Watch
out for Reformist Parties and Reformist Movements
An
Interview with Wolf Larsen
from the book Capitalism Sucks!
Question:
What's wrong with reformist parties and reformist movements? Isn't it good to reform the system?
Answer:
It's important not to have illusions in reformist parties or reformist
movements. It's possible that in times
of social struggle a bourgeois government might give the workers and the poor
some social programs, which some might call "reform". At other times a bourgeois government might
curb some of the worst excesses of the capitalist system, but that doesn't
change the fact that the bourgeoisie are still in power. They might even throw out one capitalist
politician or political party or dictator and replace them with another
capitalist politician or political party or dictator. But the bourgeoisie still remain in
power. As socialists we welcome any
changes which are beneficial to workers and the poor, but at the same time we
point out that it's important that workers and the poor not have illusions in a
bourgeois government. Sometimes when
workers have too many illusions in a bourgeois government this can have fatal
consequences for the workers and leftists.
Q.
Fatal consequences? What fatal
consequences?
A. Look at what happened in Chile in 1973. The workers and students and leftists
together elected Allende into the government.
The government was supposedly a "socialist" or pro-worker government. Anyway these "socialists" or
"leftists" or "progressive forces" in the government did
not smash the bourgeoisie and its state.
The military generals remained in place.
The bourgeoisie kept their economic power. When the generals and officers of the armed
forces and the bourgeoisie became uncomfortable with some of the reforms of the
new government they responded with a coup d'état under the leadership of
General Pinochet. Many many leftist
workers and students were killed. The
country languished for years under the dictatorship of General Pinochet. This is what happens when the workers have
illusions in the capitalist system. They
pay for these illusions with their lives.
It's impossible for the workers to rule a nation unless they smash the
bourgeoisie and the state with which they rule.
For the workers to rule the workers must destroy the bourgeoisie as a
class, so that the bourgeoisie can't organize counterrevolution and later have
the workers killed or jailed or whatever.
The workers have to smash the bourgeois state and replace it with a
workers state. The state is armed bodies
of men. So the workers have to control
the state, that is they have to control the armed forces and control the police
apparatus. This would involve replacing
the officers and generals with new officers and generals who are pro-worker,
who are sympathetic to a workers state.
This would also mean dismissing all of the old police officers and
replacing them with new police officers who are sympathetic to a workers state,
or replacing the police with armed workers guards, who would defend the
interests of a workers state. If all the
guns are in the hands of the henchmen of the bourgeoisie than the workers can
be squashed at any time. All of the guns
must be in the hands of the workers, and the workers state, so that the workers
and the workers state can defend themselves against the counterrevolutionary
bourgeoisie and their sympathizers and henchmen.
Q.
But wasn't Allende a socialist? Didn't
he call himself a socialist?
A. President Allende may have called himself a
socialist, but he was no socialist. There's
all kinds of tendencies that call themselves socialist or communist, but they
are neither.
Q.
That's kind of confusing.
A. Yes it is.
And countless workers have paid with their lives for this
confusion. There are political parties and
individuals who call themselves socialist and communist but yet these so-called
"socialists" and "communists" foster illusions that
bourgeois governments can be reformed in the interests of workers. Allende thought that he could reform the
Chilean government and economy to be more in favor of the workers. He was wrong.
The bourgeoisie in Chile and its armed forces were not interested in
being ruled by a government that was sympathetic to the workers. So the bourgeoisie and its henchmen in the
police and armed forces killed Allende and many leftist workers and students as
well. That's why it's important not to
have illusions in the bourgeoisie. You
can pay for these illusions with your life.
The historical examples of this happening over and over again are
endless. Back before Mao the Communist Party of China worked closely with a
general named Chiang Kai-shek. Chiang
Kai-shek wanted to kick out the Japanese invaders out of China. Chiang Kai-shek was also interested in
reforming the Chinese system. So the
communists thought that he was a "progressive" ally. But the workers have no progressive allies in
the bourgeoisie and in the bourgeoisie's henchmen in the police and armed
forces. The only allies the workers have
in the armed forces are potentially the rank-and-file soldiers and lower
officers. Anyway, when Chiang Kai-shek
felt that the leftist workers were becoming too influential he butchered 10,000
of them on the streets of Shanghai.
10,000 workers in Shanghai paid with their lives for their illusions
that there was some "progressive" elements amongst the bourgeoisie
and their henchmen in the military.
