[page 24]
introduced.
In a number of works we have
traced the contradictions and
inconsistencies which the sects
show on the question of what is a
healthy workers' state with "bur-
eaucratic deformations", or what is
a deformed workers' state. Though
both are based on state
ownership, they are fundamentally
different in their super-structure.
For that reason a political revolu-
tion is necessary in the case of a
deformed workers' state before a
"workers' democracy" or "the
dictatorship of the proletariat", in its political as well as economic
sense, can be established. On the other hand a workers' state with "bureaucratic deformations" is a workers' state under conditions of backwardness and isolation which can still be reformed through the restoration of party, trade union and state democracy. ie a return to the control of the workers and peasants and where, if only in vestigial form, these organisations still exist under the pressure of the workers,
Some of these sects bowed down before Castro as the leader and organiser of a healthy workers' state. They went even further and compared "his struggle against bureaucracy" with that of Trotsky against Stalinism. They actually committed the indecency of publishing the photographs of Trotsky and Castro together as fighters against bureaucracy and for democratic socialism. They thus showed that they understood neither the role of Trotsky as an immortal fighter against the Stalinist bur-
Pe * come to Havana to support agrarlan retorm
eaucracy nor Castro's role as the incarnation of the Cuban Stalinist bureaucracy.
Words are cheap. Castro's
"struggle" against the Cuban
bureaucracy was no different in
essence to that of Stalin on
occasions against the Russian
bureaucracy. Stalin as a Bonapartist dictator sometimes attacked the "bureaucracy" in words. He went
further on occasions and leaned
on the workers and peasants. This
happened when the greedy bureaucrats went too far in their swindling, speculation and plundering of the state and threatened to devour the foundations of the state. He took action even against high-up bureaucrats and certainly against wide sections of the lower ranks of the bureaucracy. This was to preserve the Stalinist system by making scapegoats of some bureaucrats, especially the lower ranks.
Fundamentally: Castro's role in Cuba is the same. True he played the leading personal role in the guerrilla war, the overthrow of Batista. the movement towards expelling imperialism. and overthrowing landlordism and capitalism,
But Stalin had lived through a proletarian revolution together with the existence of a workers' democracy. He carried out a counterrevolution against it. But right from the first day, the Cuban revolution was deformed and distorted. The proletariat never held political power directly as in Russia. The fact that even today probably the decisive bulk of the Cuban people, as the Chinese
23
people too, at this stage, support the regime alters nothing as to its character, Castro's strictures against bureaucracy, like Stalin's are necessary if he is to preserve the role of Bonapartist "arbiter" and "father of the people"
Now, when dealing with Ethlopia, some of those gentlemen who bow the knee before Castro, declare that Mengistu-whose regime is basically a copy of that of Russia, China and Cuba-to be "fascist" This particular example of contortions and eclectic acrobatics can only be greeted with gales of laughter by genuine Marxism.
State Capitalism?
Why is Mengistu's regime state capitalist" and different to the others? There is no explanation. They merely echo the arguments of the student. Maoist ultra-lefts in Ethiopia. At least the Ethiopian Maoists have the consistency to declare-as the Maoists have done everywhere-that Russia too is "state capitalist"
The proof of the "fascist" character of the Mengistu regime. they claim, is the vicious repression. the executions, the repression of national rights and the national revolutions of a similar character to that of Ethiopia—or of Eritrea and the Ogaden-and the suppression of other national minorities. The crushing and dissolution of independent trade unions and all the nascent democratic organs of selfexpression of the workers and peasants is certainly to be condemned. So also is the concentration of
[page 25]
power into the hands of the Army junta clique and the dictatorship of Mengistu.
rubs one's eyes But one in disbelief at the shallowness of the "Marxism"
of these self-styled "Trotskvists"
For every crime committed by Mengistu in this regard. Stalin committed a hundred times more! The repression of independent organs of the workers must have reached a state of perfection by the bureaucracy in Russia.
