language of
“nationalism” or support to “nationalism”? The word
would have to be emptied of all its content in order to arrive
at this unlikely conclusion. As long as the working and peasant
masses remain prisoners of nationalist ideology they run the
risk of following Mujibur, and over the course of several years
too. They can only free themselves from this grip by learning,
through independent leadership and organization, to make a
distinction between the struggle for their just
national-democratic demands on the one hand, and the
mystification of nationalist ideology, based on the supposed
solidarity of all the classes of a single nation, on the other.
In In Defence of Leninism
we established that Lenin and Trotsky always defended this basic
distinction between nationalism as an ideology on the one hand,
and the defense of oppressed nations’ right to
self-determination (and of every concrete demand that expresses
this right) on the other. Comrade Horowitz in no way replies to
this argument. In place of a reply he offers us – after a
warning about scholasticism! – a bagful of quotations in which
Lenin and Trotsky are opposed to nationalism and a number of
others in which they seem to support it. Talk about scholastic
sophistry!
The Marxist method does not
consist in weighing a certain number of quotations from the
classics against each other, but in understanding the logic
and internal coherence of a theory in order to
determine the interrelation between its different parts. It is
therefore impossible to challenge the fact that for Trotsky the
importance of the national question in the colonial and
semi-colonial countries is indissolubly linked to the solution
he proposes, that is, a class struggle of workers and poor
peasants, in a revolution based on the inseparably combined
nature of the national and social tasks. The logic of such a
theory leaves no room for any apology for or adoption of
“progressive nationalism” on the part of revolutionary
Marxists. This is why Horowitz has been unable to find a single
quotation from Lenin suggesting support to the supposedly
“progressive” nationalism of oppressed nations.
The two quotations from Trotsky
that Horowitz gives us show exactly the contrary of what he says
they mean. He was particularly unfortunate with the quotation
about Catalan nationalism (Horowitz, p.13). Actually, two
pages after the passage cited by Horowitz, Trotsky gives
his thoughts on the matter in two sentences that are as clear as
a rap from a billyclub, a quotation that Horowitz is very
careful not to cite:
“I have already written
that Catalan petty-bourgeois nationalism at the present stage
is progressive – but only on one condition: that it develops
its activity outside the ranks of communism and that it is
always under the blows of communist criticism. To permit
petty bourgeois nationalism to disguise itself under the
banner of communism means, at the same time, to deliver a
treacherous blow to the proletarian vanguard and to destroy
the progressive significance of petty-bourgeois
nationalism.” (Leon Trotsky: The Spanish Revolution:
1931-39, Pathfinder Press, New York 1973, p.155.
Emphasis added.)
A few pages later, Trotsky
speaks of the need for a “principled struggle against
petty-bourgeois nationalism” in Catalonia. (Ibid.,
p.189)
We have denounced the fact that
the LSO [Ligue Socialiste Ouvrière], the Trotskyist
organization in Quebec, became an attorney for petty-bourgeois
nationalism and even went so far as to disguise a general strike
of public workers as a “patriots’ struggle.” What was
involved here was not, therefore, a matter of considering the
petty-bourgeois nationalism of an oppressed nationality as
progressive in relation to the bourgeois nationalism of the
oppressors. It was actually a matter of introducing the fraud of
“progressive petty-bourgeois nationalism” into the ranks of
the proletariat and its communist vanguard. Trotsky’s verdict
on this attempt by Alain Beiner, for whom Gus Horowitz is now
playing the role of attorney, is clear, plain, and expressed in
terms much more violent than ours.
Comrade Horowitz was overjoyed
with his discovery of a letter Trotsky sent to the Indochinese
Bolshevik-Leninists September 18, 1930. Finally, he has found
“Trotsky’s clearest and most explicit statement in support
of the nationalism of the oppressed.” (Horowitz, p.13.) Once
again, scholasticism is the method.
Trotsky wrote thousands of
pages on the tactics of revolutionaries in the backward
countries. Is it possible to seriously believe that his
“real” position on the national question in these countries
has remained hidden in a 1930 letter that had never been
published in English before, and not in the chapter of the History
of the Russian Revolution devoted to the national
question, nor in The Permanent Revolution, nor
in his writings on the Chinese question, nor in his comments on
the tasks of revolutionaries in India?
In July 1939 Trotsky wrote An
Open Letter to the Workers of India. India was at that time
the most populous colony in the world, and had at the same tune
the broadest national-democratic and anti-imperialist mass
movement. If Trotsky was really of the opinion that the
nationalism of an oppressed nation is progressive, one would
expect that his letter would exalt Indian nationalism, an
oppressed nation if ever there was one. But this letter does not
contain a single word about the supposedly progressive “Indian
nationalism.” On the contrary, it educates the working people
in the spirit of irreconcilable class opposition in regard to
their own bourgeoisie:
“The self-same danger also
menaces the Indian revolution where the Stalinists, under the
guise of ‘People’s Front,’ are putting across a policy
of subordinating the proletariat to the bourgeoisie. This
signifies, in action, a rejection of the revolutionary
agrarian program, a rejection of arming the workers, a
rejection of the struggle for power, a rejection of
revolution.
“In the event that the
Indian bourgeoisie finds itself compelled to take even the
tiniest step on the road of struggle against the arbitrary
rule of Great Britain, the proletariat will naturally support
such a step. But they will support it with their own
methods: mass meetings, bold slogans, strikes, demonstrations
and more decisive combat actions, depending on the
relationship of forces and the circumstances. Precisely to do
this must the proletariat have its hands free. Complete
independence from the bourgeoisie is indispensable to the
proletariat, above all in order to exert influence on the
peasantry, the predominant mass of India’s population.” (Writings
of Leon Trotsky: 1938-9, Pathfinder Press, New York,
1969, p.38. Emphasis in original.)
In order to win a “free
hand” in relation to the “national bourgeoisie,” to assure
complete independence in regard to the bourgeois Congress Party
– for whom nationalism was the main ideological weapon for
preventing the independent organization of the proletariat
– should revolutionaries in India have applauded nationalism
or criticized it, should they have exalted it or tried to
eliminate it from the ranks of the working class? To pose this
question is to answer it.
But what does Trotsky say in
the letter to the Indochinese Oppositionists, the letter Comrade
Horowitz is so enthralled with?
