Problems posed by Hitler’s victories¶
Core Argument¶
The chapter confronts the theoretical crisis precipitated by Hitler’s military ascendancy across Europe, arguing that these victories demand a rigorous re-examination of revolutionary perspectives through the lens of Bolshevik scientific method. The central polemic is directed against those émigré comrades who, disoriented by fascist triumphs and the prostration of Stalinism and reformism, capitulated to bourgeois-democratic pressure and subordinated class struggle to the drive for “national freedom.” This position, the chapter insists, is fundamentally antithetical to Trotskyism.
The core argument rests on the claim that the collapse of whole national states before German imperialism proves that the national state has outlived itself. Hitler’s conquests imposed both national and social slavery, but precisely because of this, the class struggle was posed in its most acute form. For Marxists, the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the national question were long since solved in Europe. The chapter draws on historical precedents: the German bourgeoisie in 1848, which, faced with the young proletariat, threw itself into the arms of the reactionary Junkers; and the French bourgeoisie in 1940, which surrendered to Hitler for identical class reasons. These examples demonstrate that the bourgeoisie, even in advanced countries, is incapable of carrying through a national liberation struggle.
The theoretical framework deployed is the theory of Permanent Revolution. In backward countries like India and China, the national bourgeoisie is tied to imperialism, feudalism, and church interests, rendering it incapable of waging a genuine anti-imperialist struggle. The petty bourgeoisie cannot play an independent role; it must follow either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. The proletariat must therefore lead the bourgeois-democratic revolution and inevitably strive for state power. The experiences of the Kuomintang and the Indian Congress are cited as irrefutable proof. Trotsky’s theoretical demonstration regarding a hypothetical complete Japanese conquest of China is invoked: the Chinese bourgeoisie would become even more craven and collaborate fully with the conqueror, accentuating the proletariat’s leading role in national liberation.
This excursion to the East is applied directly to Europe. The approaching revolution is not a bourgeois-democratic one for national liberation, but a proletarian revolution. The European bourgeoisie, especially its dominant sections, collaborated with the fascist victors. The masses’ hatred is directed not only against foreign oppressors but against their own ruling class, which acted as agents of the conqueror. The Stalinists and Social Democrats attempted to channel this movement into nationalist and chauvinist paths, as with the People’s Front in Spain, but the bourgeoisie itself was in the enemy camp. The task of Bolshevik Leninism is to raise the banner of class struggle while fighting for national freedom and democratic rights; to win the petty bourgeoisie in struggle against both the big bourgeoisie and the invader; to raise the slogan of winning over rank-and-file German soldiers; to enter the resistance movement while counterposing bourgeois interests to those of the masses; and to raise the perspective of a Soviet United States of Europe with full national freedom for all states and minorities.