American Imperialism is working to undermine the Iranian Bourgeoisie's influence within the Middle East. This is why the Yemini government armd forces; the Saudi Air Force; and American air forces are carrying out airstrikes on various rebels in northern and eastern Yemen. That is very dangerous because the Iranian Bourgeoisie has strategic interests in these parts of Yemen which they warned Saudi Arabia not to undermine when they initiated airstrikes two or three months ago. In the last fortnight the Houti rebels in northern Yemen have claimed that American bombers bombed 25 targets (sorties) in a few hours of air strikes. US's Imperialisms' strategic objectives is to dominate the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. There are vital natural resources which they want increased ownership of.
As I noted nearly a year ago in polemicising against those on the left who broke principles of class independence from Bourgeois politicians by advocating a vote for Obama that due to the worse crisis of American Capitalism/Imperialism it could not be ruled out further military adventures. A qualifcation which I stated then limiting their ability to do this is that the Neo-Cons had done so much damage to Capitalism that it played into the hands of a rising world revolution and rapid radicalisation within the Imperialist countries. It will take time for Liberal Bourgeois elements in America to reverse this damage.
The dialetics of history with abrupt changes in history surprises even farseeing Marxists. It is absolutely increditable that with the extreme racism of American Capitalism that a radicalisation the biggest since the Roosevelt era would throw up a Afro American Bourgeois Populist to contain it. Astute Liberal Bourgeois strategists used Roosevelt and Obama to contain two major radicalisation within the confines of Bourgeois politics. One major difference between these Liberal Bourgeois Populists is that American Imperialism is at a different stage of development. Roosevelt represented the rise of American Imperialism as a major power despite the threat of Socialist revolution due to the hardships of 1930s depression. By salvaging American Capitalism until World War 2 he helped them to develop as a citidal of world Capitalism. This laid the basis for the 1948-1973 boom which enabled American Capitalism to buy off large numbers of American workers off.
Obama represents the decline of American Imperialism as Capitalism begins to enter its worse crisis. The decline of American Imperialism started with losing a war in Vietnam. American Imperialism failed to restore Capitalism in Russia with Yeltsin losing out in 2000. Trotsky's analysis of how unstable the Russian Bureaucracy is as a caste can be seen by changes in personell at the top even now. Putin and Medivev represents different Bureaucratic factions. One thing is sure the Bureaucrats opposed to Capitalist restoration will not tolerate from Medivev what they out of weakness accepted from Yeltsin. The failure to restore Capitalism in Russia was decisive in influncing Eastern Europe. If Russia had gone Capitalist, it would probally led to a similar development very quickly in those countries as well. Compounding that defeat American Imperialism was losing two major wars under Bush and a depression began a year or 18 months before Obama came to power.
Losing these two wars; the beginning of a depression; and the human right abuses which exposed American Imperialism for what it was really like caused one of the biggest radicalisations in American history. One major domestic refom Obama has conceded to mass pressures is the beginning of a very limited health service. There are paraells with this and the 1906 reforms forced out of a Liberal party government when they won a landslide general election victory. Both Trotsky and a Tory Prime Minister Arthur Balfour agreed this landslide was caused by a revolutionary upheaval spreading westwards from a revolution during 1905 within Russia. The purpose of Liberal reforms was to stop the Labour Party formed in 1906 from growing, and to contain any revolutionary threat. That Liberal Bourgeois strategy failed due to World War 1 horrors, and the impact of Russia's October 1917 revolution which saw Social Democratic governments in Britain for the first time. Those reforms from 1906 the British Ruling Class were forced to deepen after Labour's 1945 landslide victory to contain a revolutionary threat. Trotsky's statements during 1938 that the workers organisational break from Bourgeois politics may bypass a mass Social Democratic party straight to a mass revolutionary party which overthrows Capitalism is possible due to a similar acute Capitalist crisis.
Obama is going to find it hard to repair the damage to the global image of American Imperialism due to the crude barabarism of the Neo-Cons crimes! This is why American Imperialism is making concessions to the Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies in order to contain revolutionary challenges threatening world Capitalism. Last September I failed to realise this would slow down Cold War tensions because until a deal was made on American missiles not being located in Poland and the Czech republic was done to incorporate them to stop the rise of world revolution it seemed tennsions were rising. If Obama carries out any adventures in Latin America or Iran this could sharpen up tensions with these two Workers' states again which could escalate. This could be a pretext for hardline Stalinists to purge Medievev.
Obama has repeated Bush's mistakes in encircling Venezulea and Cuba. This could deepen the revolutionary process in Latin America as it is harder for American Imperialism to make deals with Bourgeois Nationalists; Social Democrats; and elements of Castroism. The pro-Imperialist regime in Yemen is being threatend by three different rebel groups from three major regions of that country. That is why the Saudi and American air forces are bombing two lots of rebels in northern and eastern Yemen in an attempt to prop that regime up. There are elements within the American ruling class who believe this can only happen by them stepping up this bombing. If there is any danger of this happening it is vital the anti-war movement organises mass protests because a war could lead to two regional wars involving Iran to Eritera in the Horn of Africa; against Saudi Arabia. If two regional wars fuse this is the most serious threat to world peace since 1945. Any deepening of a American Imperialist adventure in Yemen the pro-Imperialist regime there could be overthrown and the Saudi monaracy could also suffer a similar fate. This is indicated by the Houtas gaining Saudi terriotory. Once the American masses have been broken in illusions in Obama Trotskyists should start a camapign for him to resign.
Monday 28 December 2009
Friday 20 November 2009
Strange videos on this blog!
Due to being busy doing university assignments I have not kept an eye on videos appearing on this blog. I looked at my blog tonight because I noticed A Public Sociologist has cut his link to this blog. As I said several months ago when a similar situation appeared is it outrageous that videos can be added without permission. In this situation I have no other choice to delete those four videos because two videos among them may have reactionary content. I have not checked those two videos because I am too tired.
Monday 26 October 2009
My contribution to the Socialist Unity debate on why left strategy of protesting against BNP appearing on media is correct!
I have started re-reading Willam Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”. In chapter 1 entiltled “Birth of the Third Reich” under chapter section “The budding ideas of Adolph Hitler” on pages 23-24 Shirer quotes Hilter stating that his experience of Vienna prior to World War 1 demonstrated a middle class plebian movement could only come to power by being usefual to an Imperialist ruling class. This is a liberal work correctly recording Fascist strategy.
The only way to prevent a ruling class attempting a Fascist seizure of power is by showing that it risks a Socialist revolution. As Louise Whittle points out the historic role of Fascism is to destroy the workers’ mass organisations. Ernest Mandel argued that days before Hitler became Chancellor the German Ruling Class tested to see how workers reacted by the Nazis demonstrating outside the head-quarters of the German Communist Party (KPD). Mandel argued if the KPD had resisted then the German Ruling Class would not have gambled with granting political power to Fascism. Shirer ponts out in page 24 that Hitler worked throughout January 1933 to win the ruling class over to grantig powar to the Fascists.
The Liberal Bourgeois strategy is two-fold by weakening Fascism, believing that can undermine them. This is a delusion which Gary Younge argues correctly is impossible where Capitalist decay breads this degenerate movement. As Younge argued Fascism can only be undermined by the working class challenging Capitalism effecively. A second dimension of Liberal Bourgeois strategy is to keep options open where Fascism may be useful to crush a revolutionary threat by workers or in a position to destroy the organised working class saving declining profits. That strategy is more medium to long-term. This is why it is fundamentally wrong to stop protesting when a BBC decision to invite BNP members appearing cannot be reserved.
The only way to prevent a ruling class attempting a Fascist seizure of power is by showing that it risks a Socialist revolution. As Louise Whittle points out the historic role of Fascism is to destroy the workers’ mass organisations. Ernest Mandel argued that days before Hitler became Chancellor the German Ruling Class tested to see how workers reacted by the Nazis demonstrating outside the head-quarters of the German Communist Party (KPD). Mandel argued if the KPD had resisted then the German Ruling Class would not have gambled with granting political power to Fascism. Shirer ponts out in page 24 that Hitler worked throughout January 1933 to win the ruling class over to grantig powar to the Fascists.
The Liberal Bourgeois strategy is two-fold by weakening Fascism, believing that can undermine them. This is a delusion which Gary Younge argues correctly is impossible where Capitalist decay breads this degenerate movement. As Younge argued Fascism can only be undermined by the working class challenging Capitalism effecively. A second dimension of Liberal Bourgeois strategy is to keep options open where Fascism may be useful to crush a revolutionary threat by workers or in a position to destroy the organised working class saving declining profits. That strategy is more medium to long-term. This is why it is fundamentally wrong to stop protesting when a BBC decision to invite BNP members appearing cannot be reserved.
Sunday 27 September 2009
Strategyn and tactics in fighting Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time
TROTSKYISTS SHOULD DEMAND JACK STRAW’S EXPULSION FROM THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY! AND WHY THE BIGGEST DEMONSTRATIONS SHOULD BE BUILT AGAINST NICK GRIFFIN’S APPEARANCE ON BBC QUESTION TIME!
Trotskyists have an excellent opportunity of showing the true character of Liberal Bourgeois elements to millions of workers and other oppressed elements used as scapegoats for Capitalist caused crises and who are threatened by any rise of Fascism. The Liberal Bourgeoisie in Britain are nervous of how millions of workers; unemployed workers/millions on benefits as single parents and disabled are going to react with massive cutbacks.
In that situation they are keeping their strategic and tactical options open. They may resort to Social Democracy to contain any revolutionary danger. In the medium and long-term if the Tories encounter resistance with layers of un-organised workers being right wing on other questions may attempt to use this to build right wing populist movements to weaken the organised working class. Ultimately if everything fails due to the organised working class resistance to attacks by Capital, especially as a final resort to stop a Socialist revolution Capital may turn to Fascism to salvage their rule by destroying the mass organisations of workers. The battle in Leeds shows how right wing populism is being used by an extremely right wing mayor to break the union among bin workers in alliance with other Bourgeois parties such as a Tory/Liberal Democrats controlled council.
Trotskyists argue for the biggest demonstrations against Griffin appearing on Question Time in order to improve the confidence of workers and oppressed elements that they will defend their democratic rights against Fascist attacks which could increasingly be emboldened by him appearing on that BBC TV programme. It will also make clear to any wavering middle class elements that the organised working class will lead a determined fight against any Fascist inroads.
Trotsky argued in a 1934 article “Bonapartism and Fascism” that all governments are run by Finance Capital except for revolutionary ones. The key point Trotsky made is that Finance Capital modify its’ strategy and tactics by changes between and within classes. Social Democracy is utilised when the working class are in a strong position against Capitalist attacks and Bourgeois elements use them for them to front their reforms to stop revolutionary threats. When Social Democracy is discredited they bring in Conservative Bourgeois parties to attack the working class. In an economic depression if despair dominates middle class elements and unorganised workers Capital can use this through Populism and Fascism to weaken and destroy the organised working class. Fascism in order to consolidate its’ power has to destroy the organised working class quickly because of their unstable middle class base. If there is resistance by organised workers even a Fascist attempt to win power can be smashed.
Within hours of Griffin being announced as possibly appearing on Question Time for October 22nd the Communication Workers Union (representing telecommunication and postal workers) has condemned it in strong terms. Social Democratic cabinet member Peter Hain has equally condemned it. This could possibly mobilise tens of thousands in mass protests outside the BBC. Tony Kearns Assistant General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union (CWU) has called for Labour MPs and cabinet members to join these protests outside the BBC.
Trotskyists are in favour of organising all those in a single issue campaign including liberals with a small l against the BNP appearing on major TV debates. A Trotskyist organisation while building such an limited united front campaign/protests argue for our positions particularly in Trotskyist publications about how the fight against Liberal Bourgeois elements in practice shows that Fascism can only be defeated in a final analysis through Socialist revolution.
Trotskyists also fight for a broader campaign based on the Trade Unions; Labour Party left and other parties to their left; and other oppressed elements building a classical workers united front against Fascism but also posing demands against Capitalism which breeds Fascism. We also argue that it is the semi-Bourgeois New Labour faction and right wing Social Democrats which have played into the BNP’s hands in their attack on workers.
As I have documented there is an open schism between even right wing Social Democrats such as Hain and the semi-Bourgeois elements in the Labour Party. Trotskyists should tactically take advantage of this schism to pose demands on the Social Democrats to expel Straw and Hodge. We should raise this demand in the Trade Unions and Labour Party. Millions of organised workers will be supportive and if the Social Democrats do not act they will go through an experience with them, which will open up opportunities for them to consider revolutionary ideas. In the process semi-Bourgeois elements will be destroyed and a serious fight back will begin to reverse Capitalist attacks which could provide revolutionary opportunities.
Trotskyists have an excellent opportunity of showing the true character of Liberal Bourgeois elements to millions of workers and other oppressed elements used as scapegoats for Capitalist caused crises and who are threatened by any rise of Fascism. The Liberal Bourgeoisie in Britain are nervous of how millions of workers; unemployed workers/millions on benefits as single parents and disabled are going to react with massive cutbacks.
In that situation they are keeping their strategic and tactical options open. They may resort to Social Democracy to contain any revolutionary danger. In the medium and long-term if the Tories encounter resistance with layers of un-organised workers being right wing on other questions may attempt to use this to build right wing populist movements to weaken the organised working class. Ultimately if everything fails due to the organised working class resistance to attacks by Capital, especially as a final resort to stop a Socialist revolution Capital may turn to Fascism to salvage their rule by destroying the mass organisations of workers. The battle in Leeds shows how right wing populism is being used by an extremely right wing mayor to break the union among bin workers in alliance with other Bourgeois parties such as a Tory/Liberal Democrats controlled council.
Trotskyists argue for the biggest demonstrations against Griffin appearing on Question Time in order to improve the confidence of workers and oppressed elements that they will defend their democratic rights against Fascist attacks which could increasingly be emboldened by him appearing on that BBC TV programme. It will also make clear to any wavering middle class elements that the organised working class will lead a determined fight against any Fascist inroads.
Trotsky argued in a 1934 article “Bonapartism and Fascism” that all governments are run by Finance Capital except for revolutionary ones. The key point Trotsky made is that Finance Capital modify its’ strategy and tactics by changes between and within classes. Social Democracy is utilised when the working class are in a strong position against Capitalist attacks and Bourgeois elements use them for them to front their reforms to stop revolutionary threats. When Social Democracy is discredited they bring in Conservative Bourgeois parties to attack the working class. In an economic depression if despair dominates middle class elements and unorganised workers Capital can use this through Populism and Fascism to weaken and destroy the organised working class. Fascism in order to consolidate its’ power has to destroy the organised working class quickly because of their unstable middle class base. If there is resistance by organised workers even a Fascist attempt to win power can be smashed.
Within hours of Griffin being announced as possibly appearing on Question Time for October 22nd the Communication Workers Union (representing telecommunication and postal workers) has condemned it in strong terms. Social Democratic cabinet member Peter Hain has equally condemned it. This could possibly mobilise tens of thousands in mass protests outside the BBC. Tony Kearns Assistant General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union (CWU) has called for Labour MPs and cabinet members to join these protests outside the BBC.
Trotskyists are in favour of organising all those in a single issue campaign including liberals with a small l against the BNP appearing on major TV debates. A Trotskyist organisation while building such an limited united front campaign/protests argue for our positions particularly in Trotskyist publications about how the fight against Liberal Bourgeois elements in practice shows that Fascism can only be defeated in a final analysis through Socialist revolution.
Trotskyists also fight for a broader campaign based on the Trade Unions; Labour Party left and other parties to their left; and other oppressed elements building a classical workers united front against Fascism but also posing demands against Capitalism which breeds Fascism. We also argue that it is the semi-Bourgeois New Labour faction and right wing Social Democrats which have played into the BNP’s hands in their attack on workers.
As I have documented there is an open schism between even right wing Social Democrats such as Hain and the semi-Bourgeois elements in the Labour Party. Trotskyists should tactically take advantage of this schism to pose demands on the Social Democrats to expel Straw and Hodge. We should raise this demand in the Trade Unions and Labour Party. Millions of organised workers will be supportive and if the Social Democrats do not act they will go through an experience with them, which will open up opportunities for them to consider revolutionary ideas. In the process semi-Bourgeois elements will be destroyed and a serious fight back will begin to reverse Capitalist attacks which could provide revolutionary opportunities.
Sunday 13 September 2009
Debate on workers' states on we love Trotsky
A REPLY TO SAM DRACONIAN ON WORKERS’ STATES AND ANOTHER REPLY TO DAVID YOURMAN ON CLASS NATURE OF EASTERN EUROPEAN EX-SOVIET STATES POST 1989/1991.
The Marxist theory of the State in understanding how it defends specific property relations, are crucial in determining what its class character is. A Capitalist state stops the Bourgeoisie being expropriated as a class. Workers’ states exist to prevent Capitalists restoring their total economic power. In Bureaucratised workers’ states whichever wing of Stalinism is in power the Workers’ states they defend is tied to how it affects their privileges. Unfortunately except for the early Soviet Union; Cuba (even there a workers’ state with bureaucratic deformations); and Nicaragua from 1979 to 1990 the workers’ states have been ruled by hardened bureaucratic castes. In this sense the exception to healthy workers’ states has dominated rather than classical norms of workers’ democracy. The upturn in world revolution can lead to more classical norms of embryonic workers democracy in mass struggles against Capitalism and Stalinism.
Sam Draconian does not understand Capitalist restoration requires the destruction of predominated nationalised industries/sectors of China’s economy. Draconian should read Trotsky’s writings on Soviet degenerated workers’ state such as “Class nature of Soviet State”, published in 1933; Trotsky’s “In defence of Marxism” and Joseph Hansen’s “Class nature of Eastern European states”, written in 1948/49 for a debate within the American Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) and 4th International (FI). Both Trotsky and Hansen distinguish between classical norms of healthy workers’ states and reality of exceptions of brutal Stalinist political rule resulting from Imperialist pressures on isolated backward workers’ states.
Trotskyists defend in China; Eastern Europe; and ex-Soviet states is those industries which are nationalised against Capitalist restoration. David Yourman fails to understand the complexities of transitional societies in deep crisis such as ex-Soviet states and Eastern Europe. In my opinion the Bureaucracies still rule these countries. It is true in large parts of Eastern Europe the Capitalists have made major inroads but have not totally overthrown the Bureaucracies stranglehold of certain industries/sectors of these economies. Until the Capitalists have overthrown the Bureaucratic state apparatus and defeated workers resistance Capitalist states will not emerge.
