Monday 29 December 2008

Comments can now be posted!

Approxmately for 16 months because I did not not know how to set up comments readers have not been able to exchnage their views with my documents/articles on this website. It is now possible to do this now I have mastered setting up the comments facilities.

Thursday 25 December 2008

Last typo error on William Wales

On typo correction 1 I mis-spelled a word that meant a radicalisation in the Labour Party.

Typo correction on William Wales

There are two grammatical errors with incomplete words in two sentences. I meant to add orientate to a development of workers radicaliating in the Labour Party and mass split-offs from that party to form a new workers party if millions of workers desire it. The second word missed out in another sentence was building a mass revolutionary revolutionary party which breaks millions of workers from Social Democracy.

Danger of Prince Willialm Wales playing a future Bonapartist role

It is obvious British Capitalism is at the crossroads. Reading the Far Left press in the last couple of days shows how the ruling class is attacking the working and middle class on every level in both private and public spheres of Britain's economy. There are divisions within the ruling class over different competing interests where for example the Liberal Bourgeoisie could sacrifice the Monarchy to save money. On top of this the ruling class are split from top to bottom over strategy and tactics towards the middle and working class. The more asture elements of the ruling class realise this cannot carry on for any length of time without mass upheavals which if it moves out of control could lead to a pre-Revolutionary criss.


Each section of the ruling class is manouvering to protect their sectional intersts but will subordinate this to their general intersts particulary if threatened by the working class. The Aristocracy fearing Liberal Bourgeois elements may use Prince William Wales to demagogically adapt to a growing radicalisation of the middle and working class. It is interesting in that regard that News 24 reports this morning that he is growing a beard. Anti-war elements particulary sections of Britain's Muslim community may not be coned by his demagogy after Harry Wales was used by Brown to build up support to an unpopular war in Afghnistan. This was a point made in the Liberal Bourgeois press that being used in Afghanistan would alienate such layers and weaken the Monarchy further.


Those Ultra-Lefts who dismissed the democratic demands for a republic in 2000 when the Guardian called for it to be established shows how they did not understood how a Monarch could be used to contain a radicalisation and stop a revolution. This danger is shown by the Queen trying to identify with the masses suffering with a possible Depression. She maybe laying the basis to abdicate and handing over kingship to Willliam Wales.


An organisation called the Revolutionary Democratic Group go the other extreme by just calling for a republic in the abstract without relating it to Transitional demands which wins the masses to a programme of Socialist revolution. If William Wales could contain the radicalisation the Liberal Bourgeoise would compromise with the Aristocrats and keep the Monarchy. Revolutionary Marxists have understood since Marx argued in 1848 that faced with the threat of a workers upheaval the Liberal Bourgeoisie does not hesitate to compromise with rennants of Feudalism so the ruling class unites against a possible revolutionary threat.


Another possibility is the masses are not sufficently coned by William Wales. The ruling class may to stop a revolution to ask Left Wing Social Democrats to form a government. Trotsky in the History of the Russian Revolution showed how the Russian Ruling Class was vacillating between keeping attacking the masses or make reforms to stop an inevitable revolitionary upheaval. One wing won out which kept attacking the masses because they felt any upheaval could be contained later on. Their failure to recognise the extent of the upheaval led to the February 1917 Revolution. William Wales could be used as king to hire and fire governments from Social Democracy right upto Conservative Bourgeois governemnts. There are grave dangers of him being used for such a Bonapartist role.


This threat can only be countered by building the confidence in workers' fighting as a combative class for its intersts. Building a left wing in the Labour Party and possible split which leads to a bigger left formation Trotskyists should orientate to because workers out of this process will form their political struggles as a class which will lead to an eventual mass revolutionary being formed by breaking them from the Social Democratic Bureaucracy. That is the only sure way Willam Wales as Bonapartist figure can be defeated.

