Modern Stageism

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
devoration1
Modern Stageism
Printer-friendly version

I've noticed a parallel between the reformists and concilliationists of the past and those of the likely future. During the degeneration of the 2nd International, the center (exemplified by Kautsky) held the permanently opportunist position that in the absolutist nations, a national democratic revolution must come before a socialist revolution.

Today this 'Stageism' is treated like a relic from the past. It seems probable that a number of modern so-called 'Marxists', if confronted by an outbreak of revolutionary energy from the proletariat of a currently authoritarian state-capitalist nation (such as Myanmar, Iran, Libya, Syria, China, DPRK, Laos, etc) will react instinctively like the opportunists, reformists, apparatchik, of the past and demand a transition to a national bourgeois-democratic republic. The CP's, SP's, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc have a long track record of doing such in the flare-ups since WWII (support for the Vietnamese CP and Liberation Front, support for the Iranian 'revolutionary clericism', the Nepali Constituent Assembly, etc). While I'm not familiar with the press of said groups during the breakdown and dissolution of the Eastern Bloc and USSR, it is likely that the Slavic and Asian workers were encouraged to support 'progressive' democratization by at least some of them (with others still saying state capitalism is a progressive move toward 'real existing socialism').

Is such a movement toward national democratization a 'snowball'- grows with momentum, building and building, or is it a movement that can be turned back to working class revolution? Do communists have to influence events strongly from the beginning, or can they adequately move the workers who are already following the bourgeois parties?

 

 

Sheldon
Some examples?

devoration1 wrote:
Today this 'Stageism' is treated like a relic from the past. It seems probable that a number of modern so-called 'Marxists', if confronted by an outbreak of revolutionary energy from the proletariat of a currently authoritarian state-capitalist nation (such as Myanmar, Iran, Libya, Syria, China, DPRK, Laos, etc) will react instinctively like the opportunists, reformists, apparatchik, of the past and demand a transition to a national bourgeois-democratic republic.

Do you (or anyone else) know of the reaction of so-called Marxists or other elements of the "Left" in the West to the laying off of public sector workers in Cuba?  (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11291267)  I imagine the likely defense would be "[Fidel] Castro would never have done this!"

Or how about the resistance Chavez met when he nationalized Polar's facilities? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR201007...)

devoration1
At least 2 (probably more)
Beltov
devoration1 wrote: Is such a

devoration1 wrote:

Is such a movement toward national democratization a 'snowball'- grows with momentum, building and building, or is it a movement that can be turned back to working class revolution? Do communists have to influence events strongly from the beginning, or can they adequately move the workers who are already following the bourgeois parties?

These movements can't be turned back to the working class because they never came from there in the first place. They are bourgeois movements and in this sense can snowball, but generally because of support from other imperialist powers. The 'Rose' and 'Orange' revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine are good examples of this:

https://en.internationalism.org/ir/126_authoritarian_democracy

In terms of influencing events, the role of communists is to stress the importance of the autonomy of the working class from other classes, of the need to defend its own interests as the best way forward.