In Russia there are still considerable gains to be defended with this workers’ state with Capitalist elements being weakened. Despite falls in certain industries there is no mass unemployment which you would find under Capitalism due to being ruled by profit motives. Marx called the organisation of Capitalism for profit the Law of Value. Just two or three nights ago I watched on Russia Today that despite falls in domestic car production (which will now be reversed with new technology) they are still maintaining a million workers in employment within this industry. There are forecasts that in the 2nd part of this year Russia’s economy will grow 7%+.
Draconian by not seeing the Stalinist character of Russia and China leads him to falsely characterise them as semi-Fascist. Trotsky when he wrote “In defence of Marxism” argued correctly that Fascism and Stalinism rests on different economic systems. Fascism is a product of extreme Capitalist crisis within Imperialist countries which is forced to carry out expansionist military adventures in order to re-organise world markets. Stalinism rests on Bureaucracies which has more power in history by Capitalism being overthrown.
If Capitalism was restored in Russia and China they would become at least semi-colonies. This is tied up to Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution. Draconian does not spell out his political conclusions of his line that Russia and China are semi-Fascist. In Russia the Bureaucracy are still defending the Soviet military victories against Nazi Germany. They are fighting the rise of Fascism in Eastern Europe and any downgrading of Holocaust genocide as unique. If this was a semi-Fascist regime it would not being doing those things.
There is the beginning of a third phrase of open cold war. The 70th anniversary of Stalin-Hitler pact is being used to launch it. This is happening due to the failure to restore Capitalism in Russia, and economic problems of Capitalism not stopping an upsurge of the left. From 1989 to 2007 the Liberal Bourgeoisie utilised Stalinism’s problems to claim Socialism was dead. There will be a tactical change of line making the Russian workers’ state centre of a witch-hunt in order to isolate forces challenging Capitalism globally and within the Imperialist countries. Due to Imperialism threatening the Russian Bureaucracy they are arming Venezuela with tanks; warplanes; guns; and missiles. Does Draconian believe Venezuela wrong to do this in how you define Russia?
The Marxist theory of the State in understanding how it defends specific property relations, are crucial in determining what its class character is. A Capitalist state stops the Bourgeoisie being expropriated as a class. Workers’ states exist to prevent Capitalists restoring their total economic power. In Bureaucratised workers’ states whichever wing of Stalinism is in power the Workers’ states they defend is tied to how it affects their privileges. Unfortunately except for the early Soviet Union; Cuba (even there a workers’ state with bureaucratic deformations); and Nicaragua from 1979 to 1990 the workers’ states have been ruled by hardened bureaucratic castes. In this sense the exception to healthy workers’ states has dominated rather than classical norms of workers’ democracy. The upturn in world revolution can lead to more classical norms of embryonic workers democracy in mass struggles against Capitalism and Stalinism.
Sam Draconian does not understand Capitalist restoration requires the destruction of predominated nationalised industries/sectors of China’s economy. Draconian should read Trotsky’s writings on Soviet degenerated workers’ state such as “Class nature of Soviet State”, published in 1933; Trotsky’s “In defence of Marxism” and Joseph Hansen’s “Class nature of Eastern European states”, written in 1948/49 for a debate within the American Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) and 4th International (FI). Both Trotsky and Hansen distinguish between classical norms of healthy workers’ states and reality of exceptions of brutal Stalinist political rule resulting from Imperialist pressures on isolated backward workers’ states.
Trotskyists defend in China; Eastern Europe; and ex-Soviet states is those industries which are nationalised against Capitalist restoration. David Yourman fails to understand the complexities of transitional societies in deep crisis such as ex-Soviet states and Eastern Europe. In my opinion the Bureaucracies still rule these countries. It is true in large parts of Eastern Europe the Capitalists have made major inroads but have not totally overthrown the Bureaucracies stranglehold of certain industries/sectors of these economies. Until the Capitalists have overthrown the Bureaucratic state apparatus and defeated workers resistance Capitalist states will not emerge.
In Russia there are still considerable gains to be defended with this workers’ state with Capitalist elements being weakened. Despite falls in certain industries there is no mass unemployment which you would find under Capitalism due to being ruled by profit motives. Marx called the organisation of Capitalism for profit the Law of Value. Just two or three nights ago I watched on Russia Today that despite falls in domestic car production (which will now be reversed with new technology) they are still maintaining a million workers in employment within this industry. There are forecasts that in the 2nd part of this year Russia’s economy will grow 7%+.
Draconian by not seeing the Stalinist character of Russia and China leads him to falsely characterise them as semi-Fascist. Trotsky when he wrote “In defence of Marxism” argued correctly that Fascism and Stalinism rests on different economic systems. Fascism is a product of extreme Capitalist crisis within Imperialist countries which is forced to carry out expansionist military adventures in order to re-organise world markets. Stalinism rests on Bureaucracies which has more power in history by Capitalism being overthrown.
If Capitalism was restored in Russia and China they would become at least semi-colonies. This is tied up to Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution. Draconian does not spell out his political conclusions of his line that Russia and China are semi-Fascist. In Russia the Bureaucracy are still defending the Soviet military victories against Nazi Germany. They are fighting the rise of Fascism in Eastern Europe and any downgrading of Holocaust genocide as unique. If this was a semi-Fascist regime it would not being doing those things.
There is the beginning of a third phrase of open cold war. The 70th anniversary of Stalin-Hitler pact is being used to launch it. This is happening due to the failure to restore Capitalism in Russia, and economic problems of Capitalism not stopping an upsurge of the left. From 1989 to 2007 the Liberal Bourgeoisie utilised Stalinism’s problems to claim Socialism was dead. There will be a tactical change of line making the Russian workers’ state centre of a witch-hunt in order to isolate forces challenging Capitalism globally and within the Imperialist countries. Due to Imperialism threatening the Russian Bureaucracy they are arming Venezuela with tanks; warplanes; guns; and missiles. Does Draconian believe Venezuela wrong to do this in how you define Russia?
Sunday 6 September 2009
A very brief statement on why I mis-understood a comment on my blog!
I did not understand to re-reading the Kennington and Chelsea
comment of it's pro-Imperialist content. If I had realised this
I would have deleted it.
comment of it's pro-Imperialist content. If I had realised this
I would have deleted it.
A very brief reply to Steve Revins on factors leading to Blairism
Steve Revins has not written the totality of my writings on this
blog which has looked several times all the factors playing into
Blairism's hands. I agree with Revins that the break-up of
the Soviet Union and industrial defeats for workers during the
1980s also contributed to the rise of Blairism.
There are two points where I fundamentally disagree with
Revins. Revins considering the Iranian revolution of 1979
as a defeat is a ultra-left sectarian line which Gerry
Downing as correctly attacked as an ultra-left break with
Permanent Revolution. This is one of the few issues
which I agree with Downing. In the early stages of
Iran's revolution in 1978 there were workers committees
challenging Capitalism within the factories. Mandel quoting
Marx in "Power and Money" said revolutions can be followed
by counter-revolution. This is what happened when Islamic
Fundamentalists consolidated their power.
Despite the counter-revolution, Imperialism did not restore a total
client regime in Iran, they have not overthrown an autonomous
Bourgeois Nationalist regime. As Downing argued in
the Weekly Worker many months ago the struggle against
Imperialism even by Bourgeois Nationalists is one key
Bourgeois-Democratic task which are tied up with
Socialist tasks which can only be achieved by overthrowing
Capitalism. Trotskyists while keeping their political
independence from Bourgeois Nationalists in the
semi-colonies utilise conflicts with Imperialism to organise
mass protests and utilise any military struggle against Imperialism
to strengthen the workers. This limited anti-Imperialist victory
in 1979 is very important as American Imperialism is being
defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan, and constitutes a major
obstacle to Imperialism totally controlling the Middle East.
On China I draw the opposite conclusion to Revins. Despite
the crimes of Stalinism in Tinaman Square during 1989 the
example of China as a workers' state particularly its massive
socio-economic development pose an alternative to Capitalism.
This is even more so since the world Capitalist depression
is entering into. Examples of this is that China is one of the
few places where massive infrastructure projects are being
undertaken; whereas Britain is not allowing 40,000 students
to do their degrees this year, China turns out millions
of university graduates each year; and China has lifted
300 million from poverty.
Revins has a un-dialectical and does not apply the
concept of law of Uneven and Combined Development
in seeing the weakening of Stalinism since 1989 as
totally negative. It is true Imperialism made tremendous
inroads into Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states; and
this was utilised by Liberal Bourgeois ideologues
to claim Socialism was dead. Now with the mistakes of
Imperialism with the Iraq war and trends towards a global
Capitalist depression Trotskyism can now become a mass force.
This would not be possible without the 1989 events.
As a tendency within the Socialist Action editorial board in
Britain argued in a document to the FI's 13th World Congress
that the crisis of the workers' states were tied up with deepening
economic problems within the world capitalist economy.
Trotskyism largely blew its opportunity from 1989 to 2007 because
elements went from adaptation to Stalinism towards another extreme
of Third Campism.
blog which has looked several times all the factors playing into
Blairism's hands. I agree with Revins that the break-up of
the Soviet Union and industrial defeats for workers during the
1980s also contributed to the rise of Blairism.
There are two points where I fundamentally disagree with
Revins. Revins considering the Iranian revolution of 1979
as a defeat is a ultra-left sectarian line which Gerry
Downing as correctly attacked as an ultra-left break with
Permanent Revolution. This is one of the few issues
which I agree with Downing. In the early stages of
Iran's revolution in 1978 there were workers committees
challenging Capitalism within the factories. Mandel quoting
Marx in "Power and Money" said revolutions can be followed
by counter-revolution. This is what happened when Islamic
Fundamentalists consolidated their power.
Despite the counter-revolution, Imperialism did not restore a total
client regime in Iran, they have not overthrown an autonomous
Bourgeois Nationalist regime. As Downing argued in
the Weekly Worker many months ago the struggle against
Imperialism even by Bourgeois Nationalists is one key
Bourgeois-Democratic task which are tied up with
Socialist tasks which can only be achieved by overthrowing
Capitalism. Trotskyists while keeping their political
independence from Bourgeois Nationalists in the
semi-colonies utilise conflicts with Imperialism to organise
mass protests and utilise any military struggle against Imperialism
to strengthen the workers. This limited anti-Imperialist victory
in 1979 is very important as American Imperialism is being
defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan, and constitutes a major
obstacle to Imperialism totally controlling the Middle East.
On China I draw the opposite conclusion to Revins. Despite
the crimes of Stalinism in Tinaman Square during 1989 the
example of China as a workers' state particularly its massive
socio-economic development pose an alternative to Capitalism.
This is even more so since the world Capitalist depression
is entering into. Examples of this is that China is one of the
few places where massive infrastructure projects are being
undertaken; whereas Britain is not allowing 40,000 students
to do their degrees this year, China turns out millions
of university graduates each year; and China has lifted
300 million from poverty.
Revins has a un-dialectical and does not apply the
concept of law of Uneven and Combined Development
in seeing the weakening of Stalinism since 1989 as
totally negative. It is true Imperialism made tremendous
inroads into Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states; and
this was utilised by Liberal Bourgeois ideologues
to claim Socialism was dead. Now with the mistakes of
Imperialism with the Iraq war and trends towards a global
Capitalist depression Trotskyism can now become a mass force.
This would not be possible without the 1989 events.
As a tendency within the Socialist Action editorial board in
Britain argued in a document to the FI's 13th World Congress
that the crisis of the workers' states were tied up with deepening
economic problems within the world capitalist economy.
Trotskyism largely blew its opportunity from 1989 to 2007 because
elements went from adaptation to Stalinism towards another extreme
of Third Campism.
Thursday 3 September 2009
NHS crisis and political recomposition within Social Democratic and Bourgeois politics
WHY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAS OFFICIALLY REJECTED MANAGMENT CONSULTANTS TO AXE 136,000 NHS JOBS! AND IT’S RELATIONSHIP TO RECOMPOSITION WITHIN SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC AND BOURGEOIS POLITICS.
The British ruling class has skilfully minimised the possibility of major reforms benefiting workers through New Labour being in alliance with right wing Social Democrats, with certain amount of Trade Union Bureaucratic acceptance blocking classical Social Democratic measures. This is in a context of mass radicalisation represented by Labour’s landslide during 1997.
Bourgeois strategists reacted to this limited radicalisation by slowing down the Bourgeoisification of Labour and conceding very limited reforms to the workers and middle class. Their main strategy was/is to wait for despair to set in so parties to the right of Labour could gain support and could attack the working class more effectively without constraints of a party (Labour) based on a massive Social Democratic base.
The growth of despair was/is not inevitable. It was/is a product of Blairism’s attack on workers; Social Democratic/Trade Union Bureaucratic inability to wage an effective struggle against these policies; and most revolutionaries playing into Blairism’s and Social Democracy’s hands by not building a serious left wing inside the Labour Party to challenge Blairism. In May 1997 the Times paper argued that Labour’s landslide may lead to major reforms for workers and the middle class. Due to a number of historical factors the ruling class managed to successfully to concede very little.
This short to medium-term gain for ruling class elements may dialectically turn into its opposite with increased anger if there are further massive attacks on workers and the middle class. The danger for ruling class elements is if anger exploded in a pre-revolutionary crisis could Old Labour-type Social Democrats contain it? Trotskyists cannot rely on Social Democrats to fight Blairism and Brownism. They either do it to protect their privileges or to contain a growing radicalisation. We as a Trotskyist movement argue to build a left wing within Labour is because if there is a strong left millions of workers and middle class elements will have perspective of fighting for a better society and revolutionaries can influence those millions radicalising. There will be an inevitable split between Trotskyists and Social Democratic Bureaucrats. Out of this crisis Trotskyists hope to construct a new mass revolutionary party.
Blairism could have been seriously weakened if revolutionaries had organised a serious left wing within the Labour Party. It is almost certain that Blair would have been forced out quicker if Trotskyists had delivered leadership and direction of anti-Iraq war movement into the Labour Party. The reason New Labour is not implementing that 10% axe of NHS staff before next year’s general election is that it would caused such an internal Labour Party rupture they could have been kicked out of the leadership by left Wing Social Democrats or a massive split with a large left wing Social Democratic party which could have won a landslide. We are moving into the phrase of the epoch what Trotsky characterised as rapid changes.
There are two main dangers at the next general election of a Tory or coalition government. Liberal Bourgeois elements do not want a big Tory majority because Conservative Bourgeois layers and Aristocrats will attempt to sabotage their EU project. Within the Tory party there are some extreme right wingers such as the Cornerstone group who have publically declared in their 2005 manifesto of using increased xenophobia to destroy Bourgeois Liberalism. If these right wing forces are unleashed in a deep Capitalist crisis it could cause massive explosions. This is why the ruling class are trying to win the ideological arguments for massive cutbacks. After the next election a deepening radicalisation will reflect itself within the Labour Party.
The British ruling class has skilfully minimised the possibility of major reforms benefiting workers through New Labour being in alliance with right wing Social Democrats, with certain amount of Trade Union Bureaucratic acceptance blocking classical Social Democratic measures. This is in a context of mass radicalisation represented by Labour’s landslide during 1997.
Bourgeois strategists reacted to this limited radicalisation by slowing down the Bourgeoisification of Labour and conceding very limited reforms to the workers and middle class. Their main strategy was/is to wait for despair to set in so parties to the right of Labour could gain support and could attack the working class more effectively without constraints of a party (Labour) based on a massive Social Democratic base.
The growth of despair was/is not inevitable. It was/is a product of Blairism’s attack on workers; Social Democratic/Trade Union Bureaucratic inability to wage an effective struggle against these policies; and most revolutionaries playing into Blairism’s and Social Democracy’s hands by not building a serious left wing inside the Labour Party to challenge Blairism. In May 1997 the Times paper argued that Labour’s landslide may lead to major reforms for workers and the middle class. Due to a number of historical factors the ruling class managed to successfully to concede very little.
This short to medium-term gain for ruling class elements may dialectically turn into its opposite with increased anger if there are further massive attacks on workers and the middle class. The danger for ruling class elements is if anger exploded in a pre-revolutionary crisis could Old Labour-type Social Democrats contain it? Trotskyists cannot rely on Social Democrats to fight Blairism and Brownism. They either do it to protect their privileges or to contain a growing radicalisation. We as a Trotskyist movement argue to build a left wing within Labour is because if there is a strong left millions of workers and middle class elements will have perspective of fighting for a better society and revolutionaries can influence those millions radicalising. There will be an inevitable split between Trotskyists and Social Democratic Bureaucrats. Out of this crisis Trotskyists hope to construct a new mass revolutionary party.
Blairism could have been seriously weakened if revolutionaries had organised a serious left wing within the Labour Party. It is almost certain that Blair would have been forced out quicker if Trotskyists had delivered leadership and direction of anti-Iraq war movement into the Labour Party. The reason New Labour is not implementing that 10% axe of NHS staff before next year’s general election is that it would caused such an internal Labour Party rupture they could have been kicked out of the leadership by left Wing Social Democrats or a massive split with a large left wing Social Democratic party which could have won a landslide. We are moving into the phrase of the epoch what Trotsky characterised as rapid changes.
There are two main dangers at the next general election of a Tory or coalition government. Liberal Bourgeois elements do not want a big Tory majority because Conservative Bourgeois layers and Aristocrats will attempt to sabotage their EU project. Within the Tory party there are some extreme right wingers such as the Cornerstone group who have publically declared in their 2005 manifesto of using increased xenophobia to destroy Bourgeois Liberalism. If these right wing forces are unleashed in a deep Capitalist crisis it could cause massive explosions. This is why the ruling class are trying to win the ideological arguments for massive cutbacks. After the next election a deepening radicalisation will reflect itself within the Labour Party.
Friday 21 August 2009
Brief statement on class battles in Russia for Socialist Unity debate on Workers' States
I have just noticed from re-reading Redbedhead commentsattacking the Trotskyist concept that Capitalist inroads inRussia were a move towards another rising class and that elementsof this class being expropriated is a move back towardsthe Proletariat refracted politically through a BureaucraticCaste. Imperialism’s attitudte to different changes inRussia confirms the Trotskyist analysis. They praised Russiaup when Capitalist inroads deepened and were hysterically hostilewhen that major oligarch (which I cannot spell)ended up in prisonfor years by trying to weaken the Bureucracy’s control ofRussia’s natural resources.