“The declaration states
quite correctly that the nationalism of the bourgeoisie is a
means for subordinating and deceiving the masses. But the
nationalism of the mass of the people is the elementary form
taken by their just and progressive hatred for the most
skillful, capable, and ruthless of their oppressors, that is,
the foreign imperialists. The proletariat does not have the
right to turn its back on this kind of nationalism.
On the contrary, it must demonstrate in practice that it is
the most consistent and devoted fighter for the national
liberation of Indochina.” (Letter to the Indochinese
Oppositionists, International Socialist Review,
September 1973, p.41.)
What is Trotsky saying here, if
one wishes to grasp the content of his reasoning rather than
engage in a scholastic manipulation of quotations?
- That the nationalism of the
oppressed colonial bourgeoisie is reactionary, “a means
for subordinating and deceiving the masses.” On this
important point, even in this “unique” quotation,
Trotsky confirms our position, and not Horowitz’s, on this
crucial point.
- That the nationalism of the
exploited colonial masses is “the elementary form”
taken by the hatred for imperialist exploitation. There is
nothing objectionable about this statement. Trotsky in no
way states that the peasant masses are following a
progressive ideology, but rather that they are
making use of some elementary notions to give vent to their
class indignation. The task of revolutionary Marxists begins
from this means of expression, but it certainly
does not consist in adapting to it.
- That to grasp what there is
of a positive nature in this “nationalism” of the
peasant masses, the proletariat “must demonstrate in
practice that it is the most consistent and devoted fighter
for the national liberation of Indochina.”
We are obviously in complete
agreement with this formulation. We have repeated over and over
again that the task of revolutionary Marxists is to
unconditionally defend the just national demands of the masses.
But nowhere in this quote does Trotsky say that the proletariat
“must demonstrate in practice that it is the most consistent
and devoted representative of nationalist ideology”! He would
be very careful not to present such a thesis, which would be in
contradiction to his entire life’s work.
We see therefore that Horowitz
cannot even use this unique quotation he thinks he has found in
support of his thesis of identifying nationalist
ideology and the struggle for national liberation.
In accordance with Lenin and
Trotsky, our entire argument is based on the need to distinguish
between the two. Comrade Horowitz never has anything to say
about this distinction. All the rest is therefore just
scholastic sophistry.
Nationalism,
Multi-class Mass Party, and Class Struggle
In order to demonstrate that
the thesis of the “progressive nationalism” of oppressed
nations is only a false generalization of the specific case of
Blacks and Chicanos in the United States, we have posed the
following question: Can a slogan calling for a “mass
nationalist party” with an unspecified class content, which
the SWP has advanced for Blacks and Chicanos, be exported to a
colonial or semi-colonial country that has already experienced
deep class divisions?
Horowitz begins by stating that
the absence of Black or Chicano bourgeoisie of any consequence
is not the reason why the SWP has been able to advance this
slogan. (Horowitz, p.15) But a few pages later he himself
admits:
“One of our central tasks
is to promote a mass break from the bourgeois parties along
working class lines. This is necessary to advance the
independent organization of the working class as a whole. Our
call for a labor party fits into this framework. So does our
call for a Black party. And in this regard, the fact
that Black people are overwhelmingly proletarian in
composition, that there is only an inconsequential Black
bourgeoisie, and a relatively weak Black petty bourgeoisie, is
an important factor. Under these specific conditions, all
indications are that an independent Black party would be a
proletarian party, albeit in nationalist guise. (Horowitz,
p.18. Emphasis in original.)
In general, the argument is
acceptable. But what conclusion must be drawn from it? Obviously
that wherever a bourgeoisie has already arisen in an oppressed
nation, wherever the petty bourgeoisie is not so weak, wherever
the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie are already making
systematic use of nationalism to prevent the formation of an
independent workers party, it would be criminal folly to call
for the formation of “mass nationalist parties” that could
only be multi-class parties controlled by the bourgeoisie or the
petty bourgeoisie in its wake.
Following the logic of this
correct position, Comrade Horowitz states that it would in fact
be incorrect to call for a “mass (nationalist) multi-class
party” in Quebec, Palestine, Bangladesh, Ceylon, etc. We are
happy to learn of this conclusion, which is the same as ours.
But three questions arise immediately:
- If the call for an
“independent Black party” and for an “independent
Chicano party” is in fact the exception and not the
rule insofar as the oppressed nationalities are
concerned, isn’t it also necessary to conclude that the
situation – that is, the class structure – of some
oppressed nationalities is an exception in relation to the
others? This is precisely the thesis that we defended in In
Defence of Leninism: In Defence of the Fourth International.
- If the call for an
“independent Black nationalist party” is an exception
and corresponds to the exceptional class structure of a few
nationalities, isn’t it necessary to conclude that the
character of nationalist ideology (corresponding to the
objective situation and class structure) is different for
Black Americans, Black South Africans, and Chicanes on the
one hand, and for all the other oppressed and exploited
nationalities on the other hand? How can you say in the same
breath that the class structure is exceptional but
that the social function of nationalism is
identical?
- If comrade Horowitz holds
simultaneously – like a tightrope-walker balancing on a
high wire – that the exceptional situation of Black
Americans justifies using the slogan “for a mass Black
nationalist party” in the US but does not justify the use
of a similar slogan for the greater part of the oppressed
and exploited nationalities (although multi-class
nationalism is supposedly “progressive” in the case of
all these nationalities), how does it happen that a number
of minority comrades, not quite so adept at this balancing
act, lose their footing and pass over directly to the call
for a “mass, independent Puerto Rican party,” a “mass,
independent Algerian party,” etc.?
At least this is what came out
during the oral discussion preparing for the SWP 1973
convention. We would be happy to learn that Comrade Horowitz
could categorically deny this statement, and that nothing more
about it will be heard in the world Trotskyist movement. The
adoption of such a line would be a disaster for revolutionary
Marxists in the colonial and semi-colonial countries.
It is Comrade Horowitz who is
inconsistent on this point, and not the “extremists” in his
faction. For if the nationalism of oppressed nations is
progressive, what argument would he use to refuse to base a
“mass party” on this “progressive” and highly popular
foundation?
