communist left

본문

1934년의 프랑스 전환(French Turn)

-꼬뮤니스트 노동자 조직(CWO)

1934년에 국제 공산주의 연맹으로 알려진 트로츠키주의자들의 운동은, 트로츠키가 전 역사에서 가장 심각한 전환점이라고 묘사했던 것을 수행했다. 그의 프랑스 셕션을 시작으로, 트로츠키는 제2인터내셔널의 당과 유사한 조직들에 가입하도록 그의 추종자들에게 재촉했다. 스탈린주의의 실패에 대한 트로츠키의 해결책은 사회민주주의로의 복귀였다. 이것은 노동자계급이 1914년~1926년 시기에 싸워왔던 모든 것과의 단절이었다. 그것은 제국주의 세력을 지원하라는 뜻이었고, 제국주의 전쟁을 지원한 구 노동조합으로 돌아가란 뜻이었으며, 1917년 이후 혁명기에 공산주의자들과 노동자들을 대량 학살로 이끌었던 이들에게 돌아가라는 뜻이었다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 그 전술은 다른 섹션에 곧 퍼졌고, 미국, 영국, 스페인에서 눈에 띄게 그러했다. 몇 세대에 걸쳐 트로츠키주의자들이 사회민주주의의 정치적 조직들을 강화시킨 트로츠키주의자들의 입당주의란 생각은 명백히 프랑스 전환에서 탄생했다.

프랑스의 트로츠키 조직은 1934년 여름, 프랑스에 사는 트로츠키로부터 강한 압력을 받아 결정적 전환을 하기로 결정했다. 1년 전, 이탈리아 공산당 좌익 분파의 동지들은 트로츠키주의자들에 의해 논쟁에서 관료적으로 축출되었다. 그들은 트로츠키와 그의 추종자들의 궤적을 예상했으며, 그에 반대하여 논쟁을 벌였다. 잡지 [빌랑]에서 우리 동지들은 트로츠키 전략은 본질적으로 프롤레타리아 혁명 파도의 쇠퇴를 분석해 보려는 우리의 노력을 대체하려는 반동적 대용물이라고 논쟁했다. 1933년 9월의 글에서 그들은, 사회민주주의자들의 좌익에 대한 트로츠키의 접근 방식은 2와 3/4 인터내셔널을 향한 움직임으로 가는 것으로 평가했다. 그들은 트로츠키가 좌익 사회민주주의자들과 함께 새로운 공산당을 건설한다는 목적으로 공동 사업을 주창함으로써 엄청난 오류를 저지를 것이라고 주장했다.

트로츠키주의자들과 대조적으로 좌익분파의 접근은 명확히 물질적 기반이 없을 때, 대중정당을 만드는 조직적 전략을 세우기보다, 그 시기의 본질에 대한 이해와 분석의 필요성의 문제를 제기하려 한 것이다.

프롤레타리아트는 반혁명적 중도주의의 성공을 거스르지 못하고 패배한 댓가로 1927년 고통 받았다. (역사적 과정은 공산당 내의 한 개인에 의해 지도될 수 없다는 것을 강조하기 위해 많은 추가 조항이 필요하지만 스탈린주의는 오늘날 더 정상적인 속기물일 수 있다.)

오늘날 인터내셔널의 처음 4차례 당 대회에 기초하여 새로운 당을 만들길 바란다고 얘기하는 것은 역사를 10년 전으로 되돌리는 것이다. 이것은 그런 당 대회 이후에 일어났던 일들을 이해하지 않으려는 것이며, 결국 새로운 당들은 그들의 고유한 역사적 환경속에 위치시키지 않기를 바라는 것이다. 우리가 미래에 새로운 정당들을 위치시켜야 하는 환경은 프롤레타리아 권력의 행사로부터 얻은 경험에 의해, 그리고 세계 공산주의 운동의 경험에 의해 이미 정의되어 있었다. 처음 4번의 당 대회는, 이 일에 관해서만은 매우 심도 깊은 조사와 비판의 대상이 되어야 할 것이다. 우리가 앞의 이야기를 종교적 교의로 받아들인다면 우리는 다음과 같은 결론에 다다르게 될 것이다. 즉, 레닌의 죽음, 혹은 트로츠키의 제거는 수많은 나라에서의 자본주의 승리의 원인이었고, 소련과 인터내셔널에서의 중도주의 승리의 원인이었다고 말이다.