Other examples include the Spanish Civil War. In the Spanish Civil War the Stalinist
"Communist Party" was always telling the workers to ally themselves with
some so-called "progressive" wing of the Spanish bourgeoisie. However, there is no such thing as a
progressive wing of the bourgeoisie.
This is an illusion. Of course
the bourgeoisie might have differences amongst themselves, but when faced with
a workers rebellion the bourgeoisie will always close ranks and unite and seek
to crush the workers revolt, with blood if necessary. And that is exactly what happened in the
Spanish Civil War. The entire Spanish
bourgeoisie aligned themselves with General Franco and General Franco unleashed
endless violence and killed endless numbers of leftist workers and students and
anybody else he didn't like. The
bourgeoisie and their henchmen want to maintain power for themselves. That is why they will always crush the
workers when they feel threatened by the working class.
Q.
So what you're saying, in short, is that some groups that call themselves
socialist and communist are not really socialist and communist, because they
perpetrate illusions in some progressive wing of the bourgeoisie. They perpetrate the illusion that the workers
can change a government from bourgeoisie to proletarian through elections.
A. Precisely.
A real socialist or communist group will tell the workers the truth:
that in order to have a proletarian government you need to smash the
bourgeoisie government and that the workers need to arm themselves to defend
themselves and that a proletarian government would have to take control of the
military and the police apparatus. A
state is a body of armed men. Whoever
controls the body of armed men is the state, and thus with brute force they
decide the destiny of that nation.
Currently, in the United States, behind the façade of bourgeois democracy
are the armed bodies of men who make up the state. These bodies of men are the police, the
National Guard, and the army. While it
is possible that rank-and-file soldiers in the National Guard and the army will
one day rebel against the bourgeois state they will only do so if they think
that the workers have a chance of winning.
The soldiers may be sympathetic to the workers, but in a situation of
class conflict if the soldiers think that a bourgeois government will win the
conflict than the soldiers will side with the bourgeoisie. This is the nature of human
perseverance. However if the soldiers
see that the workers have a good chance of obtaining state power and in
addition the soldiers are not happy with their lot (i.e. perhaps they're sick
and tired of all these wars) in that type of scenario it is possible soldiers
may take the side of the workers. In
this situation you have the armed soldiers and hopefully the workers are armed
as well and the workers and soldiers are united in smashing the bourgeois state
and replacing it with a workers state. In
a workers revolution all of the politicians in the bourgeoisie state are thrown
in the garbage, as are all of the highest functionaries. The workers then elect new representatives straight
from the factory and office floor.
Obviously, the white-collar workers and the blue-collar workers must be
united. Only the workers will vote. The supervisors will not have any power. All high-level supervisors and functionaries
will be replaced with new ones who are sympathetic to a workers government.
Q.
But aren't there countries that have socialist or communist parties in their
governments and yet the bourgeoisie does not make violence against the workers
and the socialist or communist parties?
A. Yes this has happened, and is happening at
this moment as well. There are political
parties that call themselves "socialist" and "communist" but
in reality they are very far removed from these labels. The bourgeoisie does not feel threatened by
these reformist parties and movements because they are "socialist" or
"communist" in name only. And that
is why the reason the bourgeoisie does not respond to these types of parties
being in power with violent repression.
At times, due to the pressures from social struggle and other problems
the bourgeoisie allow ostensibly pro-worker or "socialist" or
"communist" parties to remain in power until things cool off. But when things have cooled off enough they
push those political parties out of power – sometimes peacefully and sometimes
violently. At other times the
bourgeoisie allow those parties to remain in power as long as it's pro-worker
or socialist or communist in name only.
There are many so-called pro-worker or "socialist" or
"communist" parties that actually indeed represent the interests of
the bourgeoisie. I even heard of a
so-called "communist" politician in local office in Brazil who voted
against an increase in the minimum wage!
These politicians may belong to so-called "socialist" or
"communist" parties but they are really governing in the interests of
the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie may
give in a little during times of social struggle – that is, they may give the
workers unemployment compensation or free medical care or civil rights
legislation – but that does not change the fact that the government remains a
bourgeois government. The workers need a
workers government. However, in order to
install a workers government it has to be the right moment. In October 1917 it was the right moment for a
workers revolution in Russia. The
workers were fed up with their wages and other things. The soldiers were fed up with the war. And the majority of peasants were fed up
too. And luckily in October 1917 there
was a political party in Russia – the Bolshevik party – that was ready to lead
the workers, soldiers, and peasants into a proletarian revolution.