Comment by Anthony Brain
Comment by Anthony Brain
Document number 2 submitted by me for debate in Socialist Unity on Workers' States
Reply to Redbedhead and Alfie
Redbedhead falsely asserts that I forgot the necessity of extending World Socialist Revolution as a key part of Permanent Revolution. It is ABC of Revolutionary Marxism that you cannot build Socialism in one country. The political counter-revolution of Stalinism was a reflection of Imperialist pressures on an isolated workers’ state. Imperialism also building up a Bourgeois class from 1990 in Russia by gaining the most out of Stalinism’s implosion is another proof you cannot build Socialism in one country. This Bourgeois class was subordinate to the Bureaucracy. That is why they utilised layers of Bureaucrats concillationist to them as an intermediate stage back to Capitalism. If the Capitalists could rule directly for themselves they would have dumped those Bureaucrats at another stage of Capitalist restoration.
Redbedhead confuses intervention by a Bourgeois state to salvage Capitalist firms; concessions made to the workers (NHS); and those societies where Capitalism has been overthrown. This author (Redbedhead) suggests that the NHS is an inter-Capitalist dispute. Then he goes on to talk about it being a battle over profitability. Do you defend the NHS against privatisation? It is a major gain for British workers because it contains in embryo a post-Capitalist society despite its distortion by the Law of Value. Trotsky argued in the Revolution Betrayed that when workplaces/industries are nationalised in a Capitalist society it strengthens the workers who work there. He argued Capital tries to limit those concessions except for when they are bailing out Capitalist firms because the workers are in a stronger position to challenge Capitalism. That is why Trotsky dismissed State Capitalism as impossibility not only due to Capitalist competition via the Law of Value but because workers would have just one enemy: - the State.
The dual crisis in Russia from 1990 of extreme Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads (especially from 1992 to 2000) which set back Russia for decades. Redbedhead in dismissing inter-Bureaucratic struggles and workers resistance to this dual crisis as inter-Capitalist ends up with an abstentionist position. As Trotsky said when writing In Defence of Marxism workers will not make new gains unless they defend present ones. Trotskyists seize the chances from more resources going into nationalised industries and social/public services in order to strengthen workers confidence to begin a fight which culminates in Political Revolution with social consequences. There are two examples of this I cited in my previous post.
There is a close co-relation between what happens in the workers’ states in relation to Imperialist countries and semi-Colonies. Despite the crimes of Stalinism millions of workers within the Imperialist countries looked to the Soviet Union as an alternative society to Capitalism due to a depression from 1929 to 1939. From the late 1940s with a boom in the major Imperialist countries Stalinist crimes played into the Liberal Bourgeois hands of salvaging Capitalism. At the same time millions of workers within these Imperialist countries knew about social gains of these workers’ states. Within the semi-Colonies the extension of Socialist revolutions into China; Indochina; Cuba and Nicaragua showed what could be achieved once Capitalism is overthrown.
There was enormous potential with the beginning of incipient Political Revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989 but due to concillationist elements to Imperialism winning out, dual problems I referred to in Russia apply to Eastern Europe. The ex-GDR and Kosovo are Capitalist states because socialised property relations can only be re-established by overthrowing those Bourgeois states. Except for those two regions Capitalism has not been restored because the Stalinist Bureaucracies still rule Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states.
Due to millions of workers within the Imperialist countries not understanding Bureaucracies in workers’ states when the Soviet Union broke up is one main reason why the Liberal Bourgeois ideological offensive that Capitalism had been restored in 1992. It was this ideological confusion which played into Blairism’s hands in Britain The majority of middle class layers in these countries made a major impressionistic mistake that Capitalism had destroyed Russia for a whole period.
By the late 1990s section of the middle class fearing a major world Capitalist depression arising from a collapse of the Tiger economies in 1997. There was also a rejection by these layers of Capitalist inroads into the workers’ states. By 1999 the anti-Globalisation movement attacked changes towards a market economy in Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states. In the same year there was NATO’s bombing of FRY which many middle class elements feared would lead to World War 3. This on top of a financial crisis in 1998 caused intermediate layers within the Russian Bureaucracy to salvage Russia as a workers’ state.
By the Russian Bureaucracy stopping American Imperialism’s attempts at world domination such as opposing America’s bombing of Iraq in December 1998 and the rise of China as a major power shows clearly the Third World masses what is necessary to end Imperialist super-exploitation of their countries. America’s war in Iraq weakened them further. The depression within Western Europe and America through credit debt. Capitalism is so weak now there are beginnings of mass upheavals against effects of their crisis. This Capitalist crisis combined with the decay of Eastern European and Russian Stalinism is the objective basis for an eventual resurgence of Trotskyism.
Alfie defends not recognising Stalinism’s crimes in China. Due to Stalinist policies the 1925-27 Chinese revolution was crushed. After the Chinese Maoists ziz-zaged mainly between Ultra-Left adventurism and Opportunism. Despite of this in areas the Chinese CP’s militia ruled there were some gains for at least certain lower class peasants. Maoism only overthrows Capitalism because they would not make a deal with them. It was World War 2 with Japanese Imperialism being driven out of China and inflation which led to the Maoists overthrowing Chaing-Kai-Shek. This shows that objective circumstances in very unique situations within semi-Colonies can despite a counter-revolutionary leadership can lead a Socialist revolution out of self-preservation.
There were terrible Stalinist crimes in China such as tens of millions who died due to the Great Leap Forward policy. The Cultural Revolution weakened China culturally with great pieces of Art being destroyed. In order to confuse Liberal Bourgeois elements claim falsely that Deng broke from Maoism. Deng won out because the Bureaucracy could only go forward by trading which has been skilfully used to transform China into one of the major workshops of the world.
During the 1980s and 1990s sections of China’s Bureaucracy allowed certain Capitalist firms bad conditions for the workers working in those factories. Trotskyists oppose this as treachery because if the Bureaucracy was overthrown it would not be necessary to make those concessions to Capitalism by workers re-clawing billions of Yuan from Bureaucratic pillage. Trotsky attacked what he called “the friends of the USSR” who did not look at real contradictions in that country. If the Political revolution does not occur in a medium to long-term China will go through a similar 1991-Soviet-type crisis. Undoubtedly the Chinese Bureaucracy has leant from this but is subject to same objective laws.
Comment by Anthony Brain
Redbedhead falsely asserts that I forgot the necessity of extending World Socialist Revolution as a key part of Permanent Revolution. It is ABC of Revolutionary Marxism that you cannot build Socialism in one country. The political counter-revolution of Stalinism was a reflection of Imperialist pressures on an isolated workers’ state. Imperialism also building up a Bourgeois class from 1990 in Russia by gaining the most out of Stalinism’s implosion is another proof you cannot build Socialism in one country. This Bourgeois class was subordinate to the Bureaucracy. That is why they utilised layers of Bureaucrats concillationist to them as an intermediate stage back to Capitalism. If the Capitalists could rule directly for themselves they would have dumped those Bureaucrats at another stage of Capitalist restoration.
Redbedhead confuses intervention by a Bourgeois state to salvage Capitalist firms; concessions made to the workers (NHS); and those societies where Capitalism has been overthrown. This author (Redbedhead) suggests that the NHS is an inter-Capitalist dispute. Then he goes on to talk about it being a battle over profitability. Do you defend the NHS against privatisation? It is a major gain for British workers because it contains in embryo a post-Capitalist society despite its distortion by the Law of Value. Trotsky argued in the Revolution Betrayed that when workplaces/industries are nationalised in a Capitalist society it strengthens the workers who work there. He argued Capital tries to limit those concessions except for when they are bailing out Capitalist firms because the workers are in a stronger position to challenge Capitalism. That is why Trotsky dismissed State Capitalism as impossibility not only due to Capitalist competition via the Law of Value but because workers would have just one enemy: - the State.
The dual crisis in Russia from 1990 of extreme Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads (especially from 1992 to 2000) which set back Russia for decades. Redbedhead in dismissing inter-Bureaucratic struggles and workers resistance to this dual crisis as inter-Capitalist ends up with an abstentionist position. As Trotsky said when writing In Defence of Marxism workers will not make new gains unless they defend present ones. Trotskyists seize the chances from more resources going into nationalised industries and social/public services in order to strengthen workers confidence to begin a fight which culminates in Political Revolution with social consequences. There are two examples of this I cited in my previous post.
There is a close co-relation between what happens in the workers’ states in relation to Imperialist countries and semi-Colonies. Despite the crimes of Stalinism millions of workers within the Imperialist countries looked to the Soviet Union as an alternative society to Capitalism due to a depression from 1929 to 1939. From the late 1940s with a boom in the major Imperialist countries Stalinist crimes played into the Liberal Bourgeois hands of salvaging Capitalism. At the same time millions of workers within these Imperialist countries knew about social gains of these workers’ states. Within the semi-Colonies the extension of Socialist revolutions into China; Indochina; Cuba and Nicaragua showed what could be achieved once Capitalism is overthrown.
There was enormous potential with the beginning of incipient Political Revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989 but due to concillationist elements to Imperialism winning out, dual problems I referred to in Russia apply to Eastern Europe. The ex-GDR and Kosovo are Capitalist states because socialised property relations can only be re-established by overthrowing those Bourgeois states. Except for those two regions Capitalism has not been restored because the Stalinist Bureaucracies still rule Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states.
Due to millions of workers within the Imperialist countries not understanding Bureaucracies in workers’ states when the Soviet Union broke up is one main reason why the Liberal Bourgeois ideological offensive that Capitalism had been restored in 1992. It was this ideological confusion which played into Blairism’s hands in Britain The majority of middle class layers in these countries made a major impressionistic mistake that Capitalism had destroyed Russia for a whole period.
By the late 1990s section of the middle class fearing a major world Capitalist depression arising from a collapse of the Tiger economies in 1997. There was also a rejection by these layers of Capitalist inroads into the workers’ states. By 1999 the anti-Globalisation movement attacked changes towards a market economy in Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states. In the same year there was NATO’s bombing of FRY which many middle class elements feared would lead to World War 3. This on top of a financial crisis in 1998 caused intermediate layers within the Russian Bureaucracy to salvage Russia as a workers’ state.
By the Russian Bureaucracy stopping American Imperialism’s attempts at world domination such as opposing America’s bombing of Iraq in December 1998 and the rise of China as a major power shows clearly the Third World masses what is necessary to end Imperialist super-exploitation of their countries. America’s war in Iraq weakened them further. The depression within Western Europe and America through credit debt. Capitalism is so weak now there are beginnings of mass upheavals against effects of their crisis. This Capitalist crisis combined with the decay of Eastern European and Russian Stalinism is the objective basis for an eventual resurgence of Trotskyism.
Alfie defends not recognising Stalinism’s crimes in China. Due to Stalinist policies the 1925-27 Chinese revolution was crushed. After the Chinese Maoists ziz-zaged mainly between Ultra-Left adventurism and Opportunism. Despite of this in areas the Chinese CP’s militia ruled there were some gains for at least certain lower class peasants. Maoism only overthrows Capitalism because they would not make a deal with them. It was World War 2 with Japanese Imperialism being driven out of China and inflation which led to the Maoists overthrowing Chaing-Kai-Shek. This shows that objective circumstances in very unique situations within semi-Colonies can despite a counter-revolutionary leadership can lead a Socialist revolution out of self-preservation.
There were terrible Stalinist crimes in China such as tens of millions who died due to the Great Leap Forward policy. The Cultural Revolution weakened China culturally with great pieces of Art being destroyed. In order to confuse Liberal Bourgeois elements claim falsely that Deng broke from Maoism. Deng won out because the Bureaucracy could only go forward by trading which has been skilfully used to transform China into one of the major workshops of the world.
During the 1980s and 1990s sections of China’s Bureaucracy allowed certain Capitalist firms bad conditions for the workers working in those factories. Trotskyists oppose this as treachery because if the Bureaucracy was overthrown it would not be necessary to make those concessions to Capitalism by workers re-clawing billions of Yuan from Bureaucratic pillage. Trotsky attacked what he called “the friends of the USSR” who did not look at real contradictions in that country. If the Political revolution does not occur in a medium to long-term China will go through a similar 1991-Soviet-type crisis. Undoubtedly the Chinese Bureaucracy has leant from this but is subject to same objective laws.
Comment by Anthony Brain
Document 1 of my submission to Socialist Unity to debate on the Workers' States
Debate on Degenerated Workers’ State versus State Capitalism
There have been good points made why the Soviet Union; China; and Vietnam were/are workers’ states. Trotsky when he wrote History of the Russian Revolution attacked those who believed Russian Capitalism could develop abstractly rather than concretely analyse how Imperialism was semi-Colonising Russia. He developed his theory and strategy of Permanent Revolution from that analysis. In 1905 and History of the Russian Revolution Trotsky demonstrated how Imperialism stabilised their rule by working with semi-Feudal elements. Liberal Bourgeois elements betrayed the struggle for a republic against a Monarchy in 1905 because they feared the working class threatening their rule over different industries. The strategy of Permanent Revolution worked out by Trotsky was the working class would lead the middle class (Urban and rural Peasant)to lead a revolution which combined Bourgeois-Democratic tasks land to the Peasants by removing large-scale Landlords ownership; ending Imperialist ownership of major industries; combined with Socialist tasks of expropriating Capitalists.
Those who believe in State Capitalism are making the same methodological error that Trotsky referred in History of the Russian Revolution in not seeing that if Capitalism is fully restored productive forces built by a workers’ state would be set back by for decades. This would lead to tens of millions being made unemployed and their social gains being severely reduced or if not eliminated.
There is a completely un-dialectical attitude by one contributor to this site who does not distinguish between different stages that the Soviet/Russian Bureaucratised workers’ state has and is gone/going through. The Soviet/Russian Bureaucracy arose; reached its height; and has been in decay for 30 years. A majority of those on this site who agree with me that the Soviet Union was a workers’ state do not agree with me that Russia still remains a workers’ state because Capitalist restoration was halted mainly by those Bureaucrats whose privileges were threatened with that process.
Capitalist restoration has been threatened before but does similar defeats pro-Capitalist forces were defeated. In 1922 there were dangers that the Law of Value could overthrow the workers’ state with proposals that state money to different factories and industries is allocated on performance and the Monopoly of Foreign Trade be eliminated. Stalinism had not consolidated their power and pro-Capitalist forces could have won out. Lenin’s great achievement was salvaging the Monopoly of Foreign Trade. I am not suggesting Stalinism winning out was progressive, but with centrifugal forces a greater danger was present Capitalist restoration.
Tony Cliff was proven wrong on two occasions when he argued that the reason Capitalist private property was not restored within the Soviet Union because they could not destroy nationalised industries for a whole period. Mandel showed in “Marxist Economic Theory” that as German Imperialism conquered ex-Soviet areas Capitalist private property was restored. Since 1990 in Russia Capitalists have pushed to destroy nationalised property relations as quickly as possible.
Bureaucratic layers threatened by this process since Putin came to power in 2000 have halted that process by re-nationalising companies and pouring more resources into different nationalised industries and various social/public service.
Bourgeois analysts argue Russia invests in social spending whereas China is building its infrastructure. There have also been occupations of certain factories against closure demanding re-nationalisation. On Russia Today TV show there were figures two days ago showing that Russia’s economy has shrunk by 10%. If Russia is Capitalist it would be ruled by a law of Value leading to mass unemployment. This has not happened yet which is one indication that the Russian Bureaucracy rules Russia. The failure of Capitalist restoration in Russia and its salvaging as a workers’ state weakens Capitalism internationally and is an important factor in stopping American Imperialism attacking other workers’ states and semi-colonies. Finally the Russian Workers’ Staten can offer aid to forces fighting against Fascism in the Baltic countries and Eastern Europe.
Steve is breaking from a Trotskyist understanding of what we defend in the workers’ states. As American Trotskyist Jim Cannon argued we defend the nationalised property relations against Capitalist restoration but oppose Stalinism when it crushes the workers and oppressed nationalities. Trotskyists are for the revolutionary overthrow of Stalinism through a Political Revolution. Trotsky when he wrote “In Defence of Marxism” that Marxists defend workers’ states through our methods. The factory occupations in Russia and revolutionary upheavals in China preventing a steel plant being privatised. An upturn in world revolution is becoming more anti-Stalinist and anti-Capitalist. Despite the resurgence of Russia as a workers’ state the Bureaucracy is still in a medium-term process of decay. This is why Trotsky is on the rise.
Comment by Anthony Brain
There have been good points made why the Soviet Union; China; and Vietnam were/are workers’ states. Trotsky when he wrote History of the Russian Revolution attacked those who believed Russian Capitalism could develop abstractly rather than concretely analyse how Imperialism was semi-Colonising Russia. He developed his theory and strategy of Permanent Revolution from that analysis. In 1905 and History of the Russian Revolution Trotsky demonstrated how Imperialism stabilised their rule by working with semi-Feudal elements. Liberal Bourgeois elements betrayed the struggle for a republic against a Monarchy in 1905 because they feared the working class threatening their rule over different industries. The strategy of Permanent Revolution worked out by Trotsky was the working class would lead the middle class (Urban and rural Peasant)to lead a revolution which combined Bourgeois-Democratic tasks land to the Peasants by removing large-scale Landlords ownership; ending Imperialist ownership of major industries; combined with Socialist tasks of expropriating Capitalists.
Those who believe in State Capitalism are making the same methodological error that Trotsky referred in History of the Russian Revolution in not seeing that if Capitalism is fully restored productive forces built by a workers’ state would be set back by for decades. This would lead to tens of millions being made unemployed and their social gains being severely reduced or if not eliminated.
There is a completely un-dialectical attitude by one contributor to this site who does not distinguish between different stages that the Soviet/Russian Bureaucratised workers’ state has and is gone/going through. The Soviet/Russian Bureaucracy arose; reached its height; and has been in decay for 30 years. A majority of those on this site who agree with me that the Soviet Union was a workers’ state do not agree with me that Russia still remains a workers’ state because Capitalist restoration was halted mainly by those Bureaucrats whose privileges were threatened with that process.
Capitalist restoration has been threatened before but does similar defeats pro-Capitalist forces were defeated. In 1922 there were dangers that the Law of Value could overthrow the workers’ state with proposals that state money to different factories and industries is allocated on performance and the Monopoly of Foreign Trade be eliminated. Stalinism had not consolidated their power and pro-Capitalist forces could have won out. Lenin’s great achievement was salvaging the Monopoly of Foreign Trade. I am not suggesting Stalinism winning out was progressive, but with centrifugal forces a greater danger was present Capitalist restoration.