그라나 빌랑의 저자들은 사회민주주의를 바라는 트로츠키주의자의 시도는 결국 불명예스럽게 끝날 것임을 알았다. 트로츠키주의자들이 1938년에나 스스로 알았던 그점을 그들은 미리 내다보았던 것이다. 상황의 미성숙함 [다른말로, 역사적 시대의 이해부족]은 이제 겨우 성장하는 2와 3/4 인터내셔널이 Trotskyists International Left Opposition이라는 딱지를 붙이는 정도일 것이라는 강력한 가능성을 암시해 준다.

트로츠키와 그의 추종자들에게 프랑스 전환과 제2인터내셔널주의자와 자본의 분파인 다른 정당들에 대한 방향전환은 통일전선 즉 혁명적 파고의 쇠락기(1920~1922)동안 코민테른의 정책으로 발전된 정책의 좀 더 실제적인 적용이었다. 1930년대 동안, 스탈린주의자와 트로츠키주의자 모두 비슷하게 그 위치에서 반혁명적 결론에 이르렀다.

이 점에서 트로츠키와 트로츠키주의는 이탈리아 좌파의 프롤레타리아적 흐름이 되는 것을 그만뒀다. 빌랑은 다음과 같이 발표했다.

“루비콘 강을 건너 사회민주주의와 결합한 그와 그 당파에 맞서 철저하고 용서 없는 투쟁을 펼칠 필요가 있다.”

1년 전 스탈린은 공식적으로 소련을 도적들의 무리(레닌), 즉 국제연맹에 가입시켜 경쟁하는 제국주의 무대 위로 되돌려 보냈다. 그의 목적은 간단했다. “동쪽으로” 라는 히틀러의 목적도 명확했다. 스탈린은 소련에 대한 공격이 피할 수 없다는 것을 깨달았고, 프랑스, 영국과의 동맹을 이뤄내려 시도했다. 이에 대한 코민테른의 역할은 1935년 7차 당 대회를 열어, 1928년 이래 사회민주주의에 반대하는 임시변통적 급진주의를 역사책에 위임하는 것이었다. 이는 사회주의자를 (부르주아)민주주의의 친구로 명명할 뿐만 아니라 모든 자유주의자, 발본주의자, 혹은 서유럽의 반파시스트 정당까지도 친구라는 이름을 붙여줬다. 통일전선은 이제 인민전선에서 그 극에 달했다. 여기서 이탈리아 좌익분파의 대응은 코민테른과의 어떤 연결도 끊은 것이었다. 그리고 7차 당 대회는 존재하는 모든 공산당들의 묘비를 세우는 것이었다고 말한다. 그 동안, 트로츠키는 인민전선을 통일전선의 오용이라고 규탄했으나 그가 인민전선의 근본적 기반, 즉 파시스트의 위험으로부터 소련의 방어라는 원칙을 받아들였기 때문에 그의 주장은 설득력이 없었다. 그리고 그 1차 세계대전 이후의 혁명적 격변기 동안, 파시즘에 기반을 깔아준 세력이 바로 트로츠키가 그의 추종자들로 하여금 입당하도록 했던 –사회민주당- 명확히 바로 그런 조직이었던 것이다.

히틀러의 출현 이후 반파시즘은 – 다른말로 자본주의 제국주의의 특정부분에 대한 반대는 부르주아 민주주의와는 또 다른 측면들을 지원하는 것을 의미했다. 이것은 스페인, 중국, 그리고 궁극적으로 2차대전 중에 전 세계적으로 그 모습을 드러냈다. 이것은 자본가 권력의 전통적인 욕구를 숨기는 이데올로기였으며, 그들로 하여금 수백만의 프롤레타리아를 그들의 군대로 내모는 것을 가능하게 한 이데올로기였다. 우리가 보았던 것처럼, 트로츠키는 소련의 방어라는 견지에서 이 십자군의 지원을 주장했다. 그의 살해 후 1년, 소련은 마침내 그들이 추구했던 것, 즉 서구 제국주의 권력과의 동맹(미국의 민주주의의 수호를 포함 한)을 이루어냈다.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

오늘날에 트로츠키주의자들의 분파들이 그렇게 많은 것은, 트로츠키주의의 중요한 구성요소를 구성하는 데 모순이 많음을 보여주는 증거이다. 그리고 객관적으로 이들의 무리지음은 부르주아 정치기구의 좌익을 의미한다. 그들은 프롤레타리아트의 해방을 대표하지 않고 새로운 지배자가 될 국가자본주의자들의 질서를 대표한다. 객관적으로 그들은 사회민주주의나 스탈린주의당의 좌익으로 기능하며, 이 당들이 혁명적인 정치적 입장의 공격을 받지 않도록 보호하며, 무엇보다 중요하게 이 당들이 노동자계급의 눈에 진실성이 있는 것처럼 보이게 한다.