Puppet "unions"
exist like the "Arbeitfront" of the Nazis in Germany. The "Communist"
party is the arm of the bureaucracy itself and has long ago ceased to be a workers* party. Concentration camps. or "labour camps" as they are called, and psychiatric madhouses have been established for all dissidents-right or left. The national oppression of the minorities, especially for worker dissidents. reached levels never reached even under Tsarism. A one-party totalitarian machine has been established without allowing any opposition anywhere and whatever among workers, peasants and intelligentsia. The regimentation of art, science and government into a Stalinist straightjacket. without any independent initiative or thought has been unequalled in history except. possibly. in Hitler's More or less, that is the picture common to all the Bonapartist states, including China Some of the sects pick up the characterisation of the Mengistu regime from the Maoists. This after their support for guerrillaism in Cuba. Moreover some of them supported the brainless-if heroic-terrorist guerrilla movements in Uruguay and Argentina! They also support the heroic guerrilla peasant war in the Ogaden and in Eritrea, which if vicious would probably end in a carbon copy of Cuba or of. Mengistu's Ethiopia. That would be inevitable with a backward economy and with the limited nationalist leadership look. ing to their own resources alone and not seeing the necessity of linking up with the workers of the advanced capitalist countries. If there is a struggle for national rights of these peoples-so long as there is not the direct intervention imperialism-we would critical support to the struggle as for example to the struggle of the Ukrainian people independence from Stalinist An independent socialist soviet Ukraine would prepare the way for a genuine and voluntary socialist soviet federation of all the peoples of the USSR. This could only be achieved by the overthrow of the Russian Stalinist bureaucracy by the Russian working class. Support Revolution • Unfortunately in Eritrea and the Ogaden, as in Ethiopia for the next period, democracy will receive short shrift. This is inevitable on the basis of a peasant war, as well as the Stalinist ideology of their leaders.
But as we did in the case of Vietnam. Laos and Cambodia and for that matter China also—we would give support without closing the inevitability of our eyes to Stalinist totalitarian regimes whatever the result of the conflict. Because of its character as a national struggle (though on the basis of state ownership and the elimination of landlordism and Somalis nort capitalism) and the limited outlook leadership, neither the Somalis nor the Eritreans have a means of influencing or winning over the peasant soldiers of Ethiopia. They too have carried through a revolution and are influenced by the national idea of a united Ethiopia.
The proletarian and far sighted policy of Lenin-in standing firmly for the bourgeois-democratic right of self-determination-has no place unfortunately in the policy of the Ethiopians. But neither is there present, on any side in the conflict, the other policies of Marxismdemocratic-centralism in the Party, democracy in the soviets, trade unions and so on.
Our policy is dictated first by the international socialist proletarian revolution and its interests. The defeat of imperialism and the 24 overthrow of landlordism and capitalism in the Horn of Africa are big steps forward.
is so despite This the conflict between "socialist states" which sows confusion among the advanced workers and the proletariat generally. The complexity of the problem and the need to keep our ideas clear is shown by the way imperialism and the Russian and Cuban bureaucracy have changed sides.
Yesterday the imperialists supported Haile Selassie and the landlord-capitalist regime in Ethiopia against Somalia and the guerrilla movement in Eritrea. Russia and Cuba financed, armed and organised the Somali state and supported the guerrillas in Eritrea with arms, finance and technical assistance.
Ethiopia assumed more importance in their eyes, with the collapse of the Emperor, followed by the overthrow of the semi-feudal landlord-capitalist regime. Ethiopia has 35 million people against approximately 2 or 3 million each in Eritrea and Somalia.
Fascist Regime?
Opportunistically taking advantage of the civil war in Ethiopia, organised by the landlord-capitalist counter-revolution, President Barre of Somalia sent troops into the Ogaden. He hoped for the disintegration and collapse of the Ethiopian revolution. He was nationally limited sighted, interested only in a "greater Somalia". Undoubtedly the imperialists, surreptitiously through the semi-feudal reactionary Arab states like Saudi-Arabia, gave support to the Somalis, as they now give support to the Eritreans despite the social character of the movement in Eritrea. They wish to weaken Ethiopia and strike a blow against the Russian bureaucracy. The Russian bureaucracy and Castro have changed horses in mid-stream after vainly attempting to persuade the Somali rulers to make a compromise and establish a federation of Eritrea, Somalia and Ethiopia. This would undoubtedly have been the best solution, given
[page 26]
the character of all these regimes
either as Bonapartist deformed
workers' states, or as such states in
the process of formation.
When the Somalis rejected this
proposal the bureaucracy switched
sides. it is not certain that the
Ethiopians were in agreement with
this proposal either. Now they are
trying to negotiate some form of
agreement between Eritrea and
Ethiopia. If the Eritreans do not
accept some form of limited
"autonomy" Cuba and Russia
seem certain to support the
crushing in blood of the Eritrean
attempt at self-determination. The
imperialists, unable to intervene
directly, will weep crocodile tears
about the national and democratic
rights of the Eritrean people. (Yesterday they brutally tried to
suppress the rights of the Vietnam-
ese people.).
But what is really entertaining is these dramatic conflicts is the position of some of the sects. They
solemnly declaim that Russia (correctly) is a deformed workers state and Cuba (incorrectly) a
relatively healthy workers' state. But in no way do they explain how and why the relatively "healthy" workers' state of Cuba, or the deformed workers state of Russia actively help the "fascist" state of Ethiopia to establish itself and suppress the national rights of the people both of Eritrea who are attempting to establish a "Marxist" regime and the Somalis of the Ogaden and the other minorities.
Undoubtedlý, on the basis of land distribution, the overwhelming majority of the Ethiopian peasants support the Ethiopian regime. Possibly even the bulk of the small working class at this stage, support the regime for want of an alternative.
It is theoretically possible of course that for the purpose of "defence" against other capitalist states, a deformed workers' state or even a healthy workers' state could ally itself with a reactionary or fascist state. Stalin's Russia did this in 1939 with the "non-aggression" pact with Hitler's Germany.
But what strategic necessity was there for Brezhnev and Castro to switch from supporting Somalia
U.S. troops and Eritrea to their "fascist" rivals. The rulers of the deformed workers' states would look with trepidation at the rise of a healthy workers' state in the industrialised countries because of the social reverberations it would provoke in their own countries. But they would welcome the establishment in the backward and neo-colonial countries of social regimes on the pattern of their own regimes.
This strengthens them internally agains their capitalist imperialist rivals. The basic world antagonism between the social structures of these countries and capitalist countries remains.
Stalinism & Fascism
It is ridiculous to suggest that the bureaucracy of a workers' state, healthy or deformed, would actively assist the "fascist" reactionary forces of a country like Ethiopia to establish their domination of Ethiopia. What social, political or strategic gain could they possibly get from this?
Now the economic and political structure of Ethiopia is not greatly different from that of Poland. Leaving aside the fact that Ethiopia has very little industry some of the sects call one "state capitalist" and the other a "deformed workers" state". Why? There is no explanation of the difference. There is nothing but petit-bourgeois emotional outbursts about the crimes of
25
in Vietnam
the Ethiopian rulers. These crimes
have been committed in every one of the deformed workers' states. And without in any way excusing them, nevertheless Ethiopia is a country far more backward than Russian Czarism or even pre-revolutionary China, and is under conditions of civil war on a whole series of fronts. With a leadership which takes Cuba and China as its model, and without revolutionary training, this officer leadership has moved towards Stalinist conceptions in the course of the revolution itself. But we cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater. We must separate out the enormously progressive kernel from the reactionary wrappings. Landlordism and capitalism are eliminated and this decisive fact will have far-flung effects on the whole of the African revolution in the coming epoch.
Not for nothing did Trotsky explain to the American Socialist Workers Party in the discussion with Scachtman that, separated from state ownership of industry and the land, the political regime in Russia was fascist! There was nothing to distinguish the political regime of Stalin from that of Hitler except the decisive fact that one defended and had its privileges, based on state ownership while the other had its privileges. power, income and prestige based on the defence of private property. That was a fundamental and decisive difference! There is no difference in fundamentals of economic and political structure of
[page 27]
Syria, Ethiopia from China, Russia or any of the other deformed workers states.
No doubt—as they have done on innumerable occasions in the past-these petit-bourgeois epigones of Trotsky will switch "the line" and stealthily, without explanation, declare that Ethiopia is a "deformed workers' state" They have burned their fingers too much in the past on this question to declare Ethiopia a "relatively healthy workers' state"
, though even this somersault is not beyond them. The whole thing arises from their entirely anti-dialectical methods and their complete lack of understanding of the role of the proletariat in the socialist revolution and the nature of the epoch since the Second World War. Vietnam They will make the change without explaining to themselves or to the working class the reasons for the change or the reason for their mistakes. That is why they remain incappetit-bourgeois tendencies able of self-criticism or of learning from their mistakes and thus raising themselves and their followers to a higher theoretical level. None of these tendencies have explained the class nature of South Yemen, Mozambique, or Angola "differences" between and the Syria, Cuba or Ethiopia. Fundamental differences do not exist. But on a vital theoretical question of this sort they prefer a discreet silence.
The latest events in Indo-China have served again to. show the ridiculous contortions of the policies of all the sects. Our tendency gave whole-hearted support to the struggle of the Vietnamese "communist" party of Ho Chi Minh and its Laotian and Cambodian offshoots in their peasant guerrilla war against American and world imperialism and their native puppets.
We supported the struggle unconditionally and whole-heartedly. We supported it because it was a colonial war for liberation. We would have supported such a war even under bourgeois or petit-bourgeois leadership had fought merely for the right of national self-determination alone. But, it inevitably became a war for social liberation as well as national liberation—in the sense of fighting for the elimination also of landlordism and capitalism. Without this the struggle could not have been carried on for decades against overwhelming military odds. How far the sects have strayed from the Marxist or Trotskyist method was shown by the polemics of the same international tendency, as to how far the Vietnamese were "unconscious" Trotskyists, operatinng on the basis of the permanent revolution?
these worthies have understood the peculiar character of the epoch so far as the colonial or ex-colonial areas of the world are concerned. Nor have they understood the inevitable perversion of the revolution under either open Stalinist-or pseudo-Communist leadership-or that of radical sections of the officer caste. They have not understood the inevitable when a colonial consequences revolution is led to its progressive and "final" conclusion of eliminating capitalism and landlordism but when the main force is not that of the working class with a Marxist leadership.
When the main force is a peasant army using classic peasant tactics of guerrilla war, then it must result in a "deformed workers' state" even if that were not the aim of the leaders. In the event of an army coup of the younger officers, allied to "intellectuals" and students, the consequences would-inevitablybe the same.
This is particularly the case given the world environment of strong Bonapartist workers states, in the form of Stalinist Russia and other countries. Taken together with the existence of the imperialist capitalist powers there could be no other outcome.
Of course if there were in existence of the imperialist capitalstates-for instance in Russia, or one of the big industrialised states of Europe, or of Japan-then the 26 results and the possibilities would The proletariat and people of the advanced workers'
states would give aid and assistance to a workers' state in a backward country, the economies together, and sending tens of thousands of technicians to small countries and hundreds of thousands to one with a big population. That would mean rapid industrialisation plus workers democracy. That is what Lenin meant when he said Africa could move straight from tribalism to Communism.
But given the present relationship of forces in international affairs and the class balance of with classical reformism and Stalinist reformism dominant in the workers' movement of the advanced countries, such a conin Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos was ruled out.
Indo-China Clashes That is why our tendency, while wholeheartedly supporting the Vietnamese and Indo-Chinese revolutions, warned the workers and peasants of these countries that while they should support actively the struggle and fight for social and national liberation, at the same time the dominance of the Stalinist leadership of this struggle would mean that while an enormous social step forward would be taken by the victory of the national liberation movement, it would be succeeded by a new enslavement by the totalitarian Stalinist bureaucracy. Without a Marxist party without and Marxist leadership the goal of the "Communist Party" leadership would be a state in the image of the so-called "socialism" of Russia or China.
We appealed to the advanced workers of Britain, America, France and the world, to support the social and national liberation struggle of the Indo-Chinese peoples, because it weakened imperialism and world capitalism. The liberation of the productive forces of these countries, by the overthrow of the rule of capital, would be of immense long term benefit to the peoples of these countries and also
[page 28]
the world proletariat.
But we never deceived ourselves
or the workers and peasants of the
world as to the inevitable nature (the class relationship of forces) of
the regimes which would be set up
in these countries.
We warned of, and predicted,
the inevitable setting up of nation-
alist totalitarian Stalinist regimes in these comtales but even we had
not expected just how far they would go in their distortions.
The armed clashes between
Cambodia and Vietnam are a
crushing condemnation of all those
"Trotskyist" sects in Britain and internationally who did not under-
stand the class nature of these regimes and their Stalinist character. There was no surprise in these events for. our tendency.
The clashes on the borders between Russia and China when tens of thousands were killed had shown what nationalist bureaucrats are capable of.
These bureaucracies cannot look beyond the boundaries of the nation state. Behind these clashes in former Indo-China are the aspirations of the Vietnamese to set up an Indo-China federation of "socialist states".
Obviously this would have been of immense benefit to the economies of all these countries. But the reason that the Cambodians are against the setting up of such a federation is that under conditions of Bonapartist totalitarianism they would inevitably come under the nationalist domination and national oppression of the Vietnamese bureaucracy. Leaving aside the virulent national chauvinism of the Cambodian Stalinists, this would be as inevitable as it was in Stalinist China and in Russia.
For the same reason the Vietnamese Stalinists, in their turn, would refuse to federate with Stalinist China. They know, as the minorities in China have seen, that they would come under the national oppression of the Chinese bureaucracy. Even though economically it would be of immense benefit, they would not agree to this, no more than would the Chinese bureaucracy agree to a federation with Russia, though economically and
to
even in terms of world power
politics, it would be colossally
beneficial to the peoples and the
economies of both these countries.
What stands in the way are the
national vested interests of the
bureaucracies of all these coun-
tries.
Only workers' democracy with-
out any hint of national superiority
or advantage as in the days of Lenin
and Trotsky, can have such a
programme. But a Bonapartist
Regime, basing itself on privilege
and inequality, is incapable of such
a policy. The chauvinistic excesses
of Stalinist Russia and China are
proof of this. Bonapartist total-
itarian regimes by their very
nature, can never look beyond the
narrow horizon of the national state. By the very nature of bureaucracy and its privileges they are nationally limited.
Basing themselves on peasants, students and intellectuals, and without the decisive domination and participation of the working class, they are inevitably nationally limited.
Afghanistan
The working class can secure its emancipation and the domination of society only be overcoming all the prejudices of the past-national, racial, caste, sex or any other. But only the working class and no other-and only under Marxist leadership at that—is capable of this feat. But the emancipation of the workers means the emancipation also of the petit-bourgeois strata in society, who under the leadership of the working class, and only under these conditions, would be capable of rising to these heights.
The petit-bourgeoisie and the intellectuals can adopt the standpoint of the proletariat only by breaking completely with their origins and the outlook of their class. Under modern conditions that is extremely difficult where genuine Marxists, as in the early days of Marx and Engels, have been reduced to a handful.
This is particularly the case today when the struggle is not merely in the ideological'sphere but
27
where the immediate issue in country after country is the transformation of society. In this situation it is easy for the intellectuals to come under the dominaton of the muddled ideas of Stalinism in its various forms.
Only a strong workers movement dominated by Marxism could make the metamorphosis of such intellectuals possible. This is especially difficult in colonial or neo-colonial countries where the problems are immediate, where the masses live an almost arimal existence, where also there are almost insuperable obstacles to modernisation and the development of society on the basis of the semi-feudal landlord capitalist regimes.
It is easier for the intellectuals, the radical officers, even civil servants and upper layers of professional people, doctors, dentists, lawyers and so on to make the transition to Stalinist Bonapartism than to support genuine but tiny Marxist tendencies. Especially this is so in most of these countries where "Marxism" and "Trotskyism" do not exist as organised tendencies.
BUREAUCRATISM
Or
WORKERS: POWER
Available from:
WORLD BOOKS Mentmore Terrace
London E8 3PN p + 10p for postagr
[page 29]
The "Marxist-Leninism" of Russia, China or Ethiopia suits them perfectly. It fits all their prejudices. A "socialism" where the elites of state, party, industry, army and the professions have a standard of living way above that of the masses seems perfectly normal and natural to them. A society, where these strata become the dominant and governing caste, has an enormous attraction for them, especially as they see the enormous strides which backward countries make with a forced march of "socialism"
Thus it is easy for them to rationalise their class position. They have a hatred of the corrupt landlords and capitalists under whose control their societies and countries are either decaying or only inching ahead. They have a contempt for the downtrodden masses of peasants and even for the weak working class.
These strata, apart from their economic position, are imbued with an overwhelming conceit and concern for their own importance in society. They are concerned with perks, status, standing, power, privileges, income and prestige. Thus, it is easy in the modern world to see how they can embrace "socialism" on the pattern of Cuba for example.
In the past period the fresh example of Afghanistan underlines the analysis we have made of the
Russian Revelatfu
colonial revolution. The Communist" party of this terribly backward country was only formed in the last decade or so. Like the Baath party in Syria it had no difficulty in swallowing the doctrine of "Islam" as well as "Communism" . It has done so because religious superstition has deep roots among the overwhelmingly backward peasant majority, 90% of whom are illiterate.
Complete Transformation
Now, as with the Baath Party in Syria, the CP leaders have allied themselves with the radical lower and middle ranks of the officer caste in the army.
The immediate issue which precipitated the coup was famineas in Ethiopia-and the impossibility of the corrupt, semi-feudal Asiatic rulers, to cope with it. Afghanistan has had many coups in the past decades leading to different tribal leaders and groups gaining power. They merely changed the tops, leaving the social structure intact. The same corruption inevitably developed, leading, when the impositions had become unbearable on the masses, to a famine, or through foreign intrigue to a new coup. Thus social relations were contained in the same vicious circle. This coup opens up the possibility of striking in a new
28
direction. "Communists" have become Prime Minister and President and also have a dominant role in the government. This indicates in which direction the officers wish to go. One of the first acts of the new regime has been to seize the lands of the monarchy which though overthrown by the former Daoud regime, still possessed 20% of the land in Afghanistan! This is a new departure and may be the beginning of a complete transformation of social relations.
As in Poland, where the Polish Stalinist bureaucracy came to an agreement • with the Catholic church, so in Afghanistan the Communist Party leadership, together with the officers, can arrive at an agreement with the Mullahs of Islam.
The fact that Taraki, the new Prime Minister, is the leader of a so-called Communist Party alters nothing. He pursues the same policy as that of the Syrian leaders of the Baath.
In the case of Afghanistan, only two roads are possible at this stage. The working class is miniscule. Sections of the intelligentsia, and apparently the majority of the officers and a great part of the professionals want to construct a modern civilised state. The peas ants want the land.
On the road of capitalism landlordism, there l is no
and way
[page 30]
forward. The army officers wish to take the road traversed by Outer Mongolia. In fact these peculiar changes are only possible because of the international context. The crisis of imperialism and capitalism, the impasse of the backward countries of the third world and the existence of the proletarian Bonapartist states, especially of Russia, and China in Asia together with the delay of the proletarian revolution in the West, are powerful factors in the case of Afghanistan.
The barbarous regimes also of Pakistan, Iran and nearby India have no attractive force. The army officers, many, if not most, trained in Russia, are attracted when they see the consequences of the Stalinist regime in the modernisation of Russia. Its effect on the tribesmen, of similar peoples and even the same tribes, in bordering areas of Russia has a big effect, with formerly as low a standard of living, and just as great illiteracy and ignorance.
Marxist Approach
The industrialisation, complete literacy and high standards in comparison to Afghanistan, are bound to impress these strata. In contrast, the backwardness and barbarism on which the nobility thrived in Afghanistan cannot but appal all the best elements-the intelligentsia, the professionals and even the officer caste. They wish to break out from poverty, ignorance and dirt from which their country suffers. The capitalists of the West, with unemployment and industrial stagnation offer them nothing as far as they are concerned. They wish to break away from the vicious circle of tribal rulers and different military regimes which change nothing in fundamentals.
The world crisis of capitalism hits even harder the backward regions of the world, which impels them to draw the conclusion that capitalism offers no way forward.
The "republican" regime of Daoud-incidentally, backed and propped-up by Moscow in the past-altered nothing. The upheavals and coups, leading to mere changes of dynasties by different
clans of the nobility over the last fifty years have been completely sterile. The nobility and the relations on the land on which they were based, was the main obstacle to modernisation.
Under these circumstances, if the new regime leans on the support of the peasants and transforms society, then the way will be cleared for the development of a regime in Afghanistain, like that of Cuba, Syria or Russia. This, for the first time for centuries, will bring Afghanistan society forward to the modern world. It could become a new blow at capitalism and landlordism in the rest of capitalist-landlord Asia, especially in the area of South Asia, if the social transformation is completed. It will have incalculable effects on the Pathans and Baluchis of Pakistan. It will have an effect on the like peoples on the borders of Iran. The rotting regime of Pakistan in coming years will face complete disintegration. A revamping of social relations in Afghanistan can further contribute to the decay of this regime. The tribesmen will be influenced by the process taking place among their brothers across the borders. On the North West frontiers of Pakistan and among the Baluchis there is already endemic and simmering revolt, with these peoples looking towards unity with their brothers in Afghanistan. The effect would be in widening circles, the repercussions of which could be felt in Iran and further afield, also in India.
This is the road which the
29
"Communist Party", , which holds power together with the radical officers, will take. The opposition of the old forces in Afghanistan, as in Ethiopia, will in all probability impel them in this direction.
If they temporise, possibly under the influence, of the Russian ambassador and the Russian regime, they will prepare the way for a ferocious counter-revolution based on the threatened nobility and the Mullahs. If successful this would restore the old regime on the bones of hundreds of thousands of peasants, the massacres of the radical officers and the near extermination of the educated elite. For the moment-until there will be a movement of the only advanced class which can bring a transition moving in the direction of socialism in the industrially developed countries-the most progressive development in Afghanistan seems at the present time to be the installation of proletarian Bonapartism.
While not closing our eyes to the new contradictions this will involve, on the basis of a transitional economy of a workers state, without workers democracy, Marxists in sober fashion will support the emergence of such a state and the further weakening of imperialism and capitalism and the regimes basing themselves on the remnants of feudalism in the backward countries.
[page 31]
мОНА