Up to this point, everything in
this document has obviously been concerned with our rejection of
having revolutionary Marxists in colonial and
semi-colonial countries advance the slogan “for a mass
nationalist party” of such and such nationality. It is
something quite different to determine what tactic they should
adopt in regard to parties or “fronts” of this sort that
come on the scene independently of their own propaganda or
initiative.
In this case, a class analysis
must be made to determine the real nature of this mass
“party” or “front,” taking into account its program; its
social composition; its objective role in society; the extent to
which it engages in real struggle against the imperialists, the
oligarchy, and their allies; the way it intervenes in the class
struggle, etc., etc. ... Support to actions or movements
launched by such formations is far from excluded. But the
orientation of revolutionary Marxists would remain an
orientation of promoting an autonomous organization for the
worker and peasant masses, an organization that is independent
of any bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalist leadership. An
organization of this sort could eventually arise from the left
wing of such a mass “party” or “front,” and once that
happened revolutionary Marxists would have to promote its
consolidation and its separation in regard to the nationalist
leaderships.
Among the arguments we have
used against the “exploitation” of the slogan for an
“independent party” of oppressed nationalities beyond the
boundaries of the United States, there is one, of some
importance, that Comrade Horowitz takes exception to: the
possibility of the “national” bourgeoisie in colonial and
semi-colonial countries forming a formally independent bourgeois
state that would become a powerful weapon of oppression against
the worker and peasant masses. In the United States, it is
impossible to conceive of the appearance of an independent
bourgeois Black or Chicano state. The very formation of such a
state would presuppose the total disintegration of the US
society and capitalist economy. But in the rest of the world the
threat of seeing essentially nationalist agitation deviate
toward the creation of new puppet bourgeois states is quite
real.
No, replies Comrade Horowitz:
In the event of powerful workers struggles, it is “theoretically
true but unlikely” that “there is no fundamental class
interest which would prevent imperialism from transforming any
such [oppressed] nationality into independent puppet states”!
(Horowitz, p.7. Emphasis added.) Of all Comrade Horowitz’s
arguments, this one is the most improbable. What he considers
the most “unlikely” has actually occurred in more than 80
countries around the world since the first world war, from
Finland and Poland in 1918 to India and nearly all the old
colonies after the second world war.
Sectarians draw the conclusion
that it is better to turn one’s back on the national question.
They are obviously wrong. But opportunists who refuse to
criticize nationalism are deaf, dumb, and blind in the face of
half a century of world history. How can it be seriously denied
that nationalism has been the main ideological weapon used by
the ruling classes in all these countries to slow down and
smother the independent class struggle of the workers and
peasants? How can you call for the proletariat to organize
independently and then refuse to attack the main ideological
barrier on the road to such an independent organization – the
ideology that says common interest “against foreign
oppression” must unite the landlord, capitalist, kulak,
intellectual, poor peasant, and worker?
We Have Not
Changed Our Orientation
Comrade Horowitz tries, though
without much conviction, to counterpose documents we have
written in the past to In Defence of Leninism: In Defence of
the Fourth International. He wishes to demonstrate that we
have changed our position on the national question, in fact,
that we have taken a giant step backward in relation to our
previous positions. But it is sufficient to examine the
documents he cites to discover that our position remains exactly
what it always was.
Comrade Horowitz begins by
quoting passages from our intervention in a debate with Maxime
Rodinson in March 1971, reprinted in the French magazine Partisans
(No.59-60) and in the International Socialist Review
(March 1972). These passages state that a distinction should be
made between the nationalism of the oppressors and the
nationalism of the oppressed. But in In Defence of Leninism:
In Defence of the Fourth International we said exactly the
same thing:
“This principled opposition
to nationalism does not imply an identification between
nationalism of oppressor nations – nationalism of
scoundrels, as Trotsky used to call it – and the nationalism
of oppressed nations. It especially imposes on communists who
are members of oppressor nations the duty to concentrate their
fire upon their own oppressive bourgeoisie, and to leave the
struggle against petty-bourgeois nationalism of the oppressed
to the communist members of the oppressed nationalities
themselves. Any other attitude – not to speak of the refusal
to support national self-determination struggles under the
pretext that they are still led by nationalists – becomes
objectively a support for imperialist, annexionist or racist
oppressors. But all these considerations do not imply a
support for bourgeois or petty-bourgeois nationalism by
revolutionary Marxists of the oppressed nationalities, leave
alone ‘unconditional support.’ After all, Alain Beiner
like Michel Mill were discussing the attitudes of Québécois
Trotskyists, not the attitude of Anglo-Canadian revolutionary
Marxists.” (International Internal Discussion
Bulletin, Vol.10, No.4, April 1973, p.33)
Does the last part of this
paragraph contradict the orientation I defended in the debate
with Maxime Rodinson? Not at all. Because that orientation
included the following passage, which Comrade Horowitz takes
care not to quote:
“I have been asked a
question concerning Palestinian nationalism and my attitude vis-à-vis
the nationalism of the countries in the Third World in
general. In my opinion, this is a matter that must not be
oversimplified. When we say that the struggle for national
liberation of Third World people, of oppressed peoples, is a
just struggle in contradistinction to the imperialist
countries attempting to maintain their oppression of these
countries, we are by no means saying that every political
and ideological manifestation of this struggle is
progressive ... A distinction must be made between the
objective historical significance of a mass struggle
and the various ideological, political, and theoretical
currents competing for the allegiance of the society and
oppressed people involve
“... the influence of
reactionary ideologies must be combated in the theoretical
field within the revolutionary camp. But the
existence of these reactionary ideologies must not be used as
a pretext for refusing support, support which is absolutely
justified from the Marxist point of view, to the liberation
struggle of a clearly oppressed people” (International
Socialist Review, March 1972, pp.38-39.)
And in In Defence of
Leninism: In Defence of the Fourth International, we stated
in the same way:
“Sectarians and
opportunists alike fail to make this basic distinction between
the struggle for national self-determination and nationalist
ideology. Sectarians refuse to support national
self-determination struggles under the pretext that their
leaders – or the still prevalent ideology among their
fighters – is nationalism. Opportunists refuse to combat
bourgeois or petty-bourgeois nationalist ideologies, under the
pretext that the national self-determination struggle, in
which this ideology is predominant, is progressive. The
correct Marxist-Leninist position is to combine full
support for the national self-determination struggle of
the masses including all the concrete demands which express
this right on the political, cultural, linguistic field, with
the struggle against bourgeois and petty-bourgeois
nationalism.” (p.33. Emphasis added.)
