Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 09:48:27 +0100
From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Subject: Re: Lenin on National Liberation


Chris served up a mystification of Stalinist policy-making and then tried
to implicate Lenin by giving us the following:

>Now even if you think that going into the KMT was a wrong decision
>in 1923, because things turned out so bloodily in 1926, which I think
>is a much more complex issue than Lou suggests, what we do have
>historical evidence for is of the influence of another marxist
>(and I do not mean exclusive influence but speaking for a trend;
>it would be a gross simplification to say he "ordered" either) -
>
>Lenin at the formative 3rd Congress of the Communist International
>1921, just two years before the date Lou referred to.
>
>
>"The labouring masses in the colonial and semi-colonial
>countries, who make up the vast majority of the world's population,
>were awakened to political life early in the twentieth century,
>particularly as a result of the revolutions in Russia, Turkey,
>Persia, and China. The imperialist war of 1914-18 and Soviet power
>in Russia are converting, once and for all, these masses into an
>active factor in world politics and in the revolutionary
>destruction of imperialism, although this is stubbornly disregarded
>by the educated philistines of Europe and America, including the
>leaders of the Second and Two-and-a-Half Internationals.
>
>British Inida stands at the head of these countries, and there the
>revolution is developing all the more rapidly, on the one hand,
>as the more considerable becomes the industrial and railway
>proletariat and, on the other, as the more savage becomes the
>terror of the British, who more and more frequently resort to
>wholesale massacre (Amritsar), public floggings, etc."
>
>
>[and again]
>
>"I should also like to emphasise here the significance of the movement
>in the colonies. In this respect we witness in all the old parties,
>in all the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois labour parties of the Second
>Two-and-a-Half Internationals, the survivals of old sentimental
>conceptions - they are, foresooth, full of sympathy for the oppressed
>peoples of the colonies and semi-colonies.
>
>The movement in the colonial countries is still regarded as
>an insignificant national and completely peaceful movement. However,
>that is not the case. Great changes have taken place in this respect
>since the beginning of the twentieth century, namely, millions
>and hundreds of millions - actually the overwhelming majority of the
>world's population - are now coming out as an independent and active
>revolutionary factor.
>
>And it is perfectly clear that in the impending decisive battles of
>the world revolution, the movement of the majority of the world's
>population originally aimed at national liberation, will turn
>against capitalism and imperialism and will, perhaps play a much
>more revolutionary role than we expect.
>
>It is important to stress that, for the first time in our International,
>we are moving towards the preparation of this struggle. Of course,
>in this vast sphere the difficulties are much greater, but at any
>rate the movement is advancing and the mass of the toiling people,
>the peasants in the colonial countries, despite the fact that they
>are still backward, will play a very important revolutionary role
>in the coming phases of the world revolution."

Trouble is, in all this long quote there is not a single bit of evidence
for the point Chris is apparently trying to make. What is your point,
Chris? And how does the Lenin quote back you up on it?

Surely you aren't trying to tell us that Lenin was giving us a ukaze on the
monopoly rights of the KMT to represent national liberation in China and as
such a follow-up franchise on any Chinese movement against capitalism and
imperialism?

Sorry there's more quote than me in this posting, but it was needed to get
the full impact of Chris's contribution.

Cheers,

Hugh

Cheers,

Hugh




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

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