At 10:56 AM 14/04/00 -0700, Sam wrote:
>No, it wasn't euro-centric to expect a revolution there and then [Germany
1918-19], 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.
"Expect" was a poor word to use on my part. But are you saying it was wrong
in 1918-19 to have the *perspective* of revolution in Germany, that
Comintern stragegy should consider that this would be the next key step
forward in world socialism, and that the Comintern should instead have
counted on revolutions in the colonial countries as the next key step?
Otherwise, what is Eurocentric about Lenin and Trotsky's perspective (all
this before the Third Congress)?
If the idea that the survival of the USSR and world socialism (utlimately)
depends on revolution in the imperialist countries is Eurocentric, then I
guess I have to plead guilty. Perhaps we should change the name of this
list to Progressive Economists for Revolutions Somewhere Else.
>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.
I don't know much about Roy, but if this was his position and is an example
of non-Eurocentrism, it this idea of pressing into revolutionary agency
does not seem to be a gain over Eurocentrism.
> The alliances [post-Lenin Comintern] were disastrous and it was partly
because of
>eurocentrism-- socialism wasn't possible in such backward places
>independent of European revolution.
Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second
Interntional-Menshevic claim that socialism couldn't take root in
'backward' places. How does that make them Eurocentrist, even before Roy
and the Third Congress?
>Right, at the second congress, this [Roy's position] 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.
>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.
I was not aware of an important change to the 2nd Congress position at the
Third or Fourth Congresses, so thanks in advance for finding the
references. But I seem to recall that Lenin and/or other Bolshevic leaders
also criticized (some) Communist Party leaders for hanging on to Second
International-type positions. Again, where is the Eurocentrism here?
>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.
I don't want to reherse the issue of Stalinism (I think Stalin's Comintern
turned CPs into border guards of the interests of the Soviet bureaucracy,
and was the antithesis of the Lenin's Internationalist Comintern). I took
up your comments because of the claim that Eurocentrism was a key problem.
It seemed to me this was an example of what Carroll referred to, where a
reasonably sound analysis and terminology (imperialism, opportunism,
reformism, racism, etc.) already exists. Applying terms like Eurocentrism
mistakes the real issues (in this case, the problem of Stalinism).
Eurocentrism is real, but it should not be aimed at the 'Europeans' who
contributed most, theoretically, organizationally and politically to the
fight against this problem, e.g. Lenin.
Bill Burgess