It is clear that there is
absolutely no difference between these two positions – the one
defended in 1971 and the one defended in 1973.
The second “forgotten
example” cited by Comrade Horowitz is supposedly that of the
booklet I wrote against Healy in 1967. The only quotation
Horowitz can produce to support his thesis that I have
supposedly changed my position since then is one concerning the
fact that ... the Cuban revolution both resolved the national
question and liberated Cuba from dependence on American
imperialism. But he “forgets” to mention that the two
paragraphs concerning the anti-imperalist character of the Cuban
revolution are preceded by four pages about the solution of the
agrarian question. He also neglects to point out that I nowhere
characterize the Cuban revolution as a “national liberation
struggle,” but rather as a process of permanent revolution in
which the agrarian revolution and the anti-imperialist struggle
are (in that order!) the most burning tasks. There is not an
atom of difference between this position and the one defended in
In Defence of Leninism: In Defence of the Fourth
International.
To discover a “difference,”
Comrade Horowitz has to undertake a sleight-of-hand maneuver
that comes very close to falsification:
“The booklet goes on to
argue in chapter eight against the SLL’s abstentionist line
toward the national liberation movements and its political
myopia which says that there is no colonial revolution but
only a proletarian revolution. Some of the same arguments can
be directed against Comrade Germain’s latest document, which
says that it is confusing to speak of a national liberation
struggle rather than a process leading to a socialist
revolution.” (Horowitz, p.14.)
What did we really say in our
“latest document”?
“For that reason, it is
confusing, to say the least, to present any revolution in a
backward country – be it the Algerian revolution, the Cuban
revolution, the Vietnamese revolution, the Palestinian or the
Arab revolution – as a ‘national liberation struggle.’
The Trotskyist way of looking at these revolutions is as processes
of permanent revolution in which the struggle for
national liberation, for agrarian revolution, for full
democratic freedoms for the masses, and for defence of the
class interests of the working class are inextricably
combined and intertwined, whatever may be the aspect of
that struggle which appears in the forefront ...” (In
Defence of Leninism: In Defence of the Fourth International,
p.31. Emphasis in original.)
There is not so much as a comma
here that cannot be found in the classic texts of Trotsky on
this question. Horowitz comes dangerously close to the Stalinist
polemicists who accused Trotsky of having substituted
“socialist goals” for the “bourgeois-democratic goals”
of the revolution (the notorious accusation of having advanced
in 1905 the slogan “Down with the Czar; long live the workers
government!”). The only way he was able to do this was by
surreptitiously substituting the words “socialist
revolution” or “proletarian revolution” for the words
“process of permanent revolution,” which are in my
text. Now, the process of permanent revolution is precisely the
process that leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat by
means of a struggle to achieve in the first place the tasks that
were not accomplished by the bourgeois-democratic revolution,
above all the agrarian question and the national question.
If Comrade Horowitz finds
himself caught up in a sleight-of-hand maneuver of this sort it
is because – despite all the ritual references to “other
democratic and transitional demands” that must be “joined
with national demands” – he is being irresistably swept
toward the logic of “revolution by stages” by his
revisionist position on nationalism.
What he believes is that there
is first a “national liberation struggle” which, without
regard to the agrarian revolution and the class struggle, leads
to a “socialist solution,” because the “Leninist combat
party” surpasses its petty-bourgeois and bourgeois rivals in
... nationalism!
It is clear that our “changed
positions” have been created out of whole cloth by Comrade
Horowitz. No trace of any such “change” survives the
slightest analysis of the documents.
‘Subjectivism’,
Objectivism, and Class Struggle
We are now at the very heart of
the debate. Comrade Horowitz accuses us of being guilty of a
“subjectivist explanation for the theory of permanent
revolution.” He quotes the following passage from In
Defence of Leninism: In Defence of the Fourth International
to support his thesis:
“Revolutionary Marxists do
not reject this Menshevik theory of stages only or mainly
because they stress the inability of the national bourgeoisie
to actually conquer national independence from imperialism,
regardless of the concrete circumstances. They reject it
because they refuse to postpone to a later stage the peasant
and workers uprisings for their own class interests, which
will inevitably rise spontaneously alongside the national
struggle as it unfolds, and very quickly combine themselves
into a common inseparable programme in the consciousness of
the masses.” (p.31)
Just comparing this quotation
with those from Trotsky at the beginning of the present document
is enough to assert that Trotsky did not reason any differently.
But Horowitz now takes a more “conscious” step toward
revisionism and replies with the following:
“No, Comrade Germain. It is
not because we ‘refuse to postpone’ these struggles (a subjectivist
explanation), but because the struggles for the pressing
bourgeois-democratic demands including national liberation
(but of course not limited to this task) are inextricably and
objectively intertwined under present conditions with the
socialist revolution.” (Horowitz, p.9. Emphasis in
original.)
Here we have a Marxist for whom
the class struggle is a “subjectivist” phenomena; we will
certainly have seen everything under the sun by the end of the
debate now under way within the Fourth International. We state
firmly – in accordance with the experience of every
revolution in the backward countries in this century – that
the struggle of workers and peasants for their class interests
will arise, inevitably and spontaneously, in the course
of the struggle for national liberation. What is involved here
is really a historical, social, and objective phenomenon, not
just a case of “subjectivism.”
But is it true that under
present conditions, which we suppose means the imperialist
epoch, the struggle for national liberation as well as struggles
for other “pressing bourgeois-democratic demands” are
“inextricably and objectively intertwined with the socialist
revolution,” as Comrade Horowitz says? If it is true, how do
you explain the fact that in the great majority of cases the
struggle for national liberation has not led to a “socialist
revolution”?
Once again Comrade Horowitz’s
accusations are like Freudian slips, revealing the dialectic of
a tendency struggle in which Comrade Horowitz has been pushed
further and further along a revisionist path. For by falsely
accusing us of “subjectivism,” it is really his own
objectivist error – an error of quite some magnitude! – that
he reveals.