Monday 15 December 2008

Typo correction on Workers' States

I missed out the state when I wrote the section on workers defending the gains of the Workers' States against Imperialism; capitalist elements; and political revolution against parasitic Bureaucratic castes in the statement on British SWP crisis.

Statement on British SWP crisis

The SWP central leadership seems to be imploding. There has been a Bureaucratic Centralist leadership even since Cliff lost the vote on Ireland at the 1971 of 1972 IS conference. This explosive crisis has echos of the WRP crisis of 1985 - 1987 where the rank-and-file could seriously consdier different points of views with openly declared factions vying for the leadership after the Healyite clique imploded.


An explosive SWP crisis was inevitable with Third Camp politics being weakend with a new upturn of the world revolution. Rees admits that the SWP had a one-sided attitude to the 1989 events in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union's break-up during 1991. Despite this change in line he clings to State Capitalist theory.


Ernest Mandel when he still influenced the FI majority leadership in 1990 was proven correct when he argued there could be protracted struggle for years between different Bureaucratic factions; Capitalist elements; and working class due to crisis of workers' leadership and global Capitalist crisis. Mandel argues in his introduction to "Power and Money" that it was the victory of excessive rapacious Bureaucratic concessions combined with Capitalist inroads was the objective basis for disorientation of the masses. He was proven correct when he stated in the medium-term would defend the gains of those Workers' States against those two forces because workers would go into struggle to defend their immeadiate material interests as they increasingly become threatened.


Cliff in his 1990s introducton to his work on "Russia: A Marxist analysis" confused the revolutionary challenge to Bureaucratic rule in 1989 and the restoration of Capitalism. By making democratic concessions the different castes survived. Those sections of the Bureaucratic castes who wanted to make concessions to Imperialism by devloping Capitalist sectors in those economies won out. This was a move in the direction of Capitalism as an intermediary stage but that does not mean Capitalism has been restored. Most of the left have made a major methodlogical error of confusing this intermediatary stage with its completion. Mandel's analysis of continuing conflicts within the Russian Bureaucracy was proven correct. Those sections of the Russian Bureaucracy who lost out by excessive Bureaucratic pillage and concessions to Capitalists are re-gaining their power by exporpriating Capitalists and Capitalist firms.


I agree with the ex-Socialist Action ediorial board minority who argued that the 1989 events in Eastern Europe were the beginning of incipient Political Revolutions with the qualifications of why their dynamic changed with the Bureaucratic factions who won out. It was their failure to support these upheavals which was leading them out of the FI why the minority joined the ISG.


Sections of this minority partly formed a tendency in 1996 to oppose Stalinphobia in the ISG. This tendency was known as Tendency E (TE). TE sharply intervened against Thorentt's line of supporting German Re-unification. East Germany was one execption because the West German Bourgeois state filled the vacumn. The only other restoration of Capitalism in Europe was Kosovo where Imperialism through NATO forced the Serb Bureaucracy out of Kosovo which led to a similar power vacumn as in ex-GDR. On both German Re-Unification and NATO's war against Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) Thornett/Mackler/Foley argued positions to the right of the British SWP.


Trotsky was correct in the 1930s that the Soviet Union breaking-up even in the context of a victorious Political Revolution would set-back the productive forces. Thornett broke from that analysis when he wrote in a 2000 ISG internal document that the Soviet Union did not form a productive unit on its own. The new upturn of world revolution will mean the defence of workers against Imperialism and Capitalist elements, alongside taking the Political Revolutions futher will deepen. Russia's change of direction could influence Eastern Europe as the full extent of World Capitalism's crisis impacts on them; and the workers are growing in struggle in the Workers' States (except Cuba) which are increasingly taking an anti-Capitalist and anti-Stalinist direction. This is where Trotskyism can begin to apply their strategy of Political Revolution with social consuqences. Despite the destruction of East Germany the new Capitalist crisis is helping those who came from that country to radicalise as they know Capitalism is worse than Stalinism.