Tony Cliff was proven wrong on two occasions when he argued that the reason Capitalist private property was not restored within the Soviet Union because they could not destroy nationalised industries for a whole period. Mandel showed in “Marxist Economic Theory” that as German Imperialism conquered ex-Soviet areas Capitalist private property was restored. Since 1990 in Russia Capitalists have pushed to destroy nationalised property relations as quickly as possible.
Bureaucratic layers threatened by this process since Putin came to power in 2000 have halted that process by re-nationalising companies and pouring more resources into different nationalised industries and various social/public service.
Bourgeois analysts argue Russia invests in social spending whereas China is building its infrastructure. There have also been occupations of certain factories against closure demanding re-nationalisation. On Russia Today TV show there were figures two days ago showing that Russia’s economy has shrunk by 10%. If Russia is Capitalist it would be ruled by a law of Value leading to mass unemployment. This has not happened yet which is one indication that the Russian Bureaucracy rules Russia. The failure of Capitalist restoration in Russia and its salvaging as a workers’ state weakens Capitalism internationally and is an important factor in stopping American Imperialism attacking other workers’ states and semi-colonies. Finally the Russian Workers’ Staten can offer aid to forces fighting against Fascism in the Baltic countries and Eastern Europe.
Steve is breaking from a Trotskyist understanding of what we defend in the workers’ states. As American Trotskyist Jim Cannon argued we defend the nationalised property relations against Capitalist restoration but oppose Stalinism when it crushes the workers and oppressed nationalities. Trotskyists are for the revolutionary overthrow of Stalinism through a Political Revolution. Trotsky when he wrote “In Defence of Marxism” that Marxists defend workers’ states through our methods. The factory occupations in Russia and revolutionary upheavals in China preventing a steel plant being privatised. An upturn in world revolution is becoming more anti-Stalinist and anti-Capitalist. Despite the resurgence of Russia as a workers’ state the Bureaucracy is still in a medium-term process of decay. This is why Trotsky is on the rise.
Comment by Anthony Brain
Saturday 4 July 2009
Revolutionary Strategy on Iran documnt by me has overcome techinal problems!
SOME VERY BRIEF COMMENTS ON REVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY FOR IRAN BY ANTHONY BRAIN.
There is a lack of strategic discussion among revolutionaries how to apply the Trotskyist strategy of Permanent Revolution in Iran. Three basic methodological mistakes being made are downplaying Imperialism’s role in Iran; a tendency to be uncritical to a right wing Bourgeois pro-privatisation leadership who are attempting to build a mass base by using democratic slogans; and there are Ultra-Lefts using the pro-Imperialist leadership for democracy in not intervening within potential mass struggles which could bring the Iranian Proletariat involved which could change Iran and other Middle Eastern countries.
Lenin and Trotsky always stressed that without a rounded revolutionary strategy Opportunist and Ultra-Left tactical errors could result. The overwhelming majority of revolutionaries oppose Australia’s DSP majority leadership call for any intervention by Australian Imperialism into Iran. There are serious differences however over how critical revolutionaries should be towards a pro-Imperialist leadership of a struggle they claim is for democratic rights and to what extent Imperialism is intervening into Iran.
It is important that revolutionaries point out Imperialism is only interested in achieving immense profits through super-exploiting Colonies/semi-Colonies and utilise only Bourgeois-Democratic slogans when Bourgeois Nationalist regimes or Workers’ states impede full maximisation of Imperialist profits. We are entering into a period which is part of an epoch of Capitalist/Imperialist decay where there are great dangers of Imperialist adventurism which if spins out of control could lead to a nuclear holocaust. Bushism after 9/11 was the first stage of this process. An ideological struggle against Liberal justifications for Imperialist interventions are key to Socialist revolutions because as Lenin said in an article on Marx in 1913 when revolutionary ideas reach the masses they become a massive material force which can sweep Capitalism away
Due to American Imperialism being defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan which has caused an upturn in world revolution and deepened a process of radicalisation within the Imperialist countries has weakened them for a period. This has objectively strengthens the left internationally but due to a crisis of revolutionary leadership are not being utilised properly. Opportunities cannot being missed indefinitely because it plays into the hands of reaction. That is why re-building a new international revolutionary leadership is crucial. In this context of Imperialism being weakened Jim Lobe quotes in a 1st of August 2008 edition of Asian Times online entitled “The ‘down side’ to an attack on Iran cites a Rand air force (which is part of Rand Corporation” article published in July 9th calls for American Imperialism trying to influence pro-democracy movements in Iran rather than bombing Iran.
There is no clear information about all the class forces involved in Iran’s post-election crisis. Imperialism has made a great play of a million demonstrating against what they saw as electoral fraud. Then it apparently dissipated with predominantly pro-Privatisation middle class forces being in small demonstrations. Revolutionaries by applying Trotsky’s strategy of Permanent Revolution utilise these inter-Bourgeois conflicts over how much to allow Imperialist control over Iran to strengthen the working class and specially oppressed layers. If workers mobilise in considerable numbers to what they see as a struggle for greater democratic rights revolutionaries would intervene to strengthen the workers and specially oppressed confidence in their own power independent of all Bourgeois forces but would politically fight the pro-Imperialist and pro-Privatisation leadership. If the workers do not come out in big numbers and they are left to pro-Imperialist and pro-Privatisation forces revolutionaries would not join them because their class composition is totally counter-revolutionary.
There is a lack of strategic discussion among revolutionaries how to apply the Trotskyist strategy of Permanent Revolution in Iran. Three basic methodological mistakes being made are downplaying Imperialism’s role in Iran; a tendency to be uncritical to a right wing Bourgeois pro-privatisation leadership who are attempting to build a mass base by using democratic slogans; and there are Ultra-Lefts using the pro-Imperialist leadership for democracy in not intervening within potential mass struggles which could bring the Iranian Proletariat involved which could change Iran and other Middle Eastern countries.
Lenin and Trotsky always stressed that without a rounded revolutionary strategy Opportunist and Ultra-Left tactical errors could result. The overwhelming majority of revolutionaries oppose Australia’s DSP majority leadership call for any intervention by Australian Imperialism into Iran. There are serious differences however over how critical revolutionaries should be towards a pro-Imperialist leadership of a struggle they claim is for democratic rights and to what extent Imperialism is intervening into Iran.
It is important that revolutionaries point out Imperialism is only interested in achieving immense profits through super-exploiting Colonies/semi-Colonies and utilise only Bourgeois-Democratic slogans when Bourgeois Nationalist regimes or Workers’ states impede full maximisation of Imperialist profits. We are entering into a period which is part of an epoch of Capitalist/Imperialist decay where there are great dangers of Imperialist adventurism which if spins out of control could lead to a nuclear holocaust. Bushism after 9/11 was the first stage of this process. An ideological struggle against Liberal justifications for Imperialist interventions are key to Socialist revolutions because as Lenin said in an article on Marx in 1913 when revolutionary ideas reach the masses they become a massive material force which can sweep Capitalism away
Due to American Imperialism being defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan which has caused an upturn in world revolution and deepened a process of radicalisation within the Imperialist countries has weakened them for a period. This has objectively strengthens the left internationally but due to a crisis of revolutionary leadership are not being utilised properly. Opportunities cannot being missed indefinitely because it plays into the hands of reaction. That is why re-building a new international revolutionary leadership is crucial. In this context of Imperialism being weakened Jim Lobe quotes in a 1st of August 2008 edition of Asian Times online entitled “The ‘down side’ to an attack on Iran cites a Rand air force (which is part of Rand Corporation” article published in July 9th calls for American Imperialism trying to influence pro-democracy movements in Iran rather than bombing Iran.
There is no clear information about all the class forces involved in Iran’s post-election crisis. Imperialism has made a great play of a million demonstrating against what they saw as electoral fraud. Then it apparently dissipated with predominantly pro-Privatisation middle class forces being in small demonstrations. Revolutionaries by applying Trotsky’s strategy of Permanent Revolution utilise these inter-Bourgeois conflicts over how much to allow Imperialist control over Iran to strengthen the working class and specially oppressed layers. If workers mobilise in considerable numbers to what they see as a struggle for greater democratic rights revolutionaries would intervene to strengthen the workers and specially oppressed confidence in their own power independent of all Bourgeois forces but would politically fight the pro-Imperialist and pro-Privatisation leadership. If the workers do not come out in big numbers and they are left to pro-Imperialist and pro-Privatisation forces revolutionaries would not join them because their class composition is totally counter-revolutionary.
Revolutionary Strategy for Iran
SOME VERY BRIEF COMMENTS ON REVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY FOR IRAN BY ANTHONY BRAIN.
There is a lack of strategic discussion among revolutionaries how to apply the Trotskyist strategy of Permanent Revolution in Iran. Three basic methodological mistakes being made are downplaying Imperialism’s role in Iran; a tendency to be uncritical to a right wing Bourgeois pro-privatisation leadership who are attempting to build a mass base by using democratic slogans; and there are Ultra-Lefts using the pro-Imperialist leadership for democracy in not intervening within potential mass struggles which could bring the Iranian Proletariat involved which could change Iran and other Middle Eastern countries.
Lenin and Trotsky always stressed that without a rounded revolutionary strategy Opportunist and Ultra-Left tactical errors could result. The overwhelming majority of revolutionaries oppose Australia’s DSP majority leadership call for any intervention by Australian Imperialism into Iran. There are serious differences however over how critical revolutionaries should be towards a pro-Imperialist leadership of a struggle they claim is for democratic rights and to what extent Imperialism is intervening into Iran.
It is important that revolutionaries point out Imperialism is only interested in achieving immense profits through super-exploiting Colonies/semi-Colonies and utilise only Bourgeois-Democratic slogans when Bourgeois Nationalist regimes or Workers’ states impede full maximisation of Imperialist profits. We are entering into a period which is part of an epoch of Capitalist/Imperialist decay where there are great dangers of Imperialist adventurism which if spins out of control could lead to a nuclear holocaust. Bushism after 9/11 was the first stage of this process. An ideological struggle against Liberal justifications for Imperialist interventions are key to Socialist revolutions because as Lenin said in an article on Marx in 1913 when revolutionary ideas reach the masses they become a massive material force which can sweep Capitalism away
Due to American Imperialism being defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan which has caused an upturn in world revolution and deepened a process of radicalisation within the Imperialist countries has weakened them for a period. This has objectively strengthens the left internationally but due to a crisis of revolutionary leadership are not being utilised properly. Opportunities cannot being missed indefinitely because it plays into the hands of reaction. That is why re-building a new international revolutionary leadership is crucial. In this context of Imperialism being weakened Jim Lobe quotes in a 1st of August 2008 edition of Asian Times online entitled “The ‘down side’ to an attack on Iran cites a Rand air force (which is part of Rand Corporation” article published in July 9th calls for American Imperialism trying to influence pro-democracy movements in Iran rather than bombing Iran.
There is no clear information about all the class forces involved in Iran’s post-election crisis. Imperialism has made a great play of a million demonstrating against what they saw as electoral fraud. Then it apparently dissipated with predominantly pro-Privatisation middle class forces being in small demonstrations. Revolutionaries by applying Trotsky’s strategy of Permanent Revolution utilise these inter-Bourgeois conflicts over how much to allow Imperialist control over Iran to strengthen the working class and specially oppressed layers. If workers mobilise in considerable numbers to what they see as a struggle for greater democratic rights revolutionaries would intervene to strengthen the workers and specially oppressed confidence in their own power independent of all Bourgeois forces but would politically fight the pro-Imperialist and pro-Privatisation leadership. If the workers do not come out in big numbers and they are left to pro-Imperialist and pro-Privatisation forces revolutionaries would not join them because their class composition is totally counter-revolutionary.
There is a lack of strategic discussion among revolutionaries how to apply the Trotskyist strategy of Permanent Revolution in Iran. Three basic methodological mistakes being made are downplaying Imperialism’s role in Iran; a tendency to be uncritical to a right wing Bourgeois pro-privatisation leadership who are attempting to build a mass base by using democratic slogans; and there are Ultra-Lefts using the pro-Imperialist leadership for democracy in not intervening within potential mass struggles which could bring the Iranian Proletariat involved which could change Iran and other Middle Eastern countries.
Lenin and Trotsky always stressed that without a rounded revolutionary strategy Opportunist and Ultra-Left tactical errors could result. The overwhelming majority of revolutionaries oppose Australia’s DSP majority leadership call for any intervention by Australian Imperialism into Iran. There are serious differences however over how critical revolutionaries should be towards a pro-Imperialist leadership of a struggle they claim is for democratic rights and to what extent Imperialism is intervening into Iran.
It is important that revolutionaries point out Imperialism is only interested in achieving immense profits through super-exploiting Colonies/semi-Colonies and utilise only Bourgeois-Democratic slogans when Bourgeois Nationalist regimes or Workers’ states impede full maximisation of Imperialist profits. We are entering into a period which is part of an epoch of Capitalist/Imperialist decay where there are great dangers of Imperialist adventurism which if spins out of control could lead to a nuclear holocaust. Bushism after 9/11 was the first stage of this process. An ideological struggle against Liberal justifications for Imperialist interventions are key to Socialist revolutions because as Lenin said in an article on Marx in 1913 when revolutionary ideas reach the masses they become a massive material force which can sweep Capitalism away
Due to American Imperialism being defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan which has caused an upturn in world revolution and deepened a process of radicalisation within the Imperialist countries has weakened them for a period. This has objectively strengthens the left internationally but due to a crisis of revolutionary leadership are not being utilised properly. Opportunities cannot being missed indefinitely because it plays into the hands of reaction. That is why re-building a new international revolutionary leadership is crucial. In this context of Imperialism being weakened Jim Lobe quotes in a 1st of August 2008 edition of Asian Times online entitled “The ‘down side’ to an attack on Iran cites a Rand air force (which is part of Rand Corporation” article published in July 9th calls for American Imperialism trying to influence pro-democracy movements in Iran rather than bombing Iran.
There is no clear information about all the class forces involved in Iran’s post-election crisis. Imperialism has made a great play of a million demonstrating against what they saw as electoral fraud. Then it apparently dissipated with predominantly pro-Privatisation middle class forces being in small demonstrations. Revolutionaries by applying Trotsky’s strategy of Permanent Revolution utilise these inter-Bourgeois conflicts over how much to allow Imperialist control over Iran to strengthen the working class and specially oppressed layers. If workers mobilise in considerable numbers to what they see as a struggle for greater democratic rights revolutionaries would intervene to strengthen the workers and specially oppressed confidence in their own power independent of all Bourgeois forces but would politically fight the pro-Imperialist and pro-Privatisation leadership. If the workers do not come out in big numbers and they are left to pro-Imperialist and pro-Privatisation forces revolutionaries would not join them because their class composition is totally counter-revolutionary.
A contribution to a debate on Revolutionary SSOME VERY BRIEF COMMENTS ON REVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY FOR IRAN BY ANTHONY BRAIN.trategy for Iran
SOME VERY BRIEF COMMENTS ON REVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY FOR IRAN BY ANTHONY BRAIN.
There is a lack of strategic discussion among revolutionaries how to apply the Trotskyist strategy of Permanent Revolution in Iran. Three basic methodological mistakes being made are downplaying Imperialism’s role in Iran; a tendency to be uncritical to a right wing Bourgeois pro-privatisation leadership who are attempting to build a mass base by using democratic slogans; and there are Ultra-Lefts using the pro-Imperialist leadership for democracy in not intervening within potential mass struggles which could bring the Iranian Proletariat involved which could change Iran and other Middle Eastern countries.
Lenin and Trotsky always stressed that without a rounded revolutionary strategy Opportunist and Ultra-Left tactical errors could result. The overwhelming majority of revolutionaries oppose Australia’s DSP majority leadership call for any intervention by Australian Imperialism into Iran. There are serious differences however over how critical revolutionaries should be towards a pro-Imperialist leadership of a struggle they claim is for democratic rights and to what extent Imperialism is intervening into Iran.
It is important that revolutionaries point out Imperialism is only interested in achieving immense profits through super-exploiting Colonies/semi-Colonies and utilise only Bourgeois-Democratic slogans when Bourgeois Nationalist regimes or Workers’ states impede full maximisation of Imperialist profits. We are entering into a period which is part of an epoch of Capitalist/Imperialist decay where there are great dangers of Imperialist adventurism which if spins out of control could lead to a nuclear holocaust. Bushism after 9/11 was the first stage of this process. An ideological struggle against Liberal justifications for Imperialist interventions are key to Socialist revolutions because as Lenin said in an article on Marx in 1913 when revolutionary ideas reach the masses they become a massive material force which can sweep Capitalism away
Due to American Imperialism being defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan which has caused an upturn in world revolution and deepened a process of radicalisation within the Imperialist countries has weakened them for a period. This has objectively strengthens the left internationally but due to a crisis of revolutionary leadership are not being utilised properly. Opportunities cannot being missed indefinitely because it plays into the hands of reaction. That is why re-building a new international revolutionary leadership is crucial. In this context of Imperialism being weakened Jim Lobe quotes in a 1st of August 2008 edition of Asian Times online entitled “The ‘down side’ to an attack on Iran cites a Rand air force (which is part of Rand Corporation” article published in July 9th calls for American Imperialism trying to influence pro-democracy movements in Iran rather than bombing Iran.
There is no clear information about all the class forces involved in Iran’s post-election crisis. Imperialism has made a great play of a million demonstrating against what they saw as electoral fraud. Then it apparently dissipated with predominantly pro-Privatisation middle class forces being in small demonstrations. Revolutionaries by applying Trotsky’s strategy of Permanent Revolution utilise these inter-Bourgeois conflicts over how much to allow Imperialist control over Iran to strengthen the working class and specially oppressed layers. If workers mobilise in considerable numbers to what they see as a struggle for greater democratic rights revolutionaries would intervene to strengthen the workers and specially oppressed confidence in their own power independent of all Bourgeois forces but would politically fight the pro-Imperialist and pro-Privatisation leadership. If the workers do not come out in big numbers and they are left to pro-Imperialist and pro-Privatisation forces revolutionaries would not join them because their class composition is totally counter-revolutionary.
There is a lack of strategic discussion among revolutionaries how to apply the Trotskyist strategy of Permanent Revolution in Iran. Three basic methodological mistakes being made are downplaying Imperialism’s role in Iran; a tendency to be uncritical to a right wing Bourgeois pro-privatisation leadership who are attempting to build a mass base by using democratic slogans; and there are Ultra-Lefts using the pro-Imperialist leadership for democracy in not intervening within potential mass struggles which could bring the Iranian Proletariat involved which could change Iran and other Middle Eastern countries.