트로츠키주의자들의 정치적 실천의 특징 중 하나는 그 경향인, 많은 분파의 경향으로 분열된 운동의 도움을 받아, 다양하고 서로 다른 반혁명적 이해관계와 유행, 조류에 그들의 정치를 적응시키는 것이다. 즉 혁명적 원칙의 유연한 적용이 아니라, 반혁명 정치로의 변화무쌍한 적응만이 있을 뿐이며, 프롤레타리아 대중에게 가장 큰 혼란을 심어주는 역할을 할 뿐이다.

프롤레타리아트는 오직 지도력이 부족할 뿐(지도력의 위기)이라는 선언을 맹종함으로써. 그들은 혁명정당의 부활을 위한 실제 조건을 깨닫는 데 실패한다. 이 조건은 프롤레타리아트 대중의 투쟁과, 당 강령의 명확화에 대한 객관적 필요속에 있다. 이러한 기초적인 조건들을 인지할 수 없었기에, 트로츠키주의자들은 프롤레타리아트가 과거에 이미 취한 혁명적 교훈의 길을 다시 거슬러 올라가 추적하지 않고서는 그들의 역사적 궁지에서 탈출할 수 없다. 만약에 그렇게 한다면 그들은 자신들의 근본적인 혼란들을 포기해야 할 뿐만 아니라. 트로츠키주의 그 자체의 반혁명적 본질을 깨달아야 하기 때문에 그들은 트로츠키주의자임을 포기해야 할 것이다.

본문

Homage to Il Jae Lee

We have recently been saddened by the news of the death in hospital of comrade Il Jae Lee, a militant of the Left Communist Group in Korea: he was 89 years old.

Il Jae was born in 1923 in the town of Daegu, in what is now South Korea but which was known at the time by its historical name of Chosun. At the time, the whole of Korea was a Japanese colony valued for its raw materials and agricultural wealth, destined to support the war effort of Japanese imperialism. Official Japanese policy was to reduce Korean culture to the status of a folk curiosity; at school, children were required to learn Japanese, and Il Jae spoke Japanese fluently.

In the midst of the war, not yet 20 years old, he was already taking part in workers' struggles. With the departure of the Japanese occupying forces in August 1945, the country was reduced to chaos and in many places the workers took control of production themselves in what Il Jae described as workers' councils (the Changpyong, or Choson National Workers' Council) – though in the conditions of the time it was impossible for such councils to do much more than produce the bare essentials of life in a war-shattered country.

Il Jae joined the Communist Party in September 1946, and was a leading member of the general strike that broke out in Daegu during the same year. With the suppression of the workers' struggles by the US occupation authorities, Il Jae joined the partisans fighting in the south of the country, being wounded in the leg in 1953.

In 1968, under the dictatorship of Park Chung Hee, he was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment for his continued political activity. His health was permanently damaged by his time in prison, and his face still bore the marks of the torture he suffered there. In 1988 he was released on probation, which did not stop him from involving himself immediately in political activity in Daegu. He became a leading member of the Korean Trades Unions in 1997.

For a young worker to enter the Communist Party in 1946 was perfectly natural. But no matter how sincere and courageous many of its members undoubtedly were, the Party in Korean was in effect no more than the tool of Russian and Chinese imperialism, then at the end of the Korean War, of a particularly grotesque and barbaric caricature of Stalinism: the hereditary dictatorship of the Kim family.

Had this been all there was to his life then we would not be writing this homage: history is full of heroism in the service of bad causes. But Il Jae was truly remarkable in being able, as he neared his 80th year, to call into question the struggle of a lifetime. In 2002 he became active in the Socialist Political Alliance, a new group which was beginning to introduce the ideas of the Communist Left into Korea. When a delegation of the ICC travelled to Korea in October 2006 to take part in the International Marxist Conference organised by the SPA, we met comrade Il Jae. In the debates during the conference, while we disagreed with him on many questions – notably the possibility of reviving the trades union as an organisational form for workers struggle – it was clear to us that we were in the presence of a real internationalist: above all on the key question of North Korea, he rejected any support for that odious regime.