When an organisation leads a mass movement which the SWP led in 2003 it it is tested whether it moves in either an opportunist or Ultra-Left direction under the pressure of alien forces. It made a principled error of confusing alliances in a single issue campaigns where Bourgeois forces are not necessiarly excluded but a party which has to be based on a programme and have a clear working class character.


In his document Rees attacks Trotsky and Lenin for being partly inapplicable to Respect and the anti-recession charter. This represents a deepening of Rees's move to Popular Front politics. Rees in his document calls for alliances with Liberal Bourgeois economists such as Larry Elliot. Revolutionary Marxists cannot even agree with Social Democrats around a common programme let alone with direct Capitalist elements such as Elliot. Lenin and Trotsky's method which Ress partly attacks was to offer reformist forces immeadiate and specefic demands which would influence millions of workers; middle class elements; and other specially oppressed within those two classes. Rees like John Ross want to colloborate with these Liberal Bourgeois Keynsians. This is wrong on a principled basis because Keysnians attack workers and middle class to salvage Capitalism, where is what is required is its' revolutionary overthrow.


SWP members should read the American Trotskyist James P. Cannon on methods to build a revolutionary leadership. He made relevant points on why cliquism and unprinciped combinations can destroy an organisation. One key point he made in the History of American Trotskyism is that organisations who have a wrong programme implode at some stage. Until Barnes destroyed the Trotskyists in 1981 the American SWP outside the Bolshevik Party was the most democratic party in the world. Another point Cannon made was that organisational questions are always subordiante to politcal requirements. The Cannon leadership always wanted the maxinum educational value in any political disputes. They always allowed tendencies and factions,with them being represented on leadership bodies.

Sunday 14 December 2008

An analysis of what German-British Bourgeois rift on economic policy represents?

David Smith who is the Time's economic editor has revealed key facts on what the difference between Keynesian approach of Brown and the Fiscal Conservative approach of the Merkel Government in Germany is. Brown is trying to keep the appearance thathe is keeping secure Middle Class banks savings, wherehas the Merkel government are refusing to help them out of the credit crisis.

The analysis I draw is that one of the main motivations for Brown's nationalisation of certain banks and threats to force banks lending is to control the middle class. This has forced him to the left on these questions. Another major motivation which is why the Liberal Bourgeoisie supports him is that he is bailing out a decaying economic system. This shows how important the middle class is determining the balance of forces between the working and ruling class. Brown's big mis-calculation is his under-estimation of the working class. By controlling the middle class he hopes (alongside the ruling class) he can make workers pay for the Capitalist crisis through massive attacks on social security benefits. The danger for the ruling class is that the working class can explode in mass upheavals which could win sizeable middle class forces over.

Sections of the British Libera Bourgeoisie could be manourvering to utilise the Pound's crisis in order to enter the Euro. This will only deepen the problems for British Capitalism as the conflicts over economic policy with the EU will widen. During periods of Capitalist crisis Capitalist nation states have a tendency to fly apart.


Cameron is trying to win the middle class over to Monetarism by promising governments fund small businesses indepentially of banks. Ultra-Lefts make their most fundamental mistake of thinking the workers will go past the experience of the Labour Party. Since its formation as the LRC in 1900 the different stages of workers political radicalisation has gone through the Labour Party.


The overwhelming rejection of Thacterism by the workers and sizeable layers of the middle class led to the Labour landslide of 1997. This rejection by most Labour Aristocrats and Middle Class of Thacterism were parlty due to the tendencies towards recession in the early 1990s. Due mainly to Ultra-Leftism that radicalisation was not taken advantage of, which led to elements of despair which has led to moves by these layers to the right. That radicalisation which began in 1997 is re-newing itself as a reaction to the credit crunch offically started in August 2007. The extra-pariliamentary action against benefits cuts could influnce the working and large layers of the middle class is finding a reflection in the Labour Party. Out of this growing conflict Trotskyism can get more of a hearing in the working and middle class.