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.
Saturday 28 March 2009
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.
Sunday 15 March 2009
The anti-War movement needs to oppose Western war on North Korea!
American Imperialism has tried to increase pressure on the North Korean Bureaucracy to make concessions towards them or face increased isolation and pressure. The North Korean Bureaucracy being based on a Workers' state will not tolerate the kind of concessions which Iraq was forced into to avoid Gulf War 2. This Bureaucracy in North Korea has made clear that it will fight rather than restore Capitalism.
The anti-war movement should oppose American or Japan shooting down a North Korean satalite! It is not clear whether Imperialism will shoot it down which might lead to North Korea miltiary attacking South Korea, which may lead to Imperialism bonbing North Korea. This could lead to increased tensions with the Russian and Chinese Workers' States raising the danger of World War 3. China's economic power could be utilised to stop Imperialism. The anti-war movement should start organsing against a shooting down of a North Korean satalite, which increases the pressure on Imperialism not to provoke North Korea into a war!
The anti-war movement should oppose American or Japan shooting down a North Korean satalite! It is not clear whether Imperialism will shoot it down which might lead to North Korea miltiary attacking South Korea, which may lead to Imperialism bonbing North Korea. This could lead to increased tensions with the Russian and Chinese Workers' States raising the danger of World War 3. China's economic power could be utilised to stop Imperialism. The anti-war movement should start organsing against a shooting down of a North Korean satalite, which increases the pressure on Imperialism not to provoke North Korea into a war!
Thornett breaks further on the nature of Capitalism in its epoch by going further revisionist on China! and adapts to Obama!
Thornett in a article in a spring 2009 edition of Socialist Outlook in analysing the global Capitalist crisis makes from a Leninist-Trotskyist point of view makes outrageous statements on how Captalism in China is responible for the rapid development in its' productive forces. This represents a break from the Leninist-Trotskyist programme of our epoch which starts from analysing correctly that Capitalism being in its' death agency and that Imperialism holds down Third World countries. It also represents a major break with the theory and strategy of Permanent Revolution which flows from this programme of our epoch, which correctly argues that Imperialist super-exploitation of the Colonies/Semi-Colonies can only be ended by overthrowing Capitalusm. Thornett is echoing revisionist positions assocated with the "State Capitalist" poltics of the British SWP.
China has always for the Trotskyist movement been seen outside of Russia as being the 2nd major test which confirms Permanent Revolution. Capitalism when Capitalism prevailed after the 1840s ot 1850s after the Opium Wars dismembered China. Until the Chinese Socialiat Revolution broke out tens of millions Chinese died of starvation. Despite the distortions of Stalinism the Chinese Communist Party leadership had out of self-preservaion carried aspects of our programme of Permanent Revolution in overthrowing Capitalism. They were still Stalinists who argued stages theory in other Third World countries. At the same time as welcoming the overthrow of Capiltalism a Political Revolution was necessary to establish the political rule of the Proletariat. Trotsky made the same analysis when Stalin was forced to wipe out the Kulaks which he critically supported while critcising the excesses of 5-year plans.
It is the predominance of the non-Capitalist productive relations which explains why China has massively developed. Even Bourgeois analysts have to admit its biggest economic development in history! Imperialism out of weakness started trading during with China during the late 1970s attempting to further isolate the Soviet Union and to see what inroads was possible with the balance of class forces. The Imperialists hoped the Capitalist elements in the Special Economic Zones created during the 1980s would strengthen themselves to eventually overthrow the Workers' State.
There are paraells with the rapid development of China in the last 30-plus years with the rapid industrialisation of the Soviet Union had occured duirng the 1930s. Elements of the Fourth Internatuional (FI) majority leadership argued this development was also happening in the Tiger Economies! This line was argued in International Viewpoint a month before those Tiger Economies collasped. China becuase it is a Workers' State still went forward with developing the necessary modern infrastucture for their ecomomy and innovating in new technologies. Capitalist States go through periodoric crises because of production being based on proift. A Workers' State by destroying profit being the predominant economic drive has an economy based on use value. In China like other Bureaucratised Workers' States the Bureaucrats distort production by only being mainly interested in economic developments which benefit them. It is not true as Thornett claims that the Soviet Union's development during the 1930s had limited impact on Capitalism. Imperialism traded with the Soviet Union during that period because without that the Depression would have been worse.
China as a transitonal society has been impacted on by Capitalist depression. This again confirms our Marxist analysis that Socialism cannot be built in a single country. There have been statsistics recently in the Bourgeois press show that 40% of Chnese GNP comes from domestic infrastructure projects and exports only accounted for 7%. It is these infrastructure projects predominantly nationalised is the basis of this 7% growth in Chnin's GDP this year.
