Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 08:51:13 +0100
From: Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>
Subject: Re: M-G: Revolution and united front in Indonesia


Chris Burford writes:

>I wonder how Bob, and other purist critics of "Stalinist" strategies of
>united fronts, view developments in Indonesia.

This is hardly worth answering, as it so crudely misunderstands both
Stalinist strategies of the popular front, where proletarian forces are
compelled to subordinate themselves not just programmatically but also
organizationally and tactically to bourgeois forces and bourgeois political
objectives (often within a bourgeois government in a bourgeis state), and
Trotskyist (=Leninist) tactics of the united front, where two or more
programmatically, politically and organizationally independent forces
coincide in joint action to attain a temporary goal.

What Chris puts down as "purist" -- let's all pig it in the shit and get
real filthy eh? -- is just adhering to principles to avoid the fate of the
Shanghai proletariat in 1927 (or the Indonesian massacre of 1965).


>One of the striking aspects of the reports coming through today is that the
>opposition to Suharto's rule is coming not just from one class and one
>cultural and geographical sector of society, but from many, who are
>effectively forming a sort of moving coalition, embracing large sections of
>the army.

So the situation's prerevolutionary. Compare the situation in pre-February
Russia or in the Philippines before Marcos was dumped or Haiti or Zaire or
practically anywhere. It's not so much striking as perfectly normal and the
sort of thing a revolutionary party should be ready for and working for
*before the event*.

>No party influenced by Marxism would be able to influence events now by
>calling on a pure working class.

Chris wouldn't know because this idea has never entered his head, and he
doesn't distinguish between organizing for leadership (programmatic and
propaganda work) and agitating for power. What the Bolsheviks (under Lenin
and Trotsky) did in 1917 was to develop the leadership of the "pure"
working class against the useless political alternatives of the other class
forces (including the useless political alternatives of currents within
Bolshevism influenced by these alien class forces -- such as Stalin), *at
the same time* as they roused the poor urban and peasant and soldier masses
to support their line as the only one able to lead to bread, peace and land.

>The strategy that will succeed is the one
>that best reflects the prevailing balance of forces and tips it in a
>somewhat more progressive direction.

For Chris success will be getting rid of Suharto. Hallelujah. "Somewhat
more progressive". Great. For revolutionaries success is something more
than this, which is a small step in the right direction. The Nicaraguan
revolution, just like the Russian revolution, only *began* with the removal
of the autocratic dictator and his closest cronies.

>That will involve in practice alliances with, horror of horrors, certain
>wings of the bougeoisie.

It will in no sense involve merging with them and acting as hostages for
the masses in their fake new institutions of political repression.

If elements of the bourgeoisie go along with dumping Suharto -- great. Do
we trust them not to grab it all for themselves the day after? No. Do we
expect them to change their spots and use their guns to support their own
expropriation and a real government of the working class and the poor? No.

Do we demand that the bourgeoisie enters into united front against Suharto
and the IMF and the foreign debt with *us* on *our* terms?? Yes.

>Lenin is clear that this may at times be necessary. Is it anything more
>than ultra-leftism to deny this strategic fact?

Lenin wanted *proletarian power* in each nation and throughout the world.
It is shallow opportunism to deny this strategic fact.

Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---