ahmed shawki, comintern

an ambiguity in the comintern's formulation of the national question, beginning with the second congress in 1920, which has led to the confounding of 'marxism' with a kind of 'radical nationalism'.
for marx, socialism meant international working-class revolution--not out of a moral duty, necessarily, but because of the nature of capitalism as a 'global' system. the possibility of victory in one country is premised on success in all countries.

marx also believed that capitalism would be reproduced in less developed countries in the way it appeared in advanced countries (his empirical material was limited). the spread of capitalist relations in these countries would be 'progressive' (this doesn't need to be the caricatured stagism that said and co. think it is--there were no sanguine descriptions of what it did, remember). the problem is, of course, is that he was wrong. he had concluded that national differences would tend to disappear as there is created a world-class; he was wrong about the pace, and the speed at which it would develop. revolutionary socialists face an entirely different problem, really--you had the development of imperialism, which is a fundamental obstacle to the disappearance of 'national antagonisms'.

the organizations of the socialist movement around WWI, of course, collapsed.

lenin's argument, at this time, was very different: in marx's time, capitalism was still contained within a few nation states. now, of course, we are talking about the uneven expansion of the world-system (you don't get many manchesters, but england and india). imperialism, furthermore, appears here; defined as the ferocious rivalry between advanced capitalist countries (not so much about the advanced countries and the less developed). this is why, of course, marxists reject variants of third-worldism; they are unable to accomodate the rivalries that ravage the 'advanced blocks'. this is the key to the collapse of the second international (here shawki is disagreeing--the question of the 'labor aristocracy,' etc.), in lenin's argument.

the most important thing about lenin, here, is that he is insisting that we begin not by ceding to the politics of nationalism, but by supporting the right to self-determination of those who are fighing colonial occupation (not necessarily secession, but if it comes to that, yes). this is the period of world war one.
this is really when Marxism starts to look beyond Europe, shawki is arguing.

comintern in 1919, in baku -- emancipation of workers in less advanced countries requires revolution in the advanced countries. if capitalist europe pillaged them, socialist europe will liberate them.

CRITICAL--what is important about this statement, shawki is noting, is that within a year, almost, or by the mid-1920s, this changes quite dramatically. their attitude changes. instead of seeing the emancipation of the third world as dependent on the workers of the advanced world, with the decline of revolutionary possibilities in europe, they began to see the struggles in the third world as the spark that would light the fire.
the comintern at this time is trying to clarify what their position should be, with respect to these countries, around this time (1920-1922, it seems). three central conclusions.

first and foremost, the precondition for socialism was the development of the economy and the development of a working-class. did that mean that socialism elsewhere was an impossibility? support for nationailst countries?
the comintern says no. capitalism is not inevitable--if the victorious proletariat in these countries conduct aggressive propaganda (and USSR come to their aid, note), capitalist development might be bypassed.

second, soviets are possible amongst the peasantry, etc.

thirdly, the nationalist movements in the third world would be the allies of the Soviet State, in that they fought against the domination of the imperialist countries.

this is where MN Roy steps in, of course. it was already raised, here, that class differentiation in the less developed countries had come to a degree that you already find movements that are 'bourgeois' in character--and more fearful of the proletariat than they will be brave in the face of imperialist oppression. he objected to blanket support to national liberation movements (he was saying, in effect, what Lenin had said in Tsarist Russia--the 'bourgeois-democratic' revolution, and then the 'national revolution')

this ambiguity in the formulation, then--how you assess national liberation movements?--was actually avoided at the congress of the comintern, and was left for the future. basically, Roy's amendments were spliced onto Lenin's original theses. an agreement, of course, to not obscure the nature of bourgeois movements--we will support the nationalist movements only when they are genuinely revolutionary, and when they will not block independent communist organizing.

KEY--of course, even this leaves many of the questions to be resolved, in practice. and leaves a contradiction in place. the stronger the communist party, the weaker and more conciliatory the natonialist movement. the weaker the communist party, the more revolutionary the nationalist movement. so confusion, he's arguing.
this said--there certainly is room, here, for tactical flexibility. moreover, practically, they never here compromised the politics of the international revolution, he's arguing. "a resolute struggle must be waged against coating the non-revolutionary movements in the colonies in the colors of revolution. comintern should collaborate with the revolutionary movement, yes, but it must unconditionally maintain the independence of the proletarian movement."

in practice, what did this mean? 

well, there was a tension--in part to do with the ambiguity of the formulation. but also--KEY--because you have two contradictory aims, of course: the defense of the Soviets, and the advance of the international working class.

one example--in 1921, the principal threat to the Soviet Union was Britain and France (third congress in 1921), acknowledging that revolution was no longer on the cards in the West. they looked, then, for allies who would assist them in their struggle against Britain and France, which leads, shawki's arguing, to a whole series of contradictions--signing of a treaty between Ataturk and the Russian State, for example. Ataturk took the support, of course, and this had disastrous consequences for the Turkish Communist Party, which was promptly slaughtered.

there is an objective difference, Shawki is arguing, between this and the comintern under Stalin. not a question of justifying anything, just understanding the context.
Bukharin, for example, to Turkish communists--"even now, with the persecutions, do not let yourself be blinded. you still have far to go." what is important here, he's arguing, is the beginnings of the development of a 'theory of stages'. in all of what has been given thus far, shawki's noting, there has been no hint of a 'theory of stages' in the backward countries.

KEY--theoretically, shawki is saying, this has to do with the arrival of socialism in one country. the european revolutions had failed; but the russian state survived, as a result of the smychka. bukharin, following some of his earlier analysis, adopted that as the theory of the world--in today's present circumstances, the struggle internationally was not about working-class revolution, but about 'the cities of the world' vs. the 'countryside' (modern-day third worldism). therefore we're not talking so much about international alliances, but instead a kind of 'nationalisms' (this has also to do with bukharin's belief that the working-classes in the advanced countries were vanishing).

it now becomes a question, then, of supporting nationalist movements against imperialism which is with us (where as we do not support those who aren't with us). a question of the defence of the russian state above all else. clearest illustration of this is the chinese revolution of 1925-1927. bukharin/stalin here are entirely different from what came previously; they were never unclear on the question of independent organization, and not dressing up the nationalists in communist colors (in china, the nationalist movement was literally constituted by the comintern (by Borodin)--it physically did not exist as an organization).

borodin is known for one famous quote in 1927--this is not our time, this is the time to do coolie service for the KMT. here's a quote from the central committee in 1926, in the midst of an enormous strike wave: "the greatest danger is that the mass movement is developing toward the left, while the KMT is seized with panic, and beginning to incline toward the right. should these tendencies continue, the cleavage will deepen... the red united front will be demolished..."

CONCLUSION--the practical consequence of this is that the comintern collapsed the struggle for socialism into the struggle for nationalism, and into the defence of the Soviet Union.  it began to blur the very important distinction between the class position in society--it's not a question of ignoring the peasantry, but a question of understanding divergent class interests.