In our discussions with him during his last years, comrade Il Jae was concerned above all with two questions: the international unity of the working class, and in Korea, breaking down the barriers between workers on permanent contracts, casual workers, and the immigrant workers from Bangla Desh and the Philippines who are beginning to appear in Korea. The latter question made him break with the recognised unions, although he still had not given up the hope of using the union form of organisation. He attended the ICC's 17th Congress in 2007, and had hoped to accompany an ICC delegation to Japan in 2008: sadly his declining health made it impossible for him to do so.

Comrade Il Jae Lee was an indomitable fighter for the proletarian cause whose spirit remained unbroken by hardship and prison. He remained an internationalist to the end of his life. Above all, he had the moral courage to continue searching for the truth, even if this meant calling into question the ideas for which he had fought and suffered in the past. The working class is poorer for his loss: it is richer for his example.

by   ICC  <http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201207/5046/homage-il-jae-lee>

본문

Sexual freedom is impossible under capitalism

We are publishing here an article written by one of our very close contacts in collaboration with ICC militants.  We want to salute the comrade’s willingness to contribute to the ongoing discussions and clarification of one of the burning social issues of the time—gay “rights”-- from a working class perspective.  We also want to express our appreciation for the focus the comrade chose to give in writing this article.  We think it is refreshing to approach the issue from the angle of human emotions.  We also agree with the comrade’s political understanding and argumentation.  We invite all our close contacts to work in collaboration with ICC militants to write about issues of concern for the clarification and emancipation of working class thought.

The “debate” over whether gay and lesbian people should enjoy the “right” to legally marry and draw from such legal recognition all the financial benefits granted to heterosexual married couples –survivor’s benefits among the most hotly contested— has long been one of those hot button issues the ruling class periodically pulls out of its hat, most notably around election time.  In this article we would like to highlight the hypocrisy of the ruling class left, center, and right in taking up the issue from either a “humanistic” point of view—the left’s and center’s—or a moralistic/religious standpoint on the right.  The Obama administration likes to show itself as “liberal” and “progressive,” hence its call to reverse the anti-gay marriage laws passed at the state level (most recently by referendum in North Carolina), without, however, attempting to make gay marriage a constitutional “right.”  The right needs to satisfy the fears and quell the insecurities of its particularly conservative electoral base, hence the Republican Party to-be-nominee Mitt Romney’s anti-gay marriage stance.  The whole “debate” is really a ploy by the Obama administration to appeal to the youth and “independent-minded,” besides the gay electorate itself, and push Romney to discredit himself with the Evangelists if he does not clearly and forcefully come against gay marriage.  Romney’s further move to the right risks further alienating the undecided and independent sector of the electorate.  It is clear that this legalistic posturing is completely hypocritical.  It aims at utilizing a situation which is certainly experienced as dramatic and humiliating by gay and lesbian people by fueling divisions, animosity, and further misunderstandings for the purpose of political gains.  Further, the at times vehement opposition to gay marriage expressed by the rights should not confuse us as to the fact that the legalization of an aspect of personal life would do nothing to challenge the established system of capitalist exploitation.

Today, if you turned on the television set and surfed over to any mainstream bourgeois news channel, chances are headlines about the “debate over gay rights” might assault the screen. It is interesting how the bourgeois media is insistent on highlighting our personal human differences, in showing us where we disagree the most as people. But the bourgeoisie and their mouthpieces in the press are highly hypocritical. Especially when “partisanship” is so frowned upon in the current political climate. Now, certain factions of the ruling class claim to support gay marriage. Even further, they claim to do so out of a sense of deeper humanism, often referring to the gay rights struggle as a struggle for “equality” or “civil rights.”

It is at this point we have to ask: “equality” in the name of what? And for which people in society? Is “marriage equality” even an appropriate working class demand? Is sexual freedom even possible under capitalism? As workers, we have to say the answer to both of those questions is negative. Building a world free of homophobia and heterosexism, where each individual is viewed and treated as a human being, rather than a category, is impossible under capitalism.