Until the Capitalist depression Chinese exports played a supplemtary role to the main domestic drive. Thornett claims that Capitalist restoration is complete! If this is the case why is Imperialism complaining that certain Chinese Banks remain Nationalised and allocate investemnets in what Capitalist firms see as "unprofitable?
If as Thornett claims China is Capitalist the Imperialist banks would dominate their banking system and the majority of "non-Profitable" industries would be decimated. How do you explain the social reforms with free education and healthcare being brought into the countryside if Cnina is Capitalist?
Another difficult question for Thornett if Chinese 'Capitalism' is so sucessful why cannot it show the rest of World Capitalism the way forward? The Workers' State tendencies in China will be strengthend with the collapse of exports as Imperialism has less say in China. It is terrible that 20 Million workers have lost their jobs due to big export falls. The restoration of Capitalism woukd be worse with hundreds of millions of workers being made redundant. If Trotskyists are going to influence Chinese workers they have to recognise the gains of a Workers' State while attacking the Bureaucratic pillage and inroads of Capitalists. It is the contradiction between the rising workers aspirations which develop as the Workers' State goes forward and growing resentment with Bureaucratic pillage will lead to the Political Revolution with social consuqences.
Thornett downplays the importance of Cuba. If they develop oil they will not be "economically unimportanr" as Thorentt claims. Cuba is key to Latin America because the gains of that Workers' State is helping to deepen revolutionary upheavals on this continent. This is why Thornett was fundamentally wrong in calling for Fidel Castro's overthrow. There is a contradiction in Thorentt's article in saying Capitalism dominates the world and then he has to recognise that Cuba stands against this!
Thornett overplays the possible social reforms under Obama. He does not point out that the purpose of any reforms is to stop a workers party independent of the main Capitalist parties. He does not argue against voting for Obama in the 2008 American Presidential elections. Who did he support in those elections? John Lister in the Morning Star argued pincipled position against supporting Obama. Americn Trotskyists in the 1930s and 1940s opposed the New Deal and its conversion into a War Dea! His biggest adaptation to Obama is Thornett calling for critical support to the New Deal! In another example of the dialectics of history is Thorentt being ultra-left on the Labour Party to calling in a Opportunist fashion for Brown's "New Deal" being critically supported! When I have more time I will write a article on why and how American Trotskyists opposed the New Deal in New International upto May 1940 and Fourth Internatioal published snce then.
China has always for the Trotskyist movement been seen outside of Russia as being the 2nd major test which confirms Permanent Revolution. Capitalism when Capitalism prevailed after the 1840s ot 1850s after the Opium Wars dismembered China. Until the Chinese Socialiat Revolution broke out tens of millions Chinese died of starvation. Despite the distortions of Stalinism the Chinese Communist Party leadership had out of self-preservaion carried aspects of our programme of Permanent Revolution in overthrowing Capitalism. They were still Stalinists who argued stages theory in other Third World countries. At the same time as welcoming the overthrow of Capiltalism a Political Revolution was necessary to establish the political rule of the Proletariat. Trotsky made the same analysis when Stalin was forced to wipe out the Kulaks which he critically supported while critcising the excesses of 5-year plans.
It is the predominance of the non-Capitalist productive relations which explains why China has massively developed. Even Bourgeois analysts have to admit its biggest economic development in history! Imperialism out of weakness started trading during with China during the late 1970s attempting to further isolate the Soviet Union and to see what inroads was possible with the balance of class forces. The Imperialists hoped the Capitalist elements in the Special Economic Zones created during the 1980s would strengthen themselves to eventually overthrow the Workers' State.
There are paraells with the rapid development of China in the last 30-plus years with the rapid industrialisation of the Soviet Union had occured duirng the 1930s. Elements of the Fourth Internatuional (FI) majority leadership argued this development was also happening in the Tiger Economies! This line was argued in International Viewpoint a month before those Tiger Economies collasped. China becuase it is a Workers' State still went forward with developing the necessary modern infrastucture for their ecomomy and innovating in new technologies. Capitalist States go through periodoric crises because of production being based on proift. A Workers' State by destroying profit being the predominant economic drive has an economy based on use value. In China like other Bureaucratised Workers' States the Bureaucrats distort production by only being mainly interested in economic developments which benefit them. It is not true as Thornett claims that the Soviet Union's development during the 1930s had limited impact on Capitalism. Imperialism traded with the Soviet Union during that period because without that the Depression would have been worse.
China as a transitonal society has been impacted on by Capitalist depression. This again confirms our Marxist analysis that Socialism cannot be built in a single country. There have been statsistics recently in the Bourgeois press show that 40% of Chnese GNP comes from domestic infrastructure projects and exports only accounted for 7%. It is these infrastructure projects predominantly nationalised is the basis of this 7% growth in Chnin's GDP this year.
Until the Capitalist depression Chinese exports played a supplemtary