Lenin and Trotsky always stressed that without a rounded revolutionary strategy Opportunist and Ultra-Left tactical errors could result. The overwhelming majority of revolutionaries oppose Australia’s DSP majority leadership call for any intervention by Australian Imperialism into Iran. There are serious differences however over how critical revolutionaries should be towards a pro-Imperialist leadership of a struggle they claim is for democratic rights and to what extent Imperialism is intervening into Iran.
It is important that revolutionaries point out Imperialism is only interested in achieving immense profits through super-exploiting Colonies/semi-Colonies and utilise only Bourgeois-Democratic slogans when Bourgeois Nationalist regimes or Workers’ states impede full maximisation of Imperialist profits. We are entering into a period which is part of an epoch of Capitalist/Imperialist decay where there are great dangers of Imperialist adventurism which if spins out of control could lead to a nuclear holocaust. Bushism after 9/11 was the first stage of this process. An ideological struggle against Liberal justifications for Imperialist interventions are key to Socialist revolutions because as Lenin said in an article on Marx in 1913 when revolutionary ideas reach the masses they become a massive material force which can sweep Capitalism away
Due to American Imperialism being defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan which has caused an upturn in world revolution and deepened a process of radicalisation within the Imperialist countries has weakened them for a period. This has objectively strengthens the left internationally but due to a crisis of revolutionary leadership are not being utilised properly. Opportunities cannot being missed indefinitely because it plays into the hands of reaction. That is why re-building a new international revolutionary leadership is crucial. In this context of Imperialism being weakened Jim Lobe quotes in a 1st of August 2008 edition of Asian Times online entitled “The ‘down side’ to an attack on Iran cites a Rand air force (which is part of Rand Corporation” article published in July 9th calls for American Imperialism trying to influence pro-democracy movements in Iran rather than bombing Iran.
There is no clear information about all the class forces involved in Iran’s post-election crisis. Imperialism has made a great play of a million demonstrating against what they saw as electoral fraud. Then it apparently dissipated with predominantly pro-Privatisation middle class forces being in small demonstrations. Revolutionaries by applying Trotsky’s strategy of Permanent Revolution utilise these inter-Bourgeois conflicts over how much to allow Imperialist control over Iran to strengthen the working class and specially oppressed layers. If workers mobilise in considerable numbers to what they see as a struggle for greater democratic rights revolutionaries would intervene to strengthen the workers and specially oppressed confidence in their own power independent of all Bourgeois forces but would politically fight the pro-Imperialist and pro-Privatisation leadership. If the workers do not come out in big numbers and they are left to pro-Imperialist and pro-Privatisation forces revolutionaries would not join them because their class composition is totally counter-revolutionary.
Tuesday 9 June 2009
A reply to Kurt Hill on what British European Elections represents?
A REPLY TO KURT HILL BY ANTHONY BRAIN.
Kurt Hill on the SWP USA discussion website criticises my analysis of main dynamics in Britain (see MPS expenses and the Brown crisis). His critique is too impressionist leading to pessimistic conclusions. There is no denying of reactionary trends in the European elections within Britain. In that document I said that these elections would most probably occur in this form but the key thing is how the masses react. In the last 24 hours we have seen spontaneous anti-BNP demonstrations in northern England which includes sizeable layers of youth/students; contingents from different Trade Unions; Gays; and disabled. This could be the beginning of another radicalisation against Fascism.
That combined with the collapse of Labour vote to 15% with the Tories being a serious threat of winning a general election is shaking Labour as a party from top to bottom. It is interesting to note that if there are 8-11 Billions cut on NHS spending it is going to lead to massive dislocations. Just imagine if there are hundreds of billions in cuts within public services. Kurt Hill does not realise that workers and middle class elements will not tolerate this. In dialectics you have to distinguish between appearance and reality. The European elections appear to strengthen Conservative Bourgeois elements electorally but if that agenda is implemented there could be mass resistance. This explosive situation is added by Fascists winning those two MEPs which are leading to the radicalisation becoming anti-Fascist.
Social Democrats are utilising most Blairites leaving the cabinet to force Brown back to their policies. Policies these Social Democrats are pushing for include rights for agency workers; stop privatisation of the Post Office etc. Brown may manoeuvre by appearing to concede towards Social Democracy to survive the Blairite leadership challenge and then return to semi-Blairite policies. History will determine what Brown does. On tonight’s Newsnight programme the Unite Union General Secretary Derek Simpson launched a major attack on Brown’s government for not changing policies. This represents the pressure of rank-and-file Trade Unionists who will not tolerate Blairism anymore and the failure of Brown to help them in containing their members’ anger. One thing I am surer of is that is some Blairites split from Labour Brown would have to take the Social Democrats more into his consideration because of a changed social base. Trotskyists argue regardless of manoeuvring by Social Democrats and Trade Union Bureaucrats place demands on them to fight for Socialist policies!
Hill makes amassing statements for an ex-SWPer (American) which means he was a Trotskyist in the past. He attacks Trotskyists for seeing recession as automatically leading to revolution. Then he introduces terminology associated with Stalinism when he states: “I'm not all that optimistic that progressives will come out on top this time around. It's not the 1930s”. Popular Front politics led to defeat of Spain’s revolution from 1936-1939 and led to reaction in France after 1937. It was only the Trotskyists who understood (despite Trotsky being wrong that the Soviet Union would be destroyed by World War 2) that reaction would not last forever and the harshness of World War 2 would cause revolutionary upheavals. This is what gave our movement the courage to stand up in that period because they understood as Trotsky wrote the dialectics of history can turn even the most reactionary and counter-revolutionary situations into their opposite into revolutionary possibilities.
The victory of Soviet forces against Nazi Germany is an example of dialectics in historical processes. It was the Stalinists who led to the victory of Fascism in Germany with their Ultra-Left Third Period policies. Yet it was the same Bureaucratically-led Red Army which included millions of workers which destroyed German Fascism. This shows the dual nature of Stalinism. Stalinism’s main contradiction Trotskyists argue is that their deals with world Capitalism/Imperialism strengthen reaction and counter-revolutions, but the Stalinists have to protect their privileges which are based on workers’ states against attempts by Imperialism/pro-Capitalist forces to overthrow them.
German Imperialism during the spring of 1945 was developing their nuclear technology. If the Soviet Union had not decisively defeated them German Capitalism under a Fascist regime could have had nuclear weapons. The defeat of German Imperialism by Red Army soldiers provided breathing space for the workers to organise again politically in Western Europe and for Trotskyists to fight for our programme and strategy In Eastern Europe during 1948 the Soviet Bureaucracy overthrow Capitalism. Negatively Stalinism helped Capitalism re-consolidate their rule in Western Europe. In return Capitalism had to concede major reforms such as Welfarism. Then there were the Colonial Revolutions after World War 2 which ended direct Colonialism in most Third World countries.
Hill is wrong in his suggestion that “progressive” which implies Popular Front policies worked during the 1930s. He is also wrong that objective conditions are today worse than during that period. There have been setbacks in Western Europe but Welfarism has not been destroyed. Fascism’s historic role would be to reduce or destroy Welfarism as the ruling class brings this plebeian middle class and lumpen Proletarian mass movement in order to destroy the organised working class (Trade Unions and different working class political parties) so these policies can be implemented. Griffin demagogically is trying to win semi-Lumpen layers by attacking privatisation of the NHS. The BNP are doing this to gain a base in order to later attack Trade Unions. They will try to do this by demagogically attacking aspects of Capitalism while trying to destroy the organised working class. By being demagogic they try to con layers of their base that once the organised working class are destroyed that they be looked after. This is why they have to be nipped in the bud now before they attack the organised working class and whip up racism. If Labour moves Left this will undercut the BNP considerably because their electoral base in working class areas have not been won to destroying the Labour movement. That is why the BNP are trying to conceal their historic role.
The workers’ States in Eastern Europe (except for ex-GDR and possibly Kosovo) have not been totally destroyed but seriously weakened. There are Fascist forces in Hungary and the Czech Republic. Their aim is to complete the restoration of Capitalism. At some point they will be in conflict with those Bureaucrats who want to maintain workers’ states. These Fascists are trying to use their limited base in Eastern Europe to try to challenge Russian Stalinist rule. The Russian Bureaucracy is beginning to react. This is one reason why legalisation in Russia banning Fascist formations and may work with other Eastern European Bureaucrats to counter their threat. According to BBC’s six o’clock news tonight it was a Russian TV News agency which tipped of Unite against Fascism (UAF) that Griffin was holding that news conference which anti-Fascists broke up. Trotskyists while supporting the Russian workers’ state banning Fascists, we oppose the rehabilitation of Stalin. Russian Trotskyists would argue there should be the democratic right to challenge Stalin in public debates among those who defend the workers’ state against Fascism. By doing this Russian Trotskyists lay the basis to overthrow Stalinism through Political Revolution while defending the workers’ state against Capitalist restoration.
The Neo-cons have failed to re-colonialise Afghanistan and Iraq. This has weekend Capitalism in the Imperialist countries. When there are major outbreaks of Racism such as in Big Brother during 2007 mass protests occurred within India. If Fascists carry out programs there will be reactions by oppressed ethnicities within the Imperialist countries and semi-colonies. All these contradictions within the Colonies/semi-Colonies; and workers’ state objectively lay the basis for mass radicalisation within the Imperialist countries. If Fascism grows they are in conflict with global trends and will be resisted by the organised working class and oppressed.
Kurt Hill on the SWP USA discussion website criticises my analysis of main dynamics in Britain (see MPS expenses and the Brown crisis). His critique is too impressionist leading to pessimistic conclusions. There is no denying of reactionary trends in the European elections within Britain. In that document I said that these elections would most probably occur in this form but the key thing is how the masses react. In the last 24 hours we have seen spontaneous anti-BNP demonstrations in northern England which includes sizeable layers of youth/students; contingents from different Trade Unions; Gays; and disabled. This could be the beginning of another radicalisation against Fascism.
That combined with the collapse of Labour vote to 15% with the Tories being a serious threat of winning a general election is shaking Labour as a party from top to bottom. It is interesting to note that if there are 8-11 Billions cut on NHS spending it is going to lead to massive dislocations. Just imagine if there are hundreds of billions in cuts within public services. Kurt Hill does not realise that workers and middle class elements will not tolerate this. In dialectics you have to distinguish between appearance and reality. The European elections appear to strengthen Conservative Bourgeois elements electorally but if that agenda is implemented there could be mass resistance. This explosive situation is added by Fascists winning those two MEPs which are leading to the radicalisation becoming anti-Fascist.
Social Democrats are utilising most Blairites leaving the cabinet to force Brown back to their policies. Policies these Social Democrats are pushing for include rights for agency workers; stop privatisation of the Post Office etc. Brown may manoeuvre by appearing to concede towards Social Democracy to survive the Blairite leadership challenge and then return to semi-Blairite policies. History will determine what Brown does. On tonight’s Newsnight programme the Unite Union General Secretary Derek Simpson launched a major attack on Brown’s government for not changing policies. This represents the pressure of rank-and-file Trade Unionists who will not tolerate Blairism anymore and the failure of Brown to help them in containing their members’ anger. One thing I am surer of is that is some Blairites split from Labour Brown would have to take the Social Democrats more into his consideration because of a changed social base. Trotskyists argue regardless of manoeuvring by Social Democrats and Trade Union Bureaucrats place demands on them to fight for Socialist policies!
Hill makes amassing statements for an ex-SWPer (American) which means he was a Trotskyist in the past. He attacks Trotskyists for seeing recession as automatically leading to revolution. Then he introduces terminology associated with Stalinism when he states: “I'm not all that optimistic that progressives will come out on top this time around. It's not the 1930s”. Popular Front politics led to defeat of Spain’s revolution from 1936-1939 and led to reaction in France after 1937. It was only the Trotskyists who understood (despite Trotsky being wrong that the Soviet Union would be destroyed by World War 2) that reaction would not last forever and the harshness of World War 2 would cause revolutionary upheavals. This is what gave our movement the courage to stand up in that period because they understood as Trotsky wrote the dialectics of history can turn even the most reactionary and counter-revolutionary situations into their opposite into revolutionary possibilities.
The victory of Soviet forces against Nazi Germany is an example of dialectics in historical processes. It was the Stalinists who led to the victory of Fascism in Germany with their Ultra-Left Third Period policies. Yet it was the same Bureaucratically-led Red Army which included millions of workers which destroyed German Fascism. This shows the dual nature of Stalinism. Stalinism’s main contradiction Trotskyists argue is that their deals with world Capitalism/Imperialism strengthen reaction and counter-revolutions, but the Stalinists have to protect their privileges which are based on workers’ states against attempts by Imperialism/pro-Capitalist forces to overthrow them.
German Imperialism during the spring of 1945 was developing their nuclear technology. If the Soviet Union had not decisively defeated them German Capitalism under a Fascist regime could have had nuclear weapons. The defeat of German Imperialism by Red Army soldiers provided breathing space for the workers to organise again politically in Western Europe and for Trotskyists to fight for our programme and strategy In Eastern Europe during 1948 the Soviet Bureaucracy overthrow Capitalism. Negatively Stalinism helped Capitalism re-consolidate their rule in Western Europe. In return Capitalism had to concede major reforms such as Welfarism. Then there were the Colonial Revolutions after World War 2 which ended direct Colonialism in most Third World countries.
Hill is wrong in his suggestion that “progressive” which implies Popular Front policies worked during the 1930s. He is also wrong that objective conditions are today worse than during that period. There have been setbacks in Western Europe but Welfarism has not been destroyed. Fascism’s historic role would be to reduce or destroy Welfarism as the ruling class brings this plebeian middle class and lumpen Proletarian mass movement in order to destroy the organised working class (Trade Unions and different working class political parties) so these policies can be implemented. Griffin demagogically is trying to win semi-Lumpen layers by attacking privatisation of the NHS. The BNP are doing this to gain a base in order to later attack Trade Unions. They will try to do this by demagogically attacking aspects of Capitalism while trying to destroy the organised working class. By being demagogic they try to con layers of their base that once the organised working class are destroyed that they be looked after. This is why they have to be nipped in the bud now before they attack the organised working class and whip up racism. If Labour moves Left this will undercut the BNP considerably because their electoral base in working class areas have not been won to destroying the Labour movement. That is why the BNP are trying to conceal their historic role.
The workers’ States in Eastern Europe (except for ex-GDR and possibly Kosovo) have not been totally destroyed but seriously weakened. There are Fascist forces in Hungary and the Czech Republic. Their aim is to complete the restoration of Capitalism. At some point they will be in conflict with those Bureaucrats who want to maintain workers’ states. These Fascists are trying to use their limited base in Eastern Europe to try to challenge Russian Stalinist rule. The Russian Bureaucracy is beginning to react. This is one reason why legalisation in Russia banning Fascist formations and may work with other Eastern European Bureaucrats to counter their threat. According to BBC’s six o’clock news tonight it was a Russian TV News agency which tipped of Unite against Fascism (UAF) that Griffin was holding that news conference which anti-Fascists broke up. Trotskyists while supporting the Russian workers’ state banning Fascists, we oppose the rehabilitation of Stalin. Russian Trotskyists would argue there should be the democratic right to challenge Stalin in public debates among those who defend the workers’ state against Fascism. By doing this Russian Trotskyists lay the basis to overthrow Stalinism through Political Revolution while defending the workers’ state against Capitalist restoration.
The Neo-cons have failed to re-colonialise Afghanistan and Iraq. This has weekend Capitalism in the Imperialist countries. When there are major outbreaks of Racism such as in Big Brother during 2007 mass protests occurred within India. If Fascists carry out programs there will be reactions by oppressed ethnicities within the Imperialist countries and semi-colonies. All these contradictions within the Colonies/semi-Colonies; and workers’ state objectively lay the basis for mass radicalisation within the Imperialist countries. If Fascism grows they are in conflict with global trends and will be resisted by the organised working class and oppressed.
Sunday 7 June 2009
Analysis of MP expenses and Brown crisis
A BRIEF PROVISIONAL ANALYSIS OF POLITICAL SITUATION IN BRITAIN AFTER PARLIAMENTARY EXPENSE CRISIS AND THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE BROWN AS PRIME MINISTER BY ANTHONY BRAIN.
Trotsky’s following comments in his work “History of the Russian Revolution” about the plot to murder Rasputin in Russia prior to Russia’s February 1917 revolution has similarities with qualifications to the Parliamentary expense crisis and the attempt to remove Brown in Britain. He wrote:
“After the murder of its “Friend” the monarchy survived in all ten weeks. But this short space of time was still its own. Rasputin was no longer, but his shadow continued to rule. Contrary to all the expectations of the conspirators, the royal pair began after the murder to promote with special determination the most scorned members of the Rasputin clique. In revenge for Rasputin, a notorious scoundrel was named Minister of Justice. A number of grand dukes were banished from the capital. It was rumoured that Protopopov took up spiritualism, calling up the ghost of Rasputin. The noose of hopelessness was drawing tighter.
... The murder of Rasputin played a colossal role, but a very different one from that upon which its perpetrators and inspirers had counted. It did not weaken the crisis, but sharpened it. People talked of the murder everywhere: in the palaces, in the staffs, at the factories, and in the peasant’s huts. The inference drew itself: even the grand dukes have no other recourse against the leprous camarilla except poison and the revolver. The poet Blok wrote of the murder of Rasputin: “The bullet which killed him reached the very heart of the ruling dynasty.”
... Robespierre once reminded the Legislative Assembly that the opposition of the nobility, by weakening the monarchy, had roused the bourgeoisie, and after them the popular masses. Robespierre gave warning at the same time that in the rest of Europe the revolution could not develop so swiftly as in France, for the privileged classes of other countries, taught by the experience of the French nobility, would not take the revolutionary initiative. In giving this admirable analysis, Robespierre was mistaken only in his assumption that with its oppositional recklessness the French nobility had given a lesson once for all to other countries. Russia proved again, both in 1905 and yet more in 1917, that a revolution directed against an autocratic and half-feudal regime, and consequently against a nobility, meets in its first step an unsystematic and inconsistent but nevertheless very real co-operation not only from the rank and file nobility, but also from its most privileged upper circles, including here even members of the dynasty. This remarkable historic phenomenon may seem to contradict the class theory of society, but in reality it contradicts only its vulgar interpretation.