For some time now, elements of the bourgeois political class have advocated the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Often times their arguments are coded in language that appeals to workers. They say that legalizing same-sex marriage would improve the quality of life for gay and queer workers, as they would gain access to insurance benefits, divorce and property rights, etc. But under capitalism, human relations are reduced to a matter of exchange.  Emotions are nothing but mere commodities and finances to the bourgeoisie. So we can see the economic need of legalizing same-sex marriage, but what about the concept of marriage itself within capitalism?

Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto that, “The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.” They later continued, “The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations...On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.”

So according to Marx and Engels' definition of marriage under capitalism, we can begin to understand that “equal marriage rights” is a term which only applies to those who can afford the benefits of marriage. Rights which only apply to the propertied classes, the people who can even afford to legally marry in the first place. Marriage is fundamentally about property rights and inheritance. It has historically defined which people the ruling class deemed acceptable to own property, and even which people could be owned themselves! Originally of course, marriage meant the possession of the wife and her property by the husband. In the eyes of the bourgeoisie marriage is not at all about mutual respect and love—it's about possession, ownership, and property rights.

But why do we need a ruling class to tell us what marriage is and who we can and cannot marry? As we previously said in Internationalism #130 and in other places in the ICC press, a communist society would instead “be a society beyond the family in which human relationships will be regulated by mutual love and respect and not the state sanction of law.”

The bourgeois democratic state and its agents never pose the questions surrounding gay rights in terms of human need. What are the needs of gay and lesbian folks? Or even the basic needs of human beings in general? There is no question that the repression of the gay and queer community is real. We see homophobia, heterosexism, and patriarchy manifested everywhere in capitalism; anyone saying otherwise is simply in denial. The bullying of gay and queer youth for example has recently been referred to as an “epidemic” in the bourgeois media. Many of these traumatizing events where gay and queer people are bullied lead to depression, and in some cases even suicide.

But does the bourgeoisie focus on solving these issues? What about parliamentary legislation? Do any of the bills and amendments touch on any of these social issues? No! The debate is almost always framed in the context of religion, or moralism. Especially in the mainstream media, especially in the rhetoric of the ruling class. For all the vaunted talks—all the legalistic gibberish—about “human rights,” receiving the capitalist state’s approval and recognition under the guise of the law can do nothing to extirpate centuries long religious and moralistic bigotry. Religious people are “blamed” for their backward attitude, which further contributes to the polarizing, witch hunt-like atmosphere. In situations like these, legalizing same-sex marriage only helps portray the capitalist state as a “just” and “beneficent” entity.

If there is even a grain of sincerity in the ruling class' support of same-sex marriage, it comes from their need to distract workers and immerse them in the circus of electoral politics and legalism. Of course it is true that growing support of sexual freedom is part of humanity developing a deeper scientific understanding, and a greater sense of general human solidarity. But the ruling class cares nothing about these things, and why should they? If you have money your rights are never at risk, or up for debate. “Marriage equality” does not equal a good relationship or economic equality; it equals further class domination from the bourgeoisie.

Social struggles which only partially address the fundamental problems of capitalism, while expressing real social problems that exist in our society, distract the working class from revolutionary tasks and discussions. We have discussed already how the bourgeoisie can become fixated on the debate over gay rights, almost to the point of obsession. But this fixation happens among so-called “revolutionaries” as well.

Many people use language exclusively directed at workers in order to “organize” them around what is in essence a cross-class, broad social issue. The argument that gay rights will bring us “closer to full equality” is completely irrelevant, when it is a basic tenet of communists that full equality is impossible under capitalism. Why as revolutionaries should we be fighting to get “closer” to an egalitarian society? We need to stand against all of capitalisms injustices at once! Many of these same “revolutionaries” would call the legal and electoral decisions in favor of gay marriage rights “victories” for the workers. But these victories do nothing but bolster the appeal of bourgeois civil society.
 

The politics of legalism and democratism have nothing to offer the working class. True human emancipation can only come from working class revolution. Workers should always support gay and queer people themselves, especially in a society where they are alienated and ridiculed in such terrible ways. But we have to remain careful of the bourgeois campaigns which surround these debates. Often times they distract and mislead us from our ultimate goal—ending all forms of repression and exploitation for everyone on earth.

Jam 06/11/12

<출처 :  ICC >  

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201206/5004/sexual-freedom-impossible-under-capitalism