Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 10:04:30 GMT
From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>
Subject: M-I: catastrophism



Louis P writes
> 
> A lot of it has to do with the problematic legacy of the *early* 
> Comintern. Nicos Poulantzas, in his excellent "The Third 
> International and Fascism", observes that the early Comintern had a 
> tendency to put things into a "catastrophist" framework.

Well, given that workers revolution was sweeping Europe from the Baltic
to the Black sea, this was not entirely unreasonable. The immediate task
of the moment was to organise everyone and anyone who was for soviet
power for an immediate frontal assault on capitalism.

But, after 1919, and the defeats in Germany, Hungary ( to a minor extent
1919 in Britain ) , this immediate post war revolutionary wave had been
repulsed. So the Commintern switched to a united front strategy, and the main
problem became ultra leftism, which cut revolutionaries off from reformist
workers ( although many parties simply ignored it : the Italians, French,
Bulgarians, certainly ignored it ). The changed conditions were reflected in
a changed orientation, which was most successfully implemented in Germany.

To compare either of these two orientations with Stalin's third period is
a travesty. Both of the pre 1923 orientations were correct responses to
the real needs of the class struggle, although unfortunately very few
of the CP's really understood either of them. The third period nonsense
flowed not from the needs of the class struggle of workers anywhere, but
the needs of needs of the rising bureuacracy in Russia. It wasn't the
continuation of the policy of 1919 - 1920, but its complete opposite.

>
> Capitalism 
> was always in crisis and always ready to break down. This gave birth 
> to Stalin's nutty 3rd Period. It also gave birth to the world-view of just 
> about every Trotskyist group.
> 

The catastrophism of the Trotskyist movement does not stem from the
early Commintern, IMO. It was a departure from the necessity of looking
at the real state of the struggle, a mistake, which the Trostkyist
groups inherented from Trotsky's mistaken 1940 perpective.

Nevertheless, this mistake, at the time, was an understandable mistake.
After all, the instability after WWI never really went away. There was
the General strike in Britain in 1926,  revolutionary upheavals in 1927
and 1929 in China, in Spain and France in 1936, etc. War had, in the
past, led to revolution, ever since 1905. Even towards the end of the
war, in Greece and Italy, events seemed to be moving in the same direction.
In Britain, Trotskyists were able to play a significant role in some
strikes in 1944.

But making mistakes in itself is not a crime. What is a crime, is to pretend
you haven't made the mistake, when it is obvious you have. After a few years
after 1945 it was bloody obvious that there was no economic collapse or
revolutionary wave. This should have been recognised, analysed, and a new
orientation worked out. Unfortunately, by + large, this didn't happen.

However, it should be pointed out that the idea that a revolutionary wave
was sweeping Europe after 1945 was enhanced by the idea that the new
"Communist" regimes were workers states. In Harry Pollit's words,
"you may have Southampton - but we have China". Insane delusions that
Tito was a Trotskyist didn't help in coming to terms with the fact
that there was no revolutionary wave as predicted in 1940.

Adam.



Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------



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