... A revolution breaks out when all the antagonisms of a society have reached their highest tensions. But this makes the situation unbearable even for the classes of the old society – that is, those who are doomed to break up. Although I do not want to give a biological analogy more weight than it deserves, it is worth remarking that the natural act of birth becomes at a certain moment equally unavoidable both for the maternal organism and for the offspring. The opposition put up by the privileged classes expresses the incompatibility of their traditional social position with the demands of the further existence of society. Everything seems to slip out of the hands of the ruling bureaucracy. The aristocracy finding itself in the focus of a general hostility lays the blame upon the bureaucracy, the latter blames the aristocracy, and then together, or separately, they direct their discontent against the monarchical summit of their power”.
The above quote shows the similarities in Britain today. In Britain we are witnessing a deepening radicalisation which could develop into a pre-revolutionary crisis. Another important qualification is that the radicalisation is only at an early stage but due to a severe Capitalist crisis can be very explosive. On the positive side if a process of deepening world revolutions actually leads to more regimes being overthrown in other countries could influence developments in Britain.
Trotskyists should learn from the Rasputin crisis how to deepen the radicalisation into revolution in Britain. We also in developing our strategy have to see all the machinations of ruling class elements to prevent this happening, which has a long experience that cannot be under-estimated. The British ruling class have learned from revolutions such as 1789 in France and Rasputin-type crises.
Pressure from the masses has already led to certain ruling class elements blaming bankers for causing this economic crisis. There are two main reasons why the Telegraph has exposed the MPs expenses. One factor is Bankers hitting back at the MPs for deepening a hatred of millions against them. The other factor is splits within Britain’s ruling class over strategy and tactics. Conservative Bourgeois elements maybe trying to destroy Social Democracy and the Liberal Bourgeoisie through right wing Populism which is appearing in parts of Europe. This serves two purposes of attempting to smash the EU project and have a mass base to attack workers by divide and rule through xenophobia.
This Conservative Bourgeois moves on MPs expenses has had the opposite effect than intended. In my opinion this has deepened a radicalisation which has entered its third stage. The first stage was the 1997 landslide victory for Labour where millions of workers and sizeable middle class elements wanted privatisation to end with substantial more money invested in public services. An indication of this radicalisation was opinion polls showing in 1997 that 70% wanted the railways re-nationalised. Stage two of this radicalisation was the massive movement in 2002-3 against war in Iraq.
The MPs expense crisis may strengthen the Bourgeois Tory party; right wing Populists; and Fascists electorally in the European Elections. This represents a remnant of despair among middle class layers and workers at failures of the Labour Party to improve their conditions. Trotskyists need to understand that the main dynamic caused by MPs expenses crisis is that the ruling class politicians have lost authority to deepen massive attacks on workers and middle class. Despite this right-turn electorally the radicalisation will deepen and give those despairing layers hope that Capitalism can be fought through mass struggles.
Both Liberal and Conservative Bourgeois elements for different reasons want Brown removed as Prime Minister. Conservative Bourgeois elements could have two main devious motivations is a Blairite coalition with Tories which could implements hundreds of billions of cutbacks in public services which they hope will strengthen more right wing populist parties. They hope this leads to Britain leaving the EU.
Layers of the Liberal Bourgeoisie need a Social Democratic/Lib Dem coalition government in order to protect their EU project. Due to a deepening radicalisation the Guardian paper last week called for Social Democracy to have more influence in Labour. These Liberal Bourgeois elements fearing a pre-revolutionary crisis if Thatcherism and Blairism is continued will attempt to use Social Democracy to contain this radicalisation. That is why Trotskyists have to go through workers experiences of Social Democracy in order to win them to us. As Engels analysed in the mid-1840s that Britain’s ruling class most effective form of mystique necessary for their rule was a Liberal Bourgeois ideology that everything was determined in parliament rather than the streets as in France. This blow to the creditability of Parliament due to expense crisis is what these Liberal Bourgeois elements fear with that prop being weakened dramatically could lead to a pre-revolutionary crisis.
Trotsky’s following comments in his work “History of the Russian Revolution” about the plot to murder Rasputin in Russia prior to Russia’s February 1917 revolution has similarities with qualifications to the Parliamentary expense crisis and the attempt to remove Brown in Britain. He wrote:
“After the murder of its “Friend” the monarchy survived in all ten weeks. But this short space of time was still its own. Rasputin was no longer, but his shadow continued to rule. Contrary to all the expectations of the conspirators, the royal pair began after the murder to promote with special determination the most scorned members of the Rasputin clique. In revenge for Rasputin, a notorious scoundrel was named Minister of Justice. A number of grand dukes were banished from the capital. It was rumoured that Protopopov took up spiritualism, calling up the ghost of Rasputin. The noose of hopelessness was drawing tighter.
... The murder of Rasputin played a colossal role, but a very different one from that upon which its perpetrators and inspirers had counted. It did not weaken the crisis, but sharpened it. People talked of the murder everywhere: in the palaces, in the staffs, at the factories, and in the peasant’s huts. The inference drew itself: even the grand dukes have no other recourse against the leprous camarilla except poison and the revolver. The poet Blok wrote of the murder of Rasputin: “The bullet which killed him reached the very heart of the ruling dynasty.”
... Robespierre once reminded the Legislative Assembly that the opposition of the nobility, by weakening the monarchy, had roused the bourgeoisie, and after them the popular masses. Robespierre gave warning at the same time that in the rest of Europe the revolution could not develop so swiftly as in France, for the privileged classes of other countries, taught by the experience of the French nobility, would not take the revolutionary initiative. In giving this admirable analysis, Robespierre was mistaken only in his assumption that with its oppositional recklessness the French nobility had given a lesson once for all to other countries. Russia proved again, both in 1905 and yet more in 1917, that a revolution directed against an autocratic and half-feudal regime, and consequently against a nobility, meets in its first step an unsystematic and inconsistent but nevertheless very real co-operation not only from the rank and file nobility, but also from its most privileged upper circles, including here even members of the dynasty. This remarkable historic phenomenon may seem to contradict the class theory of society, but in reality it contradicts only its vulgar interpretation.
... A revolution breaks out when all the antagonisms of a society have reached their highest tensions. But this makes the situation unbearable even for the classes of the old society – that is, those who are doomed to break up. Although I do not want to give a biological analogy more weight than it deserves, it is worth remarking that the natural act of birth becomes at a certain moment equally unavoidable both for the maternal organism and for the offspring. The opposition put up by the privileged classes expresses the incompatibility of their traditional social position with the demands of the further existence of society. Everything seems to slip out of the hands of the ruling bureaucracy. The aristocracy finding itself in the focus of a general hostility lays the blame upon the bureaucracy, the latter blames the aristocracy, and then together, or separately, they direct their discontent against the monarchical summit of their power”.
The above quote shows the similarities in Britain today. In Britain we are witnessing a deepening radicalisation which could develop into a pre-revolutionary crisis. Another important qualification is that the radicalisation is only at an early stage but due to a severe Capitalist crisis can be very explosive. On the positive side if a process of deepening world revolutions actually leads to more regimes being overthrown in other countries could influence developments in Britain.
Trotskyists should learn from the Rasputin crisis how to deepen the radicalisation into revolution in Britain. We also in developing our strategy have to see all the machinations of ruling class elements to prevent this happening, which has a long experience that cannot be under-estimated. The British ruling class have learned from revolutions such as 1789 in France and Rasputin-type crises.
Pressure from the masses has already led to certain ruling class elements blaming bankers for causing this economic crisis. There are two main reasons why the Telegraph has exposed the MPs expenses. One factor is Bankers hitting back at the MPs for deepening a hatred of millions against them. The other factor is splits within Britain’s ruling class over strategy and tactics. Conservative Bourgeois elements maybe trying to destroy Social Democracy and the Liberal Bourgeoisie through right wing Populism which is appearing in parts of Europe. This serves two purposes of attempting to smash the EU project and have a mass base to attack workers by divide and rule through xenophobia.
This Conservative Bourgeois moves on MPs expenses has had the opposite effect than intended. In my opinion this has deepened a radicalisation which has entered its third stage. The first stage was the 1997 landslide victory for Labour where millions of workers and sizeable middle class elements wanted privatisation to end with substantial more money invested in public services. An indication of this radicalisation was opinion polls showing in 1997 that 70% wanted the railways re-nationalised. Stage two of this radicalisation was the massive movement in 2002-3 against war in Iraq.
The MPs expense crisis may strengthen the Bourgeois Tory party; right wing Populists; and Fascists electorally in the European Elections. This represents a remnant of despair among middle class layers and workers at failures of the Labour Party to improve their conditions. Trotskyists need to understand that the main dynamic caused by MPs expenses crisis is that the ruling class politicians have lost authority to deepen massive attacks on workers and middle class. Despite this right-turn electorally the radicalisation will deepen and give those despairing layers hope that Capitalism can be fought through mass struggles.
Both Liberal and Conservative Bourgeois elements for different reasons want Brown removed as Prime Minister. Conservative Bourgeois elements could have two main devious motivations is a Blairite coalition with Tories which could implements hundreds of billions of cutbacks in public services which they hope will strengthen more right wing populist parties. They hope this leads to Britain leaving the EU.
Layers of the Liberal Bourgeoisie need a Social Democratic/Lib Dem coalition government in order to protect their EU project. Due to a deepening radicalisation the Guardian paper last week called for Social Democracy to have more influence in Labour. These Liberal Bourgeois elements fearing a pre-revolutionary crisis if Thatcherism and Blairism is continued will attempt to use Social Democracy to contain this radicalisation. That is why Trotskyists have to go through workers experiences of Social Democracy in order to win them to us. As Engels analysed in the mid-1840s that Britain’s ruling class most effective form of mystique necessary for their rule was a Liberal Bourgeois ideology that everything was determined in parliament rather than the streets as in France. This blow to the creditability of Parliament due to expense crisis is what these Liberal Bourgeois elements fear with that prop being weakened dramatically could lead to a pre-revolutionary crisis.
Friday 17 April 2009
A reply to hysterical a-political slanders by some on American SWP website
Since I came out as a Trotskyist from the age of 12 (in 1989) I have argued my ideas openly. I have consistently defended the Trotskyist programme and tried to update it. Over my time I have made mistakes but corrected them by understanding the programme more profoundly. It is sad to see ex-Trotskyists echoing Stalinist-type slanders against more consistent Trotskyists.
Monday 13 April 2009
A protest about my videos being interfered with!
I want to write a formal protest that I am unable to post an important audio video of Trotsky speaking on You Tube because a homophobic video calling for Gays to be murdered will appear as a group of four videos. It is absolutely outragous that individuals cannot democratically post videos without other unwanted videos appearing. The Trotsky audio is very important because Trotsky praises the American Trotskyists as decisive in building our movement culminating in founding the 4th International in 1938.
Tuesday 7 April 2009
Missing part of sentence in attacking Will Hutton on "Capitalism being main dynamic on China"
I missed out China in the sentence I attack Huttton for saying "Capitalism was the main dynamism for China".
Clarification on who Mandel called a United front for!
I missed out part of a sentence on that introduction to the Observer on China that Mandel called for a united front with elements of Stalinism against Capitalist restorationist forces if there was a serious clash.
Re-print of a letter by me submitted to the Observer during summer of 2004 on China
BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THIS LETTER I HAVE POSTED!
I submitted this letter to the Observer during the summer of 2004 challenging Will Hutton’s analysis (which he changed in his 2007 work on China entitled: “Writing on the wall” – AB – My Emphasis) that ‘Capitalism’ was the main dynamic which explained Chinese rapid economic growth. This letter I wrote on the day of publication and e-mailed it to that paper the very same day. That letter was not published because it challenged the Liberal Bourgeoisie’s ideological offensive head-on that crisis in Workers’ states (societies in transition from Capitalism to Socialism) meant there is no alternative to Capitalism. This is why the BBC on running these programmes on Stalinist crimes in Eastern Europe in order to weaken a Socialist alternative to Capitalism. Hutton’s book had to analyse the real contradictions in China so that Imperialism is able to manoeuvre more effectively and cannot be dominated by just ideological dogma.
Russia going forward is outlined (see letter and statement on Birmingham Socialist Resistance makes a left turn on Russia!) There are two additional points I would make on that Socialist Resistance leaflet. From the beginning when Stalinism arouse to when is it overthrown there will always be Bureaucratic pillage to one degree or another. The general thrust of that leaflet which documented with the latest research gains made by workers on every level by another wing of Russian Stalinism coming to power is refreshing contradicting all the Third Camp and Stalinphobic revisionists.
After some consideration one weakness which this leaflet failed to mention was that approximately between 2004 and 2006 the Putinites tried to monetarise all general social benefits. This was motivated to increase pillage through reducing social benefits. There were massive protests by workers against this move. Why is that not mentioned? Is it because there are differences within Socialist Resistance on what the class nature of Russia is? As I said at the time data revealed in that leaflet could make the case that Russia is a Workers’ State but it does say what the class nature of Russia is. Discussing struggles like this would clarify the nature of a forthcoming revolution in Russia which in my view is a Political Revolution with social consequences essentially maintaining planned economy and expropriating any Capitalist layers.
Mandel argued during the autumn/winter 1990 when challenging Redmond O’Neill Campism that any investments in Eastern Europe by Imperialist finance would be mainly politically motivated to overthrow the Workers’ states. By these investments not being totally profitable and with their failure to restore Capitalism combined with the global Capitalist crisis could lead to many Western European banks going into at least semi-bankruptcy.
The direction of O’Neill going towards Stalinism Mandel was correct on but he (Mandel – AB – My Emphasis) stated if Capitalist restoration became a threat Trotskyists would have to empathise more the defence of these Workers’ States against Capitalist restoration and that may involve advocating united fronts in certain specific situations with those forces if there was a serious clash with pro-Capitalist forces. It was the failure of the ISG majority to re-orientate to this danger which led to the internal struggle which broke out during the summer of 1996 over what attitude towards the Russian Communist Party.
There have been in the last few months in Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet Baltic states revolutionary upheavals against the effects of global Capitalist crisis on these societies and the general fall in the standard of living these workers suffered due to the extreme Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads. One major strength of Mandel’s critique of O’Neill in 1990 was the democratic opening won by workers in Eastern Europe in 1989 by revolution were important in the workers gaining the political space to develop their struggles in the direction of Political Revolution with social consequences.
CHINA IS NOT TO BLAME FOR THE OIL CRISIS! (A letter to the Observer written during the summer of 2004 but not published).
Will Hutton creates the impression that Chinese demand for oil is going to effect the West. Hutton does not explain why the high oil prices do not cause the same dislocations in China as it will do in the West. The key difference is that China is predominately a Planned Economy and not ruled by laws which govern Capitalist societies. As the economic crisis deepens in the West workers and the middle classes why China is going through a similar crisis? There will be a serious consideration by the workers and lower middle classes benefits that Planned Economies could achieve for them.
The reason that Chinese Stalinism’s concession to world Capitalism has not had the same devastating effects on Russia; ex-Soviet states; and Eastern Europe is that the Capitalist elements are subordinate to a massively growing Planned Economy. There have not been the dislocations of the Chinese Planned Economy as in those aforementioned countries. The way that foreign Capital has intervened in the crisis of Eastern Europe and Russia by linking up with the extreme Bureaucratic pillagers to make inroads into these societies shows the dire consequences if they restore Capitalism.
Foreign Capital has failed in their historic objectives in restoring Capitalism but their limited success with 100 million workers dying of poverty shows that if they are successful there will be further dire consequences. Since the Yeltsin wing of Stalinism lost power the Russian Planned Economy has started to recover in growth what was lost in those years. This change in Russia could help those forces fighting Capitalist restoration in Eastern Europe. It is fundamentally wrong of Hutton for Hutton define the main dynamic of growth as “the Capitalist dynamism”.
If Capitalism is restored in China Foreign Capital would won stripping away the socio-economic gains of the Chinese Revolution established in 1950. This would convert China into almost only just supplying cheap raw materials to the West; hundred of millions being made unemployed due to these nationalised industries/workplaces are not profitable on a Capitalist basis. Millions would die at least due to this and destroying any serious remains of a Welfare state.
Anthony Brain
I submitted this letter to the Observer during the summer of 2004 challenging Will Hutton’s analysis (which he changed in his 2007 work on China entitled: “Writing on the wall” – AB – My Emphasis) that ‘Capitalism’ was the main dynamic which explained Chinese rapid economic growth. This letter I wrote on the day of publication and e-mailed it to that paper the very same day. That letter was not published because it challenged the Liberal Bourgeoisie’s ideological offensive head-on that crisis in Workers’ states (societies in transition from Capitalism to Socialism) meant there is no alternative to Capitalism. This is why the BBC on running these programmes on Stalinist crimes in Eastern Europe in order to weaken a Socialist alternative to Capitalism. Hutton’s book had to analyse the real contradictions in China so that Imperialism is able to manoeuvre more effectively and cannot be dominated by just ideological dogma.
Russia going forward is outlined (see letter and statement on Birmingham Socialist Resistance makes a left turn on Russia!) There are two additional points I would make on that Socialist Resistance leaflet. From the beginning when Stalinism arouse to when is it overthrown there will always be Bureaucratic pillage to one degree or another. The general thrust of that leaflet which documented with the latest research gains made by workers on every level by another wing of Russian Stalinism coming to power is refreshing contradicting all the Third Camp and Stalinphobic revisionists.
After some consideration one weakness which this leaflet failed to mention was that approximately between 2004 and 2006 the Putinites tried to monetarise all general social benefits. This was motivated to increase pillage through reducing social benefits. There were massive protests by workers against this move. Why is that not mentioned? Is it because there are differences within Socialist Resistance on what the class nature of Russia is? As I said at the time data revealed in that leaflet could make the case that Russia is a Workers’ State but it does say what the class nature of Russia is. Discussing struggles like this would clarify the nature of a forthcoming revolution in Russia which in my view is a Political Revolution with social consequences essentially maintaining planned economy and expropriating any Capitalist layers.
Mandel argued during the autumn/winter 1990 when challenging Redmond O’Neill Campism that any investments in Eastern Europe by Imperialist finance would be mainly politically motivated to overthrow the Workers’ states. By these investments not being totally profitable and with their failure to restore Capitalism combined with the global Capitalist crisis could lead to many Western European banks going into at least semi-bankruptcy.
The direction of O’Neill going towards Stalinism Mandel was correct on but he (Mandel – AB – My Emphasis) stated if Capitalist restoration became a threat Trotskyists would have to empathise more the defence of these Workers’ States against Capitalist restoration and that may involve advocating united fronts in certain specific situations with those forces if there was a serious clash with pro-Capitalist forces. It was the failure of the ISG majority to re-orientate to this danger which led to the internal struggle which broke out during the summer of 1996 over what attitude towards the Russian Communist Party.
There have been in the last few months in Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet Baltic states revolutionary upheavals against the effects of global Capitalist crisis on these societies and the general fall in the standard of living these workers suffered due to the extreme Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads. One major strength of Mandel’s critique of O’Neill in 1990 was the democratic opening won by workers in Eastern Europe in 1989 by revolution were important in the workers gaining the political space to develop their struggles in the direction of Political Revolution with social consequences.
CHINA IS NOT TO BLAME FOR THE OIL CRISIS! (A letter to the Observer written during the summer of 2004 but not published).
Will Hutton creates the impression that Chinese demand for oil is going to effect the West. Hutton does not explain why the high oil prices do not cause the same dislocations in China as it will do in the West. The key difference is that China is predominately a Planned Economy and not ruled by laws which govern Capitalist societies. As the economic crisis deepens in the West workers and the middle classes why China is going through a similar crisis? There will be a serious consideration by the workers and lower middle classes benefits that Planned Economies could achieve for them.
The reason that Chinese Stalinism’s concession to world Capitalism has not had the same devastating effects on Russia; ex-Soviet states; and Eastern Europe is that the Capitalist elements are subordinate to a massively growing Planned Economy. There have not been the dislocations of the Chinese Planned Economy as in those aforementioned countries. The way that foreign Capital has intervened in the crisis of Eastern Europe and Russia by linking up with the extreme Bureaucratic pillagers to make inroads into these societies shows the dire consequences if they restore Capitalism.
Foreign Capital has failed in their historic objectives in restoring Capitalism but their limited success with 100 million workers dying of poverty shows that if they are successful there will be further dire consequences. Since the Yeltsin wing of Stalinism lost power the Russian Planned Economy has started to recover in growth what was lost in those years. This change in Russia could help those forces fighting Capitalist restoration in Eastern Europe. It is fundamentally wrong of Hutton for Hutton define the main dynamic of growth as “the Capitalist dynamism”.
If Capitalism is restored in China Foreign Capital would won stripping away the socio-economic gains of the Chinese Revolution established in 1950. This would convert China into almost only just supplying cheap raw materials to the West; hundred of millions being made unemployed due to these nationalised industries/workplaces are not profitable on a Capitalist basis. Millions would die at least due to this and destroying any serious remains of a Welfare state.
Anthony Brain
Saturday 28 March 2009
Barnesites echo Matgammaism on Israel and general move to right concerning Imperialist interventions
Paul Pederson's latest article in the American Militant shows a dramatic further shift to the right in attacking a pro-boycott movement of Israel and defend their neutrality miltiary in battles between an agency of Imperialism (which Israel being defined by Maxine Rodinson as a Colonial-Settler state which the US SWP has accepted until very recently) and a battle for freedom against Zionist oppression even although it is led by Bourgeois Nationalists.
This is a break from the Leninist-Trotskyist programme of supporting the Colonial Revolution against Imperialism unconditionally despite whoever time leads it at a certain stage. In 1981 the Barnesites broke from Permanent Revolution. It is only by carrying out Trotsky's method of Permanent Revolution can Revolutionary Marxists take advantage of Bourgeois Nationalists/semi-Feudal elements or even possible Petty-Bourgeois forces coming into conflict with Imperialism to stregthen the working class in leading the middle class and other oppresed groups which combines Bourgeois-Democratic tasks such as ending Imperialst super-exploitation with Socialist tasks of expropriating the Capitalists. When the Barnesites dumped Permanent Revolution was a qualitative turning point in degeneration. Ever since then particulary after 1989 revolutionary threats to Stalinism Barnes feels he cannot defend his politics against opponents. His evolution since 9/11 when initially he correctly defended the Taliban miltiary against American Imperialism but defended an Ultra-Left line you "could not build a peace movement under Capitalism" completely rejecting their own experiences in building the movement against America's war in Vietnam during the 1960s and early 1970s.
After the Iraq war Barnes has moved consistently to the right on every question of Imperilist intervention except for Cuba and North Korea. On the Iraq war Barnes was opposed to resistance against American Imperialist occupation; neutral in the Israeli-Lebanon war of 2006; supported independence for Kosovo during 2008; and supported Georgia against Russia in the same year. Now the Barnesites has gone further and actually publishing a book which praises Imperialism for developing the productive forces in Equatural Guiena!
This move to the right by Barnes represents putting two fingers up to the rising world revolution these defeats Imperialism have suffered in these wars (with the one exception being Kosovo where Imperiaism won out for a period). The American masses are radicalsing partly due to American Imperialsm losing wars and Israel losing two wars since 9/11. Barnes reacts by going more hysterical fearing this deepening radicalisation combined with the rise of Trotsky will sweep him away. That is why we have these hysterical attacks on the WWP and ISO being "anti-Semetic". These organisations mentioned by Pederson are oppoents of Trotskyism but they should not be slandered. The British AWL would not condemn the NATO 1999 war on Serbia, and oppose calls to withdraw American/British Imperialist troops from Iraq. They like Barnes slander oppoents of Zionism as being "antI-Semetic" and simiarly oppose a boycott of Israel. One diference between Matgmamma and Barnes is that Barnes still clings to the correct formula of fighting for a democratic Secular society! and is not supporting an Imperialist war.
Pederson's quote of Hamas's anti-Semetism is framed to leave the impression they are 'Fascists'. Fascism as Trotsky argued can only occur in Imperialist countries as it represents a reaction to severe Capitalist crisis by a tendency to expansionism and adventurism. Italian and Spanish Fascism was charcterised by massive miltiary interventions to supress the Colonial revolution. Trotskyists do not support reactionary ideas of Bourgeois Nationalists but do see it at times leading an objectively (despite being subjectivally counter-revolutionary as represenstives of an enemy classes which is why political class independence has to be maintaned) anti-Imperrialist struggle. As Jim Cannon would say Fascism is counter-revolutonary through and through both objectively and subjectively as it carries out the interests of the Imperialist Bourgeosies. Lenni Brenner in a 1984 work (which is available on the Marxist Internet Archive) entitled; "The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky to Shamir" shows how Zionism and Fascism worked together quite closely together from the 1920s to the end of World War 2.
The Barnesites in justifying their revisionist line of Imperialism developing the productive forces in Equatorial Guiena are beginning to seperate Lenin from Marx. In a Militant article several weeks ago the author utilised a quote out of context from Marx's Communist Manifesto about the progressive character of Capitalism in creating an international division of labour. Marx was correct about the achievement of an international division of labour as representing a major development of the productive forces. As a movement Revolutionary Marxists now know that Capitalism even in its progressive epoch set back productive forces in the Colonies. Lenin when analysing Imperialism began to develop that analyisis of why Imperialism super-exploits the Coloinies/Semi-Colonies. Trotsky worked out his theory of Permanent Revolution by analysing how Imperialist super-exploitation could only be ended by the working class seizing power. Cannon in a polemic with Shactman over the Proletarian Miltary Policy (See SWP in World War 2) that revisionists seperated Trotsky from Lenin. Barnes seperated Trotsky from Lenin when he dumped Permanent Revolution. Now as he moves to the right on Imperialism Barnes is seperating Lenin from Marx.
It is on Kosovo declaring independence from Serbia in 2008 and supporting a concilationist Bureuacratic regime to Imperialism in Georgia during a war with Russia that the Barnesites have become more clearly counter-revolutionary and begin to take a more openly pro-Imperialist position. At certain stages in 1998 the Kosovan struggle against Serbian national oppression was progressive particulary the mobilisation of the miners. The KLA as a multi-class movement could not be supported and Trotskyists were correct after Imperialism intervened seriously with the pro-Imperialist wing of KLA winning out in February March1999 that the defence of the FRY workers' state had to be emphasised more. After the NATO bombing of FRY began Trotskyists while opposing Milosevic's anti-working class national cleansing of Albaians would have critically supported the Serbian army fighting the KLA on the Kosovo-Albanian border particulry if this border was used by NATO to invade Kosovo.
One of Imperialism's victories was seizing the state power in Kosovo. The Bourgeois Nationalists are only a problem becase Serbian Stalinism's crimes played into their hands. In a 2001 assembly election the main Bourgeois Nationalist party was electorally decimated. Due to the victory of Imperialism and Bourgeois Nationalists in Kosovo unemplopyment is around approxmately between 70% to 90%. In the Chinese Xinhua news agency there was an article appearing a few weeks ago saying that Kosovon workers are resisting further privttisation. If the workers are armed defending the renmants of a workers' state then there could be a dual power situation. After the 1990 defeat of the Sandinistas that Nicaragua was still a workers' state until at least until 1996 because the Sandinista army still had an independent miltoary base in the state apparatus and the workers were defending their socio-economic gains against Capitalist restoration with arms. From 1996 I do not know whether the Capitalists won out in restoring Capitalism.
As Jon Grey said in April 1999 in the Manchester, British Guardian the NATO war on Serbia could lead to Imperialism having less influence in Russia. He hinted it could play into the hands of a wing of Stalinism opposed to Imperialism's encroachment on their country. This blunder of Imperialism combined with the August 1998 Financial crisis led to intermediate Bureaucratic elements linking up with harder Stalinists against Imperialist penertration to remove Yeltisin. Since January 2000 the Russain economy has recovered. Barnes's main methodlogical error on supporting the conciallationist elements and Capitalist restorationist forces against the Russian workers' state was that American Imperialism and Israeli armed forces to weaken the Russian workers' states influence were behind Georgia's attack on South Ossetia testing how they could go after Russia before that Bureaucracy reacted. If Imperialism had won in Georgia American Imperialism could have gone further challenging Russia raising the dangers of World War 3. The Russian workers' state being salvaged is a gain for world revolution because it can influence Eastern Europe against going Capitalist and pose an alternaive to Capitalism. Despite the Bureaucracy not wanting their society to be a total challenge to global Capitalism fearing an upturn in world revolution will lead to their overthrow through a Political revolution.
This is a break from the Leninist-Trotskyist programme of supporting the Colonial Revolution against Imperialism unconditionally despite whoever time leads it at a certain stage. In 1981 the Barnesites broke from Permanent Revolution. It is only by carrying out Trotsky's method of Permanent Revolution can Revolutionary Marxists take advantage of Bourgeois Nationalists/semi-Feudal elements or even possible Petty-Bourgeois forces coming into conflict with Imperialism to stregthen the working class in leading the middle class and other oppresed groups which combines Bourgeois-Democratic tasks such as ending Imperialst super-exploitation with Socialist tasks of expropriating the Capitalists. When the Barnesites dumped Permanent Revolution was a qualitative turning point in degeneration. Ever since then particulary after 1989 revolutionary threats to Stalinism Barnes feels he cannot defend his politics against opponents. His evolution since 9/11 when initially he correctly defended the Taliban miltiary against American Imperialism but defended an Ultra-Left line you "could not build a peace movement under Capitalism" completely rejecting their own experiences in building the movement against America's war in Vietnam during the 1960s and early 1970s.
After the Iraq war Barnes has moved consistently to the right on every question of Imperilist intervention except for Cuba and North Korea. On the Iraq war Barnes was opposed to resistance against American Imperialist occupation; neutral in the Israeli-Lebanon war of 2006; supported independence for Kosovo during 2008; and supported Georgia against Russia in the same year. Now the Barnesites has gone further and actually publishing a book which praises Imperialism for developing the productive forces in Equatural Guiena!
This move to the right by Barnes represents putting two fingers up to the rising world revolution these defeats Imperialism have suffered in these wars (with the one exception being Kosovo where Imperiaism won out for a period). The American masses are radicalsing partly due to American Imperialsm losing wars and Israel losing two wars since 9/11. Barnes reacts by going more hysterical fearing this deepening radicalisation combined with the rise of Trotsky will sweep him away. That is why we have these hysterical attacks on the WWP and ISO being "anti-Semetic". These organisations mentioned by Pederson are oppoents of Trotskyism but they should not be slandered. The British AWL would not condemn the NATO 1999 war on Serbia, and oppose calls to withdraw American/British Imperialist troops from Iraq. They like Barnes slander oppoents of Zionism as being "antI-Semetic" and simiarly oppose a boycott of Israel. One diference between Matgmamma and Barnes is that Barnes still clings to the correct formula of fighting for a democratic Secular society! and is not supporting an Imperialist war.
Pederson's quote of Hamas's anti-Semetism is framed to leave the impression they are 'Fascists'. Fascism as Trotsky argued can only occur in Imperialist countries as it represents a reaction to severe Capitalist crisis by a tendency to expansionism and adventurism. Italian and Spanish Fascism was charcterised by massive miltiary interventions to supress the Colonial revolution. Trotskyists do not support reactionary ideas of Bourgeois Nationalists but do see it at times leading an objectively (despite being subjectivally counter-revolutionary as represenstives of an enemy classes which is why political class independence has to be maintaned) anti-Imperrialist struggle. As Jim Cannon would say Fascism is counter-revolutonary through and through both objectively and subjectively as it carries out the interests of the Imperialist Bourgeosies. Lenni Brenner in a 1984 work (which is available on the Marxist Internet Archive) entitled; "The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky to Shamir" shows how Zionism and Fascism worked together quite closely together from the 1920s to the end of World War 2.
The Barnesites in justifying their revisionist line of Imperialism developing the productive forces in Equatorial Guiena are beginning to seperate Lenin from Marx. In a Militant article several weeks ago the author utilised a quote out of context from Marx's Communist Manifesto about the progressive character of Capitalism in creating an international division of labour. Marx was correct about the achievement of an international division of labour as representing a major development of the productive forces. As a movement Revolutionary Marxists now know that Capitalism even in its progressive epoch set back productive forces in the Colonies. Lenin when analysing Imperialism began to develop that analyisis of why Imperialism super-exploits the Coloinies/Semi-Colonies. Trotsky worked out his theory of Permanent Revolution by analysing how Imperialist super-exploitation could only be ended by the working class seizing power. Cannon in a polemic with Shactman over the Proletarian Miltary Policy (See SWP in World War 2) that revisionists seperated Trotsky from Lenin. Barnes seperated Trotsky from Lenin when he dumped Permanent Revolution. Now as he moves to the right on Imperialism Barnes is seperating Lenin from Marx.
It is on Kosovo declaring independence from Serbia in 2008 and supporting a concilationist Bureuacratic regime to Imperialism in Georgia during a war with Russia that the Barnesites have become more clearly counter-revolutionary and begin to take a more openly pro-Imperialist position. At certain stages in 1998 the Kosovan struggle against Serbian national oppression was progressive particulary the mobilisation of the miners. The KLA as a multi-class movement could not be supported and Trotskyists were correct after Imperialism intervened seriously with the pro-Imperialist wing of KLA winning out in February March1999 that the defence of the FRY workers' state had to be emphasised more. After the NATO bombing of FRY began Trotskyists while opposing Milosevic's anti-working class national cleansing of Albaians would have critically supported the Serbian army fighting the KLA on the Kosovo-Albanian border particulry if this border was used by NATO to invade Kosovo.
One of Imperialism's victories was seizing the state power in Kosovo. The Bourgeois Nationalists are only a problem becase Serbian Stalinism's crimes played into their hands. In a 2001 assembly election the main Bourgeois Nationalist party was electorally decimated. Due to the victory of Imperialism and Bourgeois Nationalists in Kosovo unemplopyment is around approxmately between 70% to 90%. In the Chinese Xinhua news agency there was an article appearing a few weeks ago saying that Kosovon workers are resisting further privttisation. If the workers are armed defending the renmants of a workers' state then there could be a dual power situation. After the 1990 defeat of the Sandinistas that Nicaragua was still a workers' state until at least until 1996 because the Sandinista army still had an independent miltoary base in the state apparatus and the workers were defending their socio-economic gains against Capitalist restoration with arms. From 1996 I do not know whether the Capitalists won out in restoring Capitalism.
As Jon Grey said in April 1999 in the Manchester, British Guardian the NATO war on Serbia could lead to Imperialism having less influence in Russia. He hinted it could play into the hands of a wing of Stalinism opposed to Imperialism's encroachment on their country. This blunder of Imperialism combined with the August 1998 Financial crisis led to intermediate Bureaucratic elements linking up with harder Stalinists against Imperialist penertration to remove Yeltisin. Since January 2000 the Russain economy has recovered. Barnes's main methodlogical error on supporting the conciallationist elements and Capitalist restorationist forces against the Russian workers' state was that American Imperialism and Israeli armed forces to weaken the Russian workers' states influence were behind Georgia's attack on South Ossetia testing how they could go after Russia before that Bureaucracy reacted. If Imperialism had won in Georgia American Imperialism could have gone further challenging Russia raising the dangers of World War 3. The Russian workers' state being salvaged is a gain for world revolution because it can influence Eastern Europe against going Capitalist and pose an alternaive to Capitalism. Despite the Bureaucracy not wanting their society to be a total challenge to global Capitalism fearing an upturn in world revolution will lead to their overthrow through a Political revolution.
Friday 27 March 2009
Possible error confusing Jalebad for Herat
I may have confused Jalebad with Herat. From my memories it is in Herat not Jalebad where the Iranian Bourgeoisie has the influence over the Shites.
Dangerous escalation of American Imperialist intervention in Pakistan!
Obama's announcement this afternoon on Pakistan could mean stepping up the American bombing of Pakistani tribal areas. The British Ruling Class is divided on this. There could be sections of Britain's ruling class who may want to join the American bombing of these areas. This is reflected in the media propogand "that the centre of Al Quada operations are in Pakistan".
The Liberal Bourgeoisie in Britain are nervous about American Imperialism escalating their war in Pakistan. This is reflected on tonight's Newsnight where a French author Durrante argued that the Taliban are seriously threatening to lay seige to Kabul; French Imperialism is losing out in the rural areas of Kunduz which is near to Kabul; and French Imperialism are facing major Taliban resistance 50km north of Kabul. Durrante additionally said that Taliban are in a strong miltiary position on the roads linking Jalebad with Kabul. Obama's announcement on stepping up America's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan may lead to Liberal Bourgeois elements to pressure for their troops to be pulled out as they do not want to deepen adventurism threatening regional wars which could turn into World War 3! Those on the left who supported Obama will face a crisis as the Neo-Con Richard Perle has praised Obama up for steeping up their wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unless they shift their line with the Western European Bourgeoisies turning against Obama which could lead to a bigger anti-war movement they will be completely isolated and discretided as the radicalisation process deepens.