Q.
Throughout history some people have argued that in some countries the
revolution must occur in two stages. That
is, first there must be the first revolution to make democracy or independence,
depending on the circumstances of that country.
The second stage of the revolution is the workers revolution. What do you think of that?
A. Well, for some people there's not much
difference between the mouth in their face and the anus that's down below – because
nothing but a bunch of shit comes out. Anyway,
the argument favoring a two-stage revolution is a bunch of old archaic
nonsense. Let me explain something
elementary. This is Marxism 101. There's two sides – there's the bourgeoisie
on one side and there's workers on the other – and you're on one side or you're
on the other. You either have a
bourgeois government, or you have a workers government. The 10,000 Chinese workers who tragically
lost their lives to the General Chiang Kai-shek believed in that two-stage
revolution nonsense – and looked what happened to them. In the Spanish Civil War the so-called
"Communist" party there had pushed that line about the two-stage
revolution there as well – and their allusions were shot down by General Franco's
bullets. To see how a workers revolution
works look no further than the October Revolution in Russia in 1917. That's the way it's done. The October Revolution in 1917 brought the
working class to power. That's the way
you do it. You bring workers democracy and workers to power
all in one swift action – and that action is a workers revolution. For more reading on the subject I suggest you
try Leon Trotsky's Permanent Revolution.
Q.
Do you think a workers revolution would look the same in the first world and
the third world?
A. Absolutely.
In both the first and third worlds it's the same problem: the workers
have to have a revolution to dislodge the bourgeoisie from power. The workers have to seize state power. Workers have to control the armed bodies of
men that make up the state. It's the
same in every part of the world, in both first and third world countries. Some people say that in some Third World
countries there is an "anti-imperialist" wing of the bourgeoisie that
will stand up to the big bad imperialist powers like the United States. They say that workers should unite with this
"anti-imperialist" wing of the bourgeoisie in Third World countries. This is utter nonsense. If the bourgeoisie in first or third world
countries feel threatened by the workers then the bourgeoisie will smash the
workers using the armed bodies of men that make up the state, and the workers
will pay for their illusions with their blood and lives. Sometimes some Third World ruler will stand
up a little bit to some first world country like the United States. The ruler will speak a bunch of
tough-sounding rhetoric. But usually all
this is is a bunch of rhetoric. Sometimes
his rhetoric is to help blind the working people in his country to their own
grinding poverty. A ruler who
temporarily stands up to some imperialist power but who later feels threatened
by the working people of his own nation will crush the workers with
bullets. Anyway, more often than not you
will find that the bourgeoisie in Third World countries cooperate with the
bourgeoisie in the first world countries.
It's all about money. All these rich
people care about is money. In the first
world countries workers should always stand against imperialism. Every worker in a first world country like
the United States should understand that his main enemy is the bourgeoisie at
home, as well as the politicians and henchmen who almost always do whatever the
bourgeoisie want. Therefore, workers in
first world countries must always stand against their country invading another
country. The workers in the first world
countries should be in solidarity with the workers in the third world country
whose country is being invaded. For
example, if the US Army invades a Latin American country the American workers
should be against the invasion and their sympathies should be with the Latin
American workers, and not with the American war machine. The Latin American workers will rightfully be
angry at the American war machine for invading their country. But at the same time that the American war
machine is invading their country the Latin American workers must not have any
illusions in the bourgeoisie, politicians, and dictators of their own
country. The American military may be
coming to remove a Latin American politician or dictator, but the Latin
American working-class should have no illusions that the Latin American politician
or dictator is on their side, because he isn't, and will never be, regardless
of whatever rhetoric he says in his speeches.
Because the Latin American working class will be rightfully outraged
that they have been invaded by a foreign imperialist power the Latin American working
class might wish to engage in general strikes and protests and other forms of
resistance. But the workers must also be
cautious and realistic so that they're not shot down in cold blood. If it's feasible the Latin American workers
might wish to do the same to the imperialist invaders that the American people
did to the British Redcoats. But during
the whole time the Latin American workers should have no illusions in their own
"anti-imperialist" bourgeoisie, who when feeling threatened by their
own working-class will cooperate with the imperialist American occupation in a
second in order to crush the workers.