In reality it is absolutely
false to posit that the struggle for national liberation is
“inextricably and objectively intertwined under present
conditions with the socialist revolution.” So long as the
struggle for national liberation is led by bourgeois parties or
groupings, or by their petty-bourgeois junior partners, these
leaderships will do everything in their power to prevent
not only any “link-up” between the present national struggle
and a future socialist revolution, but even an independent
mobilization of workers and peasants during the national
struggle. There is no “objective” dynamic, “no pressure of
circumstances,” “no internal logic of the historical
process,” that leads to such a link. It can only come
about through the independent organization of workers and poor
peasants, through the proletariat and its revolutionary
vanguard’s gaining hegemony in the revolutionary process, and
through the political defeat of the bourgeois and
petty-bourgeois nationalist leaderships of the national movement.
But in order to create the
necessary political and subjective preconditions for the
elimination of the bourgeois leadership from the revolutionary
process, the workers and peasants must begin without delay to
struggle for their own class interests. The bourgeoisie has
every interest in limiting the objectives of the emancipation
movement to the sole question of national liberation. The
bourgeoisie’s allies and accomplices – even when they call
themselves “communists,” and sometimes even
“Trotskyists” (as was the case in Ceylon), and regardless of
all their “socialist” verbiage – seek to demobilize and
paralyze the class power of the proletariat and the poor
peasantry. Their eternal refrain is: national liberation comes
first, then we’ll see about the rest. Stalin and Bukharin sang
a version of this plaintive ballad during the Second Chinese
Revolution: first, it’s necessary to support the Kuomintang
expedition toward the north; when the anti-imperialist struggle
is won we’ll start thinking about distributing the land and
forming Soviets.
Revolutionary Marxists, on the
contrary, use all means possible in the attempt to develop the
struggle of the workers and peasants for their own class
interests; they do this right from the start of the
revolutionary process in a backward country, including in cases
where the struggle opens around objectives of national
liberation. It is all these teachings of Trotsky that Comrade
Horowitz now derides as “subjectivist.” Only if this
class struggle of the poor peasants and workers leads to a
powerful and massive class organization ” Soviets, in a
word – will it be possible to achieve the tasks of the
bourgeois-democratic revolution through the establishment of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, allied with the poor peasants.
And only in that case – that
is, if the workers, the peasants, and above all the
revolutionary Marxists follow our “subjectivist” conception
– will it be possible to establish in practice, i.e., in the
political arena, an “inseparable” link and an
“intertwining” between the accomplishment of these tasks and
the socialist revolution. To view this intertwining as an
“objectively given fact” means a complete failure to
understand the struggle to the death – Trotsky speaks
of an inevitable and bloody civil war – that will arise
between the bourgeois and proletarian forces within the movement
for national liberation. It means a complete failure to
understand the dynamic of the class struggle that dominates this
entire process. It means taking a step toward breaking with
Marxism.
Our Supposed
‘Errors’ on the National Question
Comrade Horowitz tries to take
up the counter offensive by uncovering our supposed “errors”
on the national question. But as in his attempt to demonstrate
that we supposedly modified our previous positions, he comes
home from the hunt empty-handed; there’s nothing in his
knapsack but wind.
The first “error” he
discovers is that we “underestimate” the importance of
national struggles, and that we do this right hi the middle of a
period hi which the national question has a growing importance
for the world socialist revolution. This argument strangely
resembles the classic Stalinist argument that Trotsky
“underestimated” the peasantry. It has precisely the same
merit – that is, none.
Nowhere have we belittled the
importance of the national question. Comrade Horowitz would have
done better to have said that we are in no way inclined to
“underestimate the national question,” inasmuch as we are
from a country where two nationalities live, nationalities whose
aspirations and conflicts have for decades been intertwined with
the class struggle in the most diverse and manifold forms. When
it came to convincing the Trotskyist movement of the crucial
importance of the colonial revolution; when it came to
understanding the explosive character of such problems as the
Flemish question, the Walloon question, the Quebecois question,
or the Basque question; when it came to grasping the importance
of the Ukrainian question in the present stage of preparation
for the anti-bureaucratic political revolution in the USSR; when
it came to all of these questions, not only did we never show
any sign of any such “underestimation,” but it would even be
difficult to demonstrate that we have shown signs of being slow
to raise these questions, in comparison with the leaders of the
minority. Comrade Horowitz cannot provide the slightest proof to
the contrary.
In In Defence of Leninism:
In Defence of the Fourth International we repeat again and
again that it is the duty of the proletariat and its
revolutionary vanguard to support all mass struggles for
concrete demands concerning the right of oppressed nationalities
to determine their own fate. We state this over and over again
in theory, and we carry it out in practice.
What lies behind Comrade
Horowitz’s attack on our supposed “underestimation” of the
national question is our stubborn and consistent
refusal to identify support to the mass movement for
national liberation with capitulation to the petty-bourgeois or
bourgeois nationalist ideology that may dominate this movement
during a certain phase of its development. Yes, the task of
revolutionaries in the oppressed nations is to extend the most
resolute and energetic support – with methods
appropriate to proletarian struggles – to oppressed
nationalities’ struggles for self-determination, combined with
an uncompromising ideological and political critique of
nationalist ideology. For nationalist ideology is an ideology of
class collaboration against “the common foreign enemy,” an
ideology for which we try to substitute the development of
proletarian class consciousness. This class consciousness is
based on an understanding of the irreconcilable character of the
differences between the interests of the workers and poor
peasants on the one hand and the “national bourgeoisie” on
the other. It is also based on proletarian internationalism,
that is, on the common interests of the workers of all nations.
One supposed “proof of our
“underestimation” of the national question is the fact that
we state there is an important difference between the
semi-colonial and colonial countries insofar as national
oppression is concerned.
In advancing this argument,
Comrade Horowitz forgets that we have stated quite clearly: 1)
that the formally independent states formed by the “national
bourgeoisie” are puppet states; and 2) that the national
bourgeoisie can initiate the struggle for national
liberation, but cannot carry it through.
