From The American Left History Blog Archives (2006)
- On American Political Discourse
Markin comment:
In the period 2006-2009 I, in
vain, attempted to put some energy into analyzing the blossoming American
presidential campaign since it was to be, as advertised at least, a watershed
election, for women, blacks, old white anglos, latinos, youth, etc. In the
event I had to abandon the efforts in about May of 2008 when it became obvious,
in my face obvious, that the election would be a watershed only for those who
really believed that it would be a watershed election. The four years of the
Obama presidency, the 2012 American presidential election campaign, and world
politics have only confirmed in my eyes that that abandonment was essentially
the right decision at the right time. In short, let the well- paid bourgeois
commentators go on and on with their twitter. I, we, had (have) better things
to do like fighting against the permanent wars, the permanent war economies,
the struggle for more and better jobs, and for a workers party that fights for
a workers government . More than enough to do, right? Still a look back at some
of the stuff I wrote then does not a bad feel to it. Read on.
************
ON THE DEATH OF GENERAL PINOCHET OF CHILE
COMMENTARY
NO LEFTIST MOURNS THE DEATH OF THE ‘BUTCHER’ OF THE
POPULAR FRONT ALLENDE GOVERNMENT- BUT, FOR HIS CRIMES AGAINST THE CHILEAN WORKING
CLASS HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DIE IN BED
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS
PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR A WORKERS GOVERNMENT
Today, Monday December 11,
2006, brings news of the death of old age of the notorious Chilean dictator,
General Pinochet, infamous as the “butcher” of the democratically elected
Popular Front government of Socialist Salvador Allende in 1973. As a result of
the Pinochet-led coup against that government thousands of his fellow citizens and
some foreign nationals were rounded up and executed, imprisoned or forced into
exile. Not a pretty picture and goes a long way to explaining why his political
opponents (as well as victims) are dancing in the streets of Santiago today.
The real tragedy , however, was that he was able to rule so long and get away
with his role in that suppression without having to face the wrath of his victims,
mainly leftists and working class trade unionists. He should not have died in
his sleep. However, that is not what is important about the Chilean events. In
fact the passing of the General and the details of his nefarious career are
best left to The New York Times obituary writers. Pinochet’s death, however,
brings back to this writer the need to outline the lessons to be learned by
militant leftists about what happened over thirty years ago with the rise and
fall of Allende’s Popular Front government in Chile- and how to avoid those
same mistakes again.
Why is such an analysis
important today? For those who have been attentive to the developments in
Central and Latin America there is every indication that some big battles by
the working class and its allies are on the agenda, some have already occurred
as in Mexico. Right now this is being played out mainly on the parliamentary
level with the election of left nationalists and ‘soft’ socialists in such
places as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Chile, Peru and the near victory of
Obrador in Mexico. In the grand scheme of things the first impulses of the
masses to the left almost inevitably take parliamentary form and this wave
appears to be no exception. That is why it is necessary for militants to be prepared
and forewarned about reliance on a parliamentary strategy on the road to
socialism- it aint going to happen on that road, boys and girls.
The following paragraphs are taken
from my review of Leon Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution (see April
2006 archives) and sums up the experience of popular fronts in the modern era.
Trotsky is all his later writing was adamantly opposed to participation in such
formations by revolutionaries and he was not wrong on this issue. The
experience of the Russian revolution, the only revolution that has overcome the
problem of the popular front, should be etched in every militant’s mind.
“All revolutions, and the
Russian Revolution is no exception, after the first flush of victory over the
overthrown old regime, face attempts by the more moderate revolutionary
elements to suppress counterposed class aspirations in the interest of unity of
the various classes that made the initial revolution. Thus, we see in the
English Revolution of the 17th century a temporary truce between the
rising bourgeoisie and yeoman farmers and pious urban artisans who formed the
backbone of Cromwell’s New Model Army. In the Great French Revolution of the 18th
century the struggle from the beginning depended mainly on the support of the
lower urban plebian classes. As these revolutions demonstrate later after the
overturn of the old order other classes through their parties which had
previously remained passive enter the arena and try to place a break on
revolutionary developments. Their revolutionary goals have been achieved in the
initial overturn- for them the revolution is over.
They most commonly attempt to
rule by way of some form of People’s Front government. This is a common term of art in Marxist
terminology in the modern era that is used to represent a trans-class formation
of working class and capitalist parties which ultimately have counterposed
interests. The Russian Revolution also suffered a Popular Front period under
various combinations and guises supported by ostensible socialists, the
Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries, from February to October. One of the
keys to Bolshevik success in October was that, with the arrival of Lenin from
exile in April, the Bolsheviks shifted their strategy and tactics to a position
of political opposition to the parties of the popular front. Later history has
shown us in Spain in the 1930’s and more recently in Chile in the 1970’s how
deadly support to such popular front formations can for revolutionaries. The various parliamentary popular fronts in
France, Italy and elsewhere show the limitations in another less dramatic but
no less dangerous fashion. In short, political support for Popular Fronts means
the derailment of the revolution or worst. This is a hard lesson, paid for in
blood, that all manner of reformist socialists try deflect or trivialize in
pursuit of being at one with the ‘masses’. Witness today’s efforts, on a much
lesser scale, by ostensible socialists to get all people of ‘good will, etc.’,
including liberal and not so liberal Democrats under the same tent in the
opposition to the American invasion of Iraq.”
A shorthand way to put this accumulated experience can
be expressed this way. No political
support to popular front formations. Military support to such formations
against right-wing military attack or imperialist intervention. That, my
friends, is sound revolutionary policy. Forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment