A-Infos (en) Italy, Umanita Nova #24-25 - The Masks of the Enemy. Contradictions of "Campism" (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Often and willingly, and increasingly recently, opposition movements 
have been arguing that, within the current "piecemeal Third World War," 
left-wing movements should defend the BRICS countries, broadly speaking 
(Russia and China in particular), against imperialism. This position is 
obviously present in what is called "brown-redism," but it is actually 
widely held in many areas that draw on Leninism in its various forms, 
and, albeit to a lesser extent, also outside these areas. Let's 
summarize the arguments usually advanced in favor of this stance, and 
then analyze its limitations and contradictions.

First of all, it is said that these countries are either capitalist but 
not imperialist-this would be the case with Russia, for example, a 
country stuck in a backward stage of the capitalist economy and not 
developing an imperialist policy-or they are somehow socialist countries 
and, in any case, not developing an imperialist policy-this would be the 
case with China. These countries are under attack by the imperialist 
powers grouped under the military umbrella of NATO: not actively 
defending them, proposing universal "revolutionary defeatism," therefore 
means, beyond subjective intentions, effectively siding with imperialism.

In reality, these are not new theses at all: in Lenin (but also in 
Trotsky) and their heirs, we find the roots of these theses,[1]according 
to which any (and I emphasize any: even the slave-owning countries that 
existed at the time) backward country at war against an imperialist 
country had to be supported regardless, even if it were the "aggressor." 
The general idea was that any defeat of imperialism by these countries 
would be, internationally, a victory for the working class and, 
therefore, that there was no "third camp": either one defended not only 
the people but also the governments of these countries, or one 
effectively sided with imperialism. Either/or.

Let's begin by analyzing the meaning of the term "imperialism" used 
here. Lenin's conception of imperialism is a cornerstone of 
twentieth-century revolutionary Marxist thought. Lenin developed it in 
his famous essay "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of 
Capitalism":[2]imperialism is the final stage of capitalism, 
characterized by monopolistic concentrations of ownership of the means 
of production, the centrality of finance capital, direct investment of 
capital in less developed countries, the formation of international 
cartels and trusts, and, finally, the division of the world among 
imperialist powers.

Why is this condition the "highest stage" of capitalism? Lenin argued 
that capitalism, having reached maturity, no longer finds internal 
outlets for its development: to continue generating profits, it must 
expand abroad, exploiting territories and populations. This leads to 
inevitable conflict between powers, to a permanent state of war, with 
imperialist nations attacking the rest of the world.

Here lies the first contradiction: the Leninist definition of 
imperialism, in the terms we have just recalled, can easily be applied 
to the BRICS countries, particularly Russia and China. In these 
countries, but also in other countries within this region, we find 
monopolistic concentrations of ownership of the means of production, the 
centrality of financial capital, direct capital investments in less 
developed countries, and the formation of international cartels and 
trusts. Indeed, among the same current proponents of the "defensive" 
thesis, we almost always find the argument that NATO countries are now 
developing a militarily aggressive policy because they are no longer the 
dominant capitalist countries and are desperately seeking, through 
reckless acts of force, to regain their lost dominant role. The 
"multipolar" world has become de facto dominant over the old "monopolar" 
world. In short, the Leninist-origin campist logic should paradoxically 
push its proponents to side with NATO...

Now let's move on to the idea that China is a socialist country or, in 
some Trotskyist version, a bureaucratically deformed workers' state. 
This seems like a bit of a Red Cross slam, but let's see why such a 
claim is made: essentially, in China we see significant wage growth 
compared to declared capitalist countries, a marked decrease in poverty, 
and a low number of deaths from COVID-19 thanks to the "socialist" 
organizational superiority of the Chinese state.

Each of these claims is highly controversial, but let's pretend they're 
true, especially the first two.

Each of these claims is highly controversial, but let's pretend they're 
true, especially the first two, with which we can draw comparisons. If 
these results are a sign of "socialism," of a transition to a classless, 
stateless society, then what were the NATO countries, especially those 
of Northern Europe, during the "thirty golden years" of the Welfare 
State, with the same parameters vastly higher and superior to those of 
the "socialist" area, not to mention those of today? Anarchist Communism 
achieved?

These contradictions of the "campist" position expose its intrinsic 
weakness. Beyond this, however, there is a banal empirical 
consideration: contrary to what the Leninist thesis would seem to 
suggest, namely, a fixed balance of imperialist power between nations 
once they reach a certain level of development of their productive 
forces, throughout history imperialist countries often switch places. 
Indeed, to be precise, today's imperialist countries are almost always 
formerly dominated countries that militarily defeated the imperialist 
countries of the time and took their place. To stay in the contemporary 
era, the most striking case is precisely that of the United States of 
America-but it is certainly not the only one.

For example, take the case of one of the countries partnered with the 
NATO area: Israel. Its creation was welcomed and supported by Western 
countries and organizations of a Marxist-Leninist nature, precisely 
within the campist logic, as a shining example of a landless people 
finally conquering it by fiercely opposing Anglo-Saxon imperialism. This 
support lasted until the late 1950s, with complete disregard for the 
fate of the Palestinian people. Today, the State of Israel is pursuing a 
staggering and ferocious imperialist policy aimed at conquering "Greater 
Israel," and the pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian headlines from the 
left, when they resurface, create considerable embarrassment, to say the 
least.

In short, the "campist" idea that any defeat of imperialism by certain 
countries would be a victory for the working class internationally is 
nonsense. It would be like rooting for the Camorra against the Mafia, or 
vice versa. The victory of a "non-imperialist" camp against the 
imperialist camp would only mean a change in who holds power, not the 
disappearance of power as such. If universal revolutionary defeatism is 
a "betrayal," it is a betrayal of the irrationality of the logic of 
power in favor of the development of an autonomous vision and practice 
of the international proletariat.

Enrico Voccia

[1]We limit ourselves to quoting Lenin, Vladimir, Socialism and War, 
1915, https://www.marxists.org/italiano/lenin/1915/soc-guer/index.htm

[2]Lenin, Vladimir, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1916, 
https://www.marxists.org/italiano/lenin/1916/imperialismo/index.htm

https://umanitanova.org/le-maschere-del-nemico-contraddizioni-del-campismo/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en