Britain's Stop the War Coalition has to step up campaigning against this dangerous escalation in adventurism. There are great dangers for American Imperialism with the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism linked up to the Army challenging the comprador Bourgeois pro-Imperialist regime. Revolutionary processes could deepen among the Pakistani masses. Obama has commited a major blunder by attacking those Pakistani ruling class elements who do not want American Imperialism intervening more into their internal affairs as they may aid the Taliban more directly. If Kabul is threatened with a major seige this Pakistani aid could lead to the Taliban capturing Kabul.
American Imperialism would then decide whether to make a deal with the Taliban or launch major attacks from the air which could kill thousands of Afghan civilians. If Imperialism decides to step up the attacks on those autumous Pakistani Bourgeois elements this could lead to war with the Pakistani armed forces. This is a dangerous course for American Imperialism as Pakistan has nuclear weapons. If Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons American Imperialism by now would have bombed further into Pakistani territory. Bush threatend Musharaff after 9/11 attacks if Pakistan did not comply with American Imperialism they would bomb Pakitsan to the stone age. Michel Dobbs (novelist most famous for Urqhurt triology) on the Daily Politics last tuesday said the more that American Imperialism war goes on that region will further destabalise Pakistan.
Obama's move to work with the Iranian regime is trying to win the Shites over in Jalebad to fight the Taliban. He also trying to win over the Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies to co-operate with American Imperialism in Afghanistan. The Chinese Bureaucracy could at some stage oppose American Imperialism deepens their miltiary intervention into Pakistan becuase if they have to much influence there they may feel emboldened to intervene more into China's internal affairs.
For at least two years Obana has had an adventurist policy towards Pakistan. Two years ago a reporter asked Bush at a news conference if he thought Obama "was the new Doctor Strangelove", Bush refused to comment. There is big potential to build a bigger anti-war movement in Britain as 70%+ of British people polled opose Britain's intervention into Afghanistan. Imperialism escalating the war into Afghanistan and Pakistan will deepen Capitalism's economic crisis. All these factors such as :- losing the war further in Afghanistan; the Western European Bourgeoisies pulling out of Afghanistan due to Liberal Bourgeois elements not being manourved to deepen an adventurist fisaco ; danger of war escalating into Pakistan; and the danger of nuclear weapons being used could build an ever bigger anti-war movement in Britain than over the Iraq war in 2003. This on top of a possible economic depression could deepen the radicalisation into a pre-revolutionary crisis.
The Liberal Bourgeoisie in Britain are nervous about American Imperialism escalating their war in Pakistan. This is reflected on tonight's Newsnight where a French author Durrante argued that the Taliban are seriously threatening to lay seige to Kabul; French Imperialism is losing out in the rural areas of Kunduz which is near to Kabul; and French Imperialism are facing major Taliban resistance 50km north of Kabul. Durrante additionally said that Taliban are in a strong miltiary position on the roads linking Jalebad with Kabul. Obama's announcement on stepping up America's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan may lead to Liberal Bourgeois elements to pressure for their troops to be pulled out as they do not want to deepen adventurism threatening regional wars which could turn into World War 3! Those on the left who supported Obama will face a crisis as the Neo-Con Richard Perle has praised Obama up for steeping up their wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unless they shift their line with the Western European Bourgeoisies turning against Obama which could lead to a bigger anti-war movement they will be completely isolated and discretided as the radicalisation process deepens.
Britain's Stop the War Coalition has to step up campaigning against this dangerous escalation in adventurism. There are great dangers for American Imperialism with the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism linked up to the Army challenging the comprador Bourgeois pro-Imperialist regime. Revolutionary processes could deepen among the Pakistani masses. Obama has commited a major blunder by attacking those Pakistani ruling class elements who do not want American Imperialism intervening more into their internal affairs as they may aid the Taliban more directly. If Kabul is threatened with a major seige this Pakistani aid could lead to the Taliban capturing Kabul.
American Imperialism would then decide whether to make a deal with the Taliban or launch major attacks from the air which could kill thousands of Afghan civilians. If Imperialism decides to step up the attacks on those autumous Pakistani Bourgeois elements this could lead to war with the Pakistani armed forces. This is a dangerous course for American Imperialism as Pakistan has nuclear weapons. If Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons American Imperialism by now would have bombed further into Pakistani territory. Bush threatend Musharaff after 9/11 attacks if Pakistan did not comply with American Imperialism they would bomb Pakitsan to the stone age. Michel Dobbs (novelist most famous for Urqhurt triology) on the Daily Politics last tuesday said the more that American Imperialism war goes on that region will further destabalise Pakistan.
Obama's move to work with the Iranian regime is trying to win the Shites over in Jalebad to fight the Taliban. He also trying to win over the Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies to co-operate with American Imperialism in Afghanistan. The Chinese Bureaucracy could at some stage oppose American Imperialism deepens their miltiary intervention into Pakistan becuase if they have to much influence there they may feel emboldened to intervene more into China's internal affairs.
For at least two years Obana has had an adventurist policy towards Pakistan. Two years ago a reporter asked Bush at a news conference if he thought Obama "was the new Doctor Strangelove", Bush refused to comment. There is big potential to build a bigger anti-war movement in Britain as 70%+ of British people polled opose Britain's intervention into Afghanistan. Imperialism escalating the war into Afghanistan and Pakistan will deepen Capitalism's economic crisis. All these factors such as :- losing the war further in Afghanistan; the Western European Bourgeoisies pulling out of Afghanistan due to Liberal Bourgeois elements not being manourved to deepen an adventurist fisaco ; danger of war escalating into Pakistan; and the danger of nuclear weapons being used could build an ever bigger anti-war movement in Britain than over the Iraq war in 2003. This on top of a possible economic depression could deepen the radicalisation into a pre-revolutionary crisis.
Tuesday 24 March 2009
Greg Maughan's article in the latest Socialist Paper shows logic of some leading SPers counter-revolutionary line on Tibet! and China!
Greg Maughan's article in the latest Socialist concerning 50 years of when the Dalai Lama were military defeated by China shows that leading SP elements are more Third Campist which is becoming clear is a left cover for supporting semi-Feudal reactionary forces which Imperialism and Capitalist/Capitalist restorationist forces are attempting to utilise for the overthrow of China's workers' state. In the last few months the SP boasted in the Socialist newspaper of supporting the colour attempted counter-revoutions in the ex-Soviet Union.
Except for Kyrgystan (and Serbia which I deal with its pecularities in the next sentence) these movements were led by a wing of Stalinism which were concillationist to Imperialism which Capitalists/Capitalist restorationist pushing it to move in their direction of going back to Capitalism. In Serbia the overthrow of Milosevic during October 2000 were mostly led dynamically by workers. Outside of Albania in 1997 this was the best example of what a Political Revolution which begins to seriously challenges these Bureaucratic Castes rule will resemble. Workers mobilised in several factories/industries for the removal of pro-Milosevic managers and began a battle to begin to run them through occupations.
There are renmants of Trotskyism in Maughan's article when he contradicts the general Third Camp approach of his artcicle when he speaks what an historic breakthrough the Chinese Socialist Revolution of 1949-50 and defines the regime in China as Bureaucratic! This latter formula contradicts the SP's majority line which defines China as "Capitalist". As I explained in my statement "Birmingham Socialist Resistance makes a left turn on Russia!" that it is only a Bureaucratised workers' state where the Bureaucracy has more autumony than in a Capitalist society where all Bureaucracies are subordinate to Capitalist profit.
There is a bizare re-writing of history by Maughan where he attempts to jusifty as "progressive" of what he admits were a reactionary leadership of the uprising they attempted against Chinese miltiary rule in Tibet during 1959. His main justication for supporting this counter-revolutionary Damai-Lam-led uprising of 1959 it was a distorted reflection of the masses rejecting opportunist concessions of Chinese Stalinim to landlordism! Trotskyism correctly analyses that Chinese Stalinism's dual character involves them carrying out largely opportunist or ultra-left adventures but also out of self-preservation carry out concrete measures which is the workers' state's interest and therefore strengthens the working class which Trotskyists critically support. As Trotsky argued in "In Defence of Marxism" when a Stalinist Bureaucratic caste has to overthrow Capitalism elsewhere it effects all classes including the working class however Bureaucratically controlled and has to win the workers over in order to secure the new caste ruling. If the old ruling class resists the workers are sometimes mobilised in order to control them, and to bargain with the old ruling class of being physically destroyed by millions rising in revolutionary action. This is what happened in Tibet during 1959 where workers and peasents were mobilsied in a Socialist revolution. That is why it is absurd of Maughan to define that particular policy of Chinese Stalinsim as "opportunist towards the Landlords!" when they were at that time beig expropriated.
More research will have to be done by me (which I might do in several months time when I have more time) to show the Trotskyist attitude at the time to the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism in 1959. James Roberston when he was in regroupment talks with the American SWP gave crtiical support to the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism. Trotskyists in my opinion should have supported the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism while opposing national oppression. By Trotskyists critically supporting the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism we are in a position to weaken the Bureaucracy by supporting pro-working class battles by Tibetans against Chinese national oppresson as part of a Political Revolution. As Trotsky said in "In defence of Marxism" when Capitalism is being overthrown or a workers' State is fighting a Capitalist state the Political Revoltuion is subordiante to defending the social conquests of a workers' state.
Maughan is semi-Third Campist when he says the Tibeatan masses have gained very little in overthrowing Capitalism. The industrialisation of Tibet in recent years and establishing of modern transporation systems such for example for Trains would have been impossible without the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism. This vindicates the theory; programme; and strategy of Permanent Revolution. It is through this industrialisation and urbanisation that the working class will strengthen itself in its battle to overthrow the Bureaucracy.
Trotskyists have to oppose counter-revolutioanry led movement in Tibet by the Dali Lima because all the gains of a Workers' State in terms of its rapid development of its productive forces (which for Marxists as Marx says is the main criterian for analysing whether a particular mode of production is historically progressive or reactionary) and its indepedence from Imperialism would be smashed, which is part of Imperialism's strategy to dismember and re-Semi-Colonise China. It was clear Imperialism was behind the Tibet protests of last year. This is defence of a Trotskyist attitude of defending the gains which the Permanent Revolution has brought in practice to Chinese workers and peasents (even although the Bureaucracy dispute apscts of our theory of Permanent Revolution in China) You only have to read the West European Bourgeois press and the Iranian news agency which documented how the CIA was behind those protests. Lenin and Trotsky in the 1920s argued against mixing the banners! Trotskyists support moves towards Political Revolution however distorted or contradictory (that is why we are not sectarian) but also oppose moves to restore Capitalism by counter-revolutionary movements!
Except for Kyrgystan (and Serbia which I deal with its pecularities in the next sentence) these movements were led by a wing of Stalinism which were concillationist to Imperialism which Capitalists/Capitalist restorationist pushing it to move in their direction of going back to Capitalism. In Serbia the overthrow of Milosevic during October 2000 were mostly led dynamically by workers. Outside of Albania in 1997 this was the best example of what a Political Revolution which begins to seriously challenges these Bureaucratic Castes rule will resemble. Workers mobilised in several factories/industries for the removal of pro-Milosevic managers and began a battle to begin to run them through occupations.
There are renmants of Trotskyism in Maughan's article when he contradicts the general Third Camp approach of his artcicle when he speaks what an historic breakthrough the Chinese Socialist Revolution of 1949-50 and defines the regime in China as Bureaucratic! This latter formula contradicts the SP's majority line which defines China as "Capitalist". As I explained in my statement "Birmingham Socialist Resistance makes a left turn on Russia!" that it is only a Bureaucratised workers' state where the Bureaucracy has more autumony than in a Capitalist society where all Bureaucracies are subordinate to Capitalist profit.
There is a bizare re-writing of history by Maughan where he attempts to jusifty as "progressive" of what he admits were a reactionary leadership of the uprising they attempted against Chinese miltiary rule in Tibet during 1959. His main justication for supporting this counter-revolutionary Damai-Lam-led uprising of 1959 it was a distorted reflection of the masses rejecting opportunist concessions of Chinese Stalinim to landlordism! Trotskyism correctly analyses that Chinese Stalinism's dual character involves them carrying out largely opportunist or ultra-left adventures but also out of self-preservation carry out concrete measures which is the workers' state's interest and therefore strengthens the working class which Trotskyists critically support. As Trotsky argued in "In Defence of Marxism" when a Stalinist Bureaucratic caste has to overthrow Capitalism elsewhere it effects all classes including the working class however Bureaucratically controlled and has to win the workers over in order to secure the new caste ruling. If the old ruling class resists the workers are sometimes mobilised in order to control them, and to bargain with the old ruling class of being physically destroyed by millions rising in revolutionary action. This is what happened in Tibet during 1959 where workers and peasents were mobilsied in a Socialist revolution. That is why it is absurd of Maughan to define that particular policy of Chinese Stalinsim as "opportunist towards the Landlords!" when they were at that time beig expropriated.
More research will have to be done by me (which I might do in several months time when I have more time) to show the Trotskyist attitude at the time to the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism in 1959. James Roberston when he was in regroupment talks with the American SWP gave crtiical support to the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism. Trotskyists in my opinion should have supported the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism while opposing national oppression. By Trotskyists critically supporting the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism we are in a position to weaken the Bureaucracy by supporting pro-working class battles by Tibetans against Chinese national oppresson as part of a Political Revolution. As Trotsky said in "In defence of Marxism" when Capitalism is being overthrown or a workers' State is fighting a Capitalist state the Political Revoltuion is subordiante to defending the social conquests of a workers' state.
Maughan is semi-Third Campist when he says the Tibeatan masses have gained very little in overthrowing Capitalism. The industrialisation of Tibet in recent years and establishing of modern transporation systems such for example for Trains would have been impossible without the overthrow of Tibetan Capitalism. This vindicates the theory; programme; and strategy of Permanent Revolution. It is through this industrialisation and urbanisation that the working class will strengthen itself in its battle to overthrow the Bureaucracy.
Trotskyists have to oppose counter-revolutioanry led movement in Tibet by the Dali Lima because all the gains of a Workers' State in terms of its rapid development of its productive forces (which for Marxists as Marx says is the main criterian for analysing whether a particular mode of production is historically progressive or reactionary) and its indepedence from Imperialism would be smashed, which is part of Imperialism's strategy to dismember and re-Semi-Colonise China. It was clear Imperialism was behind the Tibet protests of last year. This is defence of a Trotskyist attitude of defending the gains which the Permanent Revolution has brought in practice to Chinese workers and peasents (even although the Bureaucracy dispute apscts of our theory of Permanent Revolution in China) You only have to read the West European Bourgeois press and the Iranian news agency which documented how the CIA was behind those protests. Lenin and Trotsky in the 1920s argued against mixing the banners! Trotskyists support moves towards Political Revolution however distorted or contradictory (that is why we are not sectarian) but also oppose moves to restore Capitalism by counter-revolutionary movements!
Monday 16 March 2009
Birmingham Socialist Resistance makes a left turn on Russia!
Birmingham Socialist Resistance leaflet on Russia for March 17th 2009 is useful in making a case that Russia remains a Degenerated Workers' state. The figures it gives of the 1990s socio-economic disaster in terms of cuts in industrial growth and rapid improvishment of the masses which my blog has argued was a combination of extreme Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads. Capitalist inroads had these dire consuqences but if Capitalism had been restored it would been much worse.
The Birmingham leaflet points out how the Putin wing of Russian Stalinism has turned round the drop in industrial production with substained growth between 2000 and 2007. That leaflet shows the masses have made substantial gains in terms of their salaries incrassing hundreds-fold. This leaflet could be used to make the case that Russia is a Workers' state by showing how the bulk of production and sales is determined by use value not for profits, with exports increasing pressures of the world Capitalist market on Russia. In 2003 according to the leaflet Russia had re-built itself sufficently that export pressures were reduced. The leaflet shows how even with the shift inside the Russian Bureaucracy against the excesses of extreme Bureaucratic pillage that the Workers' State can go forward. Mandel argued in Power and Money that under Stalinism money is subordianted to Bureaucratic power wherehas under Capitalism Bureaucracy is subordinated to Capitalist profit.
There is huge potential for revolutioanry struggles against continued Bureaucratic pillage. An article in the Guardian in the last four or five weeks pointed out ther were massive differences within the Russian Bureaucracy whether they should bail out Capitalist firms. The Putinites believe by salvaging those Capitalist firms the Bureaucracy will gain more control over them. Other Bureaucrats do not want to salvage what they see as forces which attempting to overthrow them. Trotskyists would play on the contradiction that the workers have improved their standard of living to increase their confidence to challenge both the Capitalists and Stalinists. We woud play on the anger amongst workers against wasting tens of billions of Roubles to salvage Capitalist firms to begin to mobilise them for the Political Revolution with social consuqencces.
The Birmingham leaflet points out how the Putin wing of Russian Stalinism has turned round the drop in industrial production with substained growth between 2000 and 2007. That leaflet shows the masses have made substantial gains in terms of their salaries incrassing hundreds-fold. This leaflet could be used to make the case that Russia is a Workers' state by showing how the bulk of production and sales is determined by use value not for profits, with exports increasing pressures of the world Capitalist market on Russia. In 2003 according to the leaflet Russia had re-built itself sufficently that export pressures were reduced. The leaflet shows how even with the shift inside the Russian Bureaucracy against the excesses of extreme Bureaucratic pillage that the Workers' State can go forward. Mandel argued in Power and Money that under Stalinism money is subordianted to Bureaucratic power wherehas under Capitalism Bureaucracy is subordinated to Capitalist profit.
There is huge potential for revolutioanry struggles against continued Bureaucratic pillage. An article in the Guardian in the last four or five weeks pointed out ther were massive differences within the Russian Bureaucracy whether they should bail out Capitalist firms. The Putinites believe by salvaging those Capitalist firms the Bureaucracy will gain more control over them. Other Bureaucrats do not want to salvage what they see as forces which attempting to overthrow them. Trotskyists would play on the contradiction that the workers have improved their standard of living to increase their confidence to challenge both the Capitalists and Stalinists. We woud play on the anger amongst workers against wasting tens of billions of Roubles to salvage Capitalist firms to begin to mobilise them for the Political Revolution with social consuqencces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)