To draw from all this the
conclusion that the India, Algeria, and Egypt of today are
oppressed nations that have yet to win their right to
self-determination – in the same sense as when they were
colonies – is to once again cross the dividing line between
dialectics and sophistry. If colonial slavery really continues
to exist after a backward country has won national independence,
how can you justify the support revolutionary Marxists gave to
the war in China – even under the leadership of Chiang
Kai-shek – against Japanese imperialism’s attempt to
transform it into a colony? How can you justify the support the
Fourth International rightly gave to the Algerian war of
national liberation against French imperialism? Weren’t these
wars justified by the fact that they led in the direction of a
socialist revolution? Here it is Comrade Horowitz who verges on
a position that “underestimates” the importance of the
national question in a sectarian fashion, notably the importance
of the struggle for even formal independence.
Replying in advance to
Horowitz, Lenin wrote:
“... if we want to grasp
the meaning of self-determination of nations, not by juggling
with legal definitions, or “inventing” abstract
definitions, but by examining the historico-economic
conditions of the national movements, we must inevitably reach
the conclusion that the self-determination of nations means
the political separation of these nations from alien national
bodies, and the formation of an independent national state ...
“Not only small states, but
even Russia, for example, is entirely dependent, economically,
on the power of the imperialist finance capital of the
‘rich’ bourgeois countries. Not only the miniature Balkan
states, but even nineteenth-century America was, economically,
a colony of Europe, as Marx pointed out in Capital.
Kautsky, like any Marxist, is, of course, well aware of this,
but that has nothing whatever to do with the question of
national movements and the national state.
“For the question of the
political self-determination of nations and their independence
as states in bourgeois society, Rosa Luxemburg has substituted
the question of their economic independence. This is just as
intelligent as if someone, hi discussing the programmatic
demand for the supremacy of parliament, i.e., the assembly of
people’s representatives in a bourgeois state, were to
expound the perfectly correct conviction that big capital
dominates in a bourgeois country, whatever the regime in
it.” (The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, Collected
Works, Vol.20, pp.397-399.)
And further:
“The independence Norway
‘achieved’ in 1905 was only political. It could not affect
its economic dependence, nor was this the intention. That is
exactly the point made in our theses. We indicated that
self-determination concerns only politics, and it would
therefore be wrong even to raise the question of its economic
unachievability ...
“In this situation it is
not only ‘achievable,’ from the point of view of finance
capital, but sometimes even profitable for
their trusts, for their imperialist policy, for their
imperialist policy, for their imperialist war, to
allow individual small nations as much democratic
freedom as they can, right down to political independence, so
as not to risk damaging their ‘own’ military operations.
To overlook the peculiarity of political and strategic
relationships and to repeat indiscriminately a word learned by
rote, ‘imperialism,’ is anything but Marxism.” (A
Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, Collected
Works, Vol.23, pp.48-51.)
It is clear that we are in good
company with our “spurious argument” that gaining formal
national independence ends national oppression and achieves the
right to self-determination. Perhaps Comrade Horowitz will
accuse Lenin as well of having used a “semantic trick”?
The real substance of the
question, we state once again, can be grasped quite easily
despite the artificial, scholastic mist Comrade Horowitz has
created. Throughout the imperialist epoch there are many
different links between the economic and military dependence in
relation to imperialism on the one hand, and political
dependence as well as national oppression on the other. This is
why complete accomplishment of the tasks of the
national-democratic revolution is only possible by wrenching a
country out of the domain of international capital. But the overlapping
of colonial slavery, economic exploitation, financial
domination, and military pressure does not mean there is an identity
between them. Semi-colonial countries cannot be identified with
colonial countries without falling into sectarianism and
“underestimation of the national question.” The national
independence won by such countries as India, Algeria, etc.,
cannot be called purely “illusory.” It is the product of a
process of anti-imperialist struggle, of a process that has been
frozen since its inception and has not been completed, but that
has nonetheless produced real results.
The colonial bourgeoisie makes
careful and conscious use of nationalist ideology in order to
freeze the struggle on the level of conquering no more than
“formal political independence” (although acquiring a few
small slices of imperialist property at the same time wouldn’t
displease them). Revolutionary Marxists try to transform this
struggle into a process of permanent revolution in the course of
which the national democratic tasks as a whole will be
accomplished through establishing the dictatorship of the
proletariat, which will then permit the revolution to go over to
the solution of socialist tasks. But this is neither the
inevitable product of “objective conditions” nor the natural
outcome of “national aspirations.” It is the result of the
unfolding of the independent class struggle of the workers and
poor peasants.
The political
significance of this analysis becomes clear right away in light
of the political tasks of revolutionary Marxists. Take once
again the example of Bangladesh. When the struggle for national
independence broke out under the leadership of the Awami League,
what was the task of revolutionary Marxists? Was it to state
that this struggle was “illusory” and that there could be no
national independence without a socialist revolution? That would
have been infantile sectarianism. Was it to state that the
struggle for independence should have been supported “because
it is inextricably linked to the socialist revolution,” and
that revolutionary Marxists should try to be more nationalist
than Mujibur Rahman? That would have been opportunism of a no
less infantile sort. Furthermore, the two positions would amount
to the same thing inasmuch as they are both incapable in
practice of winning sectors of the masses away from the
influence of the national bourgeoisie. The correct position
would be to -support the struggle for national independence
while seeking to organize the workers and peasants in an
independent manner by advancing at the same time the specific
class objectives already mentioned above: occupation of the
land, arming of the people, cancellation of debts, expropriation
of the big foreign and “national” landlords, the conquest of
democratic rights for the masses, etc. Once it is actually won,
national independence paves the way for the struggle for all
these objectives, provided that the proletariat and its
revolutionary vanguard adopt a correct position at the very
beginning of the struggle.
The second “error” we are
supposed to have committed on the national question allegedly
consists in our having “put primary emphasis in the national
struggle on the danger that nationalist demands will play into
the hands of the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation, rather
than on the proven potential that nationalist demands have shown
for advancing the class struggle.” (Horowitz, p.5)
The formula “nationalist
demands” belongs to Horowitz and was never used by us. We have
systematically coun-terposed the concrete, just demand
expressing the struggle of the masses against national
oppression – which we support 100 percent – and nationalist
ideology, which must be fought. Nor have we “put primary
emphasis” on the struggle against this ideology. We have
simply underscored the fact that a correct Leninist approach –
that is, one that is not one-sided and takes into account all
the aspects of the question – must combine support to
the just demands of the masses with the struggle against
nationalist ideology. The “error” we are criticized for is
in reality a criticism of Lenin, who wrote quite unequivocally:
“The interests of the working
class and of its struggle against capitalism demand complete
solidarity and the closest unity of the workers of all nations;
they demand resistance to the nationalist policy of the
bourgeoisie of every nationality. Hence, Social-Democrats
would be deviating from proletarian policy and subordinating the
workers to the policy of the bourgeoisie if they were to
repudiate the right of nations to self-determination, i.e., the
right of an oppressed nation to secede, or if they were to
support all the national demands of the bourgeoisie of oppressed
nations.” (The Right of Nations to Self-Determination,
Collected Works, Vol.20, p.424. Our emphasis.)