Soldiers in the American army who are against imperialism and against
American invasions of other countries should seek to spread anti-imperialist
and anti-war consciousness amongst their fellow soldiers. They can point out to their fellow soldiers
that the real enemy is back at home, that the real enemy of both workers and
rank-and-file soldiers are the war-hungry generals, politicians, and
war-profiteers back home. Of course,
they may have to be cautious. Who knows,
maybe one day one of these invasions or wars will spark the majority of the
rank-and-file soldiers of the American military to rebel against the generals,
politicians, and multimillionaire war-profiteers who sent them into harms way. Such a rebellion will be more effective if
the rank-and-file soldiers are united with the working-class, because united
together the workers and soldiers have the power to throw the war-mongering
bourgeoisie into the garbage can of history.
Q.
Many Third World countries have a large peasant population. How does this affect the workers revolution?
A. The workers and the peasants have the same
enemy: the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie
owns the factories in the cities that pay the workers low wages. The bourgeoisie owns the land in the
countryside that pays the peasants poor wages.
Both the workers and the peasantry have to unite to get rid of the
bourgeoisie through a workers revolution.
However, sometimes some peasants can become shortsighted. Understandably they want more land. Specifically, they want the land of the
bourgeoisie for themselves. They feel
they should have the land because they've worked the land. Indeed, the land must belong to the people,
and not to some rich landowner. However,
if we just give out the land to the peasants then in the next generation that
land will be divided amongst the peasants' children and then the peasants will
once again be struggling to survive on smaller and smaller plots of land. The solution to this is the collective or
commune. The land that is seized from
the rich landowners will be turned into communes or collectives that will pay
the peasants wages far superior to anything they were paid by the rich
landowners under capitalism. Plus under
socialism the peasants will be given quality free medical care like everybody
else in the country. In addition, the
children of the peasants will receive a quality free education.
Q.
What would happen to the small plots of land owned by poor peasants prior to the
revolution?
A. They would keep them. Those poor peasants who were lucky enough to
have a small piece of land prior to workers revolution would keep their
land. However, they could also work on
the collectives or communes to make additional money if they would like, at
wages far superior than what the large landowners paid the peasants under
capitalism.
Q.
I'm going to change the subject. You say
that is impossible to reform the bourgeois state, that it is impossible to
change its bourgeois character through elections. But what about the democracies of the United
States and Western Europe – you don't think it's possible to change their
bourgeois character through elections?
A. Of course not! At this very moment in Western Europe the
bourgeoisie governments there – including those that call themselves pro-worker
– are dismantling much of the safety net that gave the Western European workers
an enviable standard of living. One of
the reasons for that is that the bourgeoisie in these countries no longer feel
threatened by the specter of communism anymore now that the Soviet Union has
collapsed. They don't feel that they
need to buy off the workers anymore with all those social programs. If the Western European workers want to have
a good standard of living they're simply going to have to smash the bourgeois
state and replace it with a workers state.
You can't do this through elections.
You can use the elections to make propaganda and point out all the evils
of the capitalist system. But if a truly
socialist or communist leader wins an election in his country than he should
immediately resign. He should not follow
in the footsteps of so-called "socialists" or "communists"
who once in a bourgeois government betrayed the workers. The only way to achieve a workers state is
through workers revolution. The United
States is no different. And in Western
Europe and the United States just like in other parts of the world the proletariat
must not have illusions in the bourgeoisie.
The price to pay for illusions in any "progressive" wing of
the bourgeoisie is too great! There is
no progressive wing of the bourgeoisie! The
workers have to smash the bourgeois state and replace it with a workers state
through workers revolution. And then the
workers state has to smash the bourgeoisie.
This is the same everywhere in the world, regardless of whether a
bourgeois government takes the form of a bourgeois democracy or a bourgeois
dictatorship, regardless if it's the first world or the third world, regardless
of whether the country has a history of bourgeois democracy or not. I strongly urge anyone wanting to learn more
to read Lenin's State and Revolution and
Trotsky's Permanent Revolution.
Buy the book Capitalism Sucks on Amazon or other online retailers,
or just scroll down to read Capitalism Sucks for free.
You can also click on whatever chapter you wish listed
in the upper right hand column of this page.
You can also click on whatever chapter you wish listed
in the upper right hand column of this page.
No comments:
Post a Comment