racism, eurocentrism

[Sam Pawlett <rsp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill Burgess wrote:
>
> If I understood Sam's comments correctly, he argues 1) it was Eurocentric
> to expect a revolution in Germany in 1918-19,

No, it wasn't euro-centric to expect a revolution there and then, it was
eurocentric to presume that such a revolution was a necessary and maybe
even a sufficient condition to lead world socialism. This is the view I
was arguing against. Right up until his death Trotsky maintained that
the survival of the USSR and world socialism depended on revolution in
the imperialist countries.

 that 2) Lenin rejected Roy's
> emphasis on the importance of the revolutions in colonial countries,

Not really. Lenin and Roy had similiar views but Roy took Lenin's
reasoning a bit differently. Roy accepted the importance and centrality
of revolution in the imperialist countries and accepted that the
docility of the Western proletariat was ,to a large extent, the result
of the surplus value generated in the colonies with which the Western
bosses could pay off or bribe the worknig class into reformism rather
revolution. Roy believed that since no revolution in Germany or
elsewhere was forthcoming this surplus value would have to be cut off at
the source i.e. through revolutions in the south and east in order to
press the western working class into revolutionary agency. And maybe
give them some confidence and an example (this was also Marx's argument
that I cited previously). Lenin didn't go this far into proto Maoism.

 and
> that 3) the Eurocentric policy of the Comintern led to disasterous
> alliances with the bourgeoisie in countries like China, Turkey and Indonesia.

 The alliances were disastrous and it was partly because of
eurocentrism-- socialism wasn't possible in such backward places
independent of European revolution.  It was a conundrum. The bourgeosie
in said countries was acting
in important anti-imperialist ways but at the same time repressing
(usually savagely) domestic revolutionaries. Kemal asked Lenin for aid
to kick out the Greeks and got it, despite the situation in Russia in
1918-1920. Russia signed all sorts of treaties with governments who were
murdering communists including the Treaty of Rapallo (1922) with Germany
and it was Russia that called the shots at the comintern.

> 2) In fact, at the Third Congress (or the Second?) Lenin changed his
> original position and endorsed part of Roy's approach on the colonial
> revolution.

Right, at the second congress, this was later reversed at the 3rd and
subsequent congresses. Roy was given 5 minutes to speak at the third
congress (!) I have the second congress resolution around here somewhere
but can't find it right now. There was also the view that the peoples of
the south and east must liberate themselves.

 I think that part of the shift in the Lenin's position was to
> accept Roy's sharper formulation of how unreliable allies the colonial
> bourgeoise classes were, and to clarify that the class struggle in these
> countries had a different strategic framework than in the imperialist
> countries. How is it Eurocentric to programitically codify the rejection of
> the Second International's 'socialist colonial policy'?

I don't understand your question. Roy and other southern delegates to
the 3rd congress did compare the Comintern's policy to the Second int'l.
I can't find the documentation right now. Tomorrow.

>
> 3) I'm sure Sam is well aware of it, so I wonder why he ignores the
> cardinal differences between the Stalinist policy of the Comintern in
> China, Turkey and Indonesia and the 'Lenin-Roy' approach adopted by the
> Third Congress?
>

There were important theoretical differences between the Lenin and
Stalin-Zinoviev comintern but these differences came to nothing in
practice. The Comintern  blew it for many reasons, one of them being
eurocentrism.

Sam Pawlett