For Lenin, the struggle for
just national demands and the struggle against bourgeois and
petty-bourgeois nationalism in the oppressed nations are the two
indissoluble aspects of the same class-struggle policy. By
dropping the second aspect of this Leninist orientation in
practice, Comrade Horowitz little by little transforms it from a
class-struggle policy to a policy of class collaboration. The
“error” he has discovered in our position is that we have
remained faithful to the Leninist and Trotskyist tradition,
which consists in relentlessly combining these two aspects of
revolutionary policy on the national question.
On the
Attempt to Apply the Theory of Permanent Revolution to the
Imperialist Countries
Comrade Horowitz has committed
the methodological error Lenin had already warned Marxists
against fifty-three years ago, when he wrote his theses on the
national and colonial question. Instead of beginning with a
“precise appraisal of the specific historical situation and,
primarily, of economic conditions,” and instead of making a
“clear distinction between the interests of the oppressed
classes, of working and exploited people, and the general
concept of national interests as a whole, which implies the
interests of the ruling class,” Comrade Horowitz begins with
an abstract and formal principle: in the epoch of imperialism,
the “nationalism of the oppressed” is progressive because it
is “inextricably linked to the socialist revolution.”
The most serious consequence of
this error appears in the mechanical transposition of the theory
of permanent revolution to the industrially developed countries,
the imperialist countries.
In In Defence of Leninism:
In Defence of the Fourth International, we wrote as follows
on this point:
“The whole notion of
applying the formula of permanent revolution to imperialist
countries is extremely dubious in the best of cases. It can
only be done with utmost circumspection, and in the form of an
analogy.” (p.34)
This is “simply wrong,”
retorts Comrade Horowitz.
“The permanent revolution
can indeed be applied in the advanced capitalist countries,
and the Trotskyist movement has been doing so for a long time
...” (Horowitz, p.7)
As proof, he offers us ... one
quotation from Trotsky, taken from an internal discussion at the
beginning of the 1930s concerning an American comrade, Weisbord.
We are once again confronted with scholastic sophistry. To find
out what Trotsky thought about the theory of permanent
revolution, there is no need to study his classic works or to
analyze the internal logic of his theory; it is necessary
instead to collect a bunch of quotations and hunt through them
for a “peg” for everything one is trying to smuggle in.
The question is so elementary
that one is almost ashamed to refer to it. Trotsky’s theses on
the permanent revolution state clearly:
“With regard to
countries with a belated bourgeois development,
especially the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the
theory of permanent revolution signifies that the complete and
genuine solution of the tasks of achieving democracy and
national emancipation is conceivable only through the
dictatorship of the proletariat as the leader of the
subjugated nation, above all of its peasant masses.” (The
Permanent Revolution, Pathfinder Press edition,
p.276. Emphasis at beginning of sentence added.)
In the Transitional
Program Trotsky wrote:
“The relative weight of the
individual democratic and transitional demands in the
proletariat’s struggle, their mutual ties and their order of
presentation, is determined by the peculiarities and specific
conditions of each backward country (our emphasis)
and to a considerable extent by the degree of its
backwardness. Nevertheless, the general trend of revolutionary
development in all backward countries can be determined by the
formula of the permanent revolution in the sense
definitely imparted to it by the three revolutions in Russia
(1905, February 1917, October 1917).” (The
Transitional Program, Pathfinder Press edition, p.98)
This is what the programmatic
documents say. Can a casual remark about Weisbord in an internal
bulletin neutralize these documents?
We didn’t need Comrade
Horowitz to understand that there are certain analogies
between the combined tasks that confront the revolution
in an imperialist country and in a backward country. We have
explained this at some length in In Defence of Leninism: In
Defence of the Fourth International (pp.34-35). But as we
said in this document:
“... it would be pure
sophistry to draw the conclusion that no qualitative
difference exists between the combined tasks facing the
revolution in imperialist countries, and those facing it in
colonial or semi-colonial countries, simply because of the
undeniable fact that some tasks of the bourgeois
democratic revolution remain unsolved in the most advanced
imperialist nations, or rise up again there ...” (p.34.
Emphasis added.)
Since Comrade Horowitz compels
us to go back to the ABC’s, let’s refresh his memory about
the qualitative differences between the revolutionary
dynamic in the colonial and semi-colonial countries on the one
hand, and in the imperialist countries on the other.
- The most burning tasks of
the revolution in the former countries are the tasks that
were not resolved by the bourgeois-democratic revolution
(the agrarian question, the national question, national
unification, etc.). In the latter countries it is the tasks
of the proletarian socialist revolution that are the most
burning: socialization of industry and the banks, withering
away of commodity production and wage labor, etc.
- In colonial and
semi-colonial countries the majority of the population is
made up of petty-bourgeois (and semi-proletarianized)
elements; in imperialist countries the majority of the
population is composed of proletarian elements.
Consequently, the struggle between capital and labor wholly
dominates the political and social evolution of the
imperialist countries, whereas the class struggle in the
backward countries takes the predominant form of combining
the struggle of the peasants against the landlords and
usurers, and the struggle of the “national” bourgeoisie
against foreign capital, with the struggle of the workers
against the capitalists – making all three elements an
essential part of the class struggle.
- For this reason, every
broad-based mass struggle in the backward countries
inevitably takes on the aspect of a combination of classes
(only one variant of which – a worker-peasant alliance
under the leadership of the proletariat – can lead the
revolutionary process to victory). In the imperialist
countries, every mass struggle inevitably takes on a
proletarian and socialist dynamic, given the numerical
preponderance of the proletariat in the nation.
- In the colonial and
semi-colonial countries, the main tasks of revolutionary
strategy and tactics concern the overlapping of the
revolution’s bourgeois-democratic tasks and the defense of
the proletariat and poor peasantry’s own class interests;
these are the problems of the worker-peasant alliance, of
the proletariat’s gaining hegemony within the
national-democratic movement. In the imperialist countries,
the key question of revolutionary strategy and tactics is
the unification of the proletarian forces in the broad sense
of the term (wage-earners as a whole) on an anti-capitalist
basis for the revolutionary conquest of power. This
makes it absolutely essential to clarify the question of the
nature of the state, to carry out a merciless
struggle against all confusion on classless “democracy,”
and to conduct a relentless education of the proletariat
against reformism and illusions about the “gradual,”
“peaceful,” “electoral” road to socialism.
Any consideration about the
specific weight of the national question in the semi-colonial
and colonial countries on the one hand and the imperialist
countries on the other – and of course any consideration about
the objective function of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois
nationalism – must be integrated into this overall theoretical
view. It is clear that if the national question played a
qualitatively different role in the Indian or Algerian
revolution in the 1940s and 1950s than it does in the Spanish
revolution of today, it is not, as Comrade Horowitz thinks,
because the Basques represent a smaller percentage of the
population but because the proletariat and the heavy
industry predominate in Spain to an extent that is qualitatively
different.
We repeat: stating these
elementary truths in no way signifies an “underestimation”
of the Basque, Irish, Walloon, Flemish, etc., national question.
What it actually does is place the question in a different
socio-economic framework and thereby deduce a different dynamic
for the revolutionary process. To fail to understand this is to
totally ignore the class structure and the class struggle as
determining factors for Marxist analysis.
It Is Time
to Stop Before It Becomes Too Late
When we wrote In Defence of
Leninism: In Defence of the Fourth International, we
thought that the minority represented an unprincipled bloc on
the national question (and on a few other questions) between the
SWP leadership – which was trying to defend a certain
Trotskyist orthodoxy, although in a dogmatic way – and
comrades like those of the LSA/LSO and those of the PST, who
have been pulled along the path of right opportunism. We
expected that the leaders of the SWP would become embarrassed by
the “excesses” of their allies and try to correct them. This
is sometimes a by-product of tendency struggles, and the
inducement to make such adjustments is not the least of their
positive results.
But this is not what happened.
It was the openly revisionist forces in this bloc that began to
set its tone and determine the dynamic of its political
evolution. It’s not Comrades Breitman, Novack, and Hansen who
are correcting the errors of Alain Beiner and Moreno. It’s
Beiner and Moreno who are compelling the SWP leadership to
follow in their footsteps.
In this sense, Comrade
Horowitz’s article is quite revealing. If it must be
acknowledged that the SWP leadership approves and supports it,
an entire sector of the Trotskyist movement would then be on the
path toward open revisionism on the national question.
Despite all his inclination
toward scholasticism and sophistry, Comrade Horowitz is honest
enough to recognize this. He writes:
“In recent years, the
Trotskyist movement (?) has introduced a change in
terminology, using the word ‘nationalism’ not so much to
describe its specific origins in connection with bourgeois
ideology, but in a more limited sense to describe the simple
concept of identification with the nation.” (Horowitz, p.12)
The unfortunate thing is that
with the exception of the Black question in the United States
and few rare connected cases of the same sort, this “change”
was not introduced “into the Trotskyist movement” as a whole
or accepted by it, but is rather now being surreptitiously
slipped into documents by a few comrades who have taken the path
of revising Marxism. This revision has enormous consequences.
If all that were involved were
a simple question of semantics, the polemic would be of little
interest. Unfortunately, the “concepts” correspond to social
and political realities. If the “concept” of
“nationalism” is used to designate “identification with
the nation” (a vague notion, but let’s leave that aside for
another time), it does not for all that eliminate the fact that
these nations are divided into classes and social layers, each
with its particular interests and with varying ideologies that
tend to express these interests. Comrade Horowitz’s use of the
“concept” of “nationalism” in a sense that is different
from the way it is used by the great majority of humanity in no
way changes the fact that there are bourgeois-nationalist
parties, that they have their petty-bourgeois nationalist
representatives, and that there are attempts on the part of the
bourgeoisie of oppressed nations to prevent the working class
from organizing in an independent way and from carrying out its
class struggle against capitalism, etc., under the pretext of
common national interests. All these phenomena, which are
decisive for the daily political and social life of oppressed
people, do not disappear by magic simply because Comrade
Horowitz modifies the traditional vocabulary of
Marxism-Leninism. It is these decisive social and political
phenomena that we are concerned with here, and not with
“concepts” or semantics.
These are vital problems for
the future of all our sections, present and yet to be formed, in
the backward countries. If we were to adopt a revisionist
position on the national question, if we were to abandon a
merciless struggle against bourgeois nationalism and its
paralyzing influence within the working class and the peasantry,
we would risk transforming the Trotskyist organizations into de
facto appendages of the bourgeoisie (and, let it be said in
passing, into a brake on every consistent struggle for national
liberation). This is a matter of life or death for revolutionary
Marxists in the semi-colonial and colonial countries.
Operating on a mixture of
pragmatism and dogmatism, the minority has already opened the
door to a serious revision of Marxism through the theoretical
implications of its way of “explaining” the victory of the
Third Chinese Revolution. (The majority has sought to
demonstrate this revision in its document The Differences of
Interpretation on the ‘Cultural Revolution’ at the Last
World Congress and Their Theoretical Implications – International
Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol.10, No.22, November
1973.) Now Comrade Horowitz has widened the breech with his
revision of the Marxist position on the national question.
But the supposedly orthodox
leaders of the SWP, blinded by their passion in the struggle
against “ultra-leftism,” are now the victims of the
objective dialectic of factionalism. The entire history of
Marxism testifies to the enormous power of this dialectic. The
old German poet Goethe, a dialectician who was not without
talent, had already summed it up in his time: “you think you
are pushing, but it is you who are being pushed.”
The comrades of the minority
would do well to stop for a moment and reflect on the objective
forces that are pushing them in the direction of a revision of
Marxism. There is still time to stop, but it is five minutes
before the hour. Otherwise the malady can spread like wildfire
and, as Trotsky reminded us, go from a scratch to gangrene.
September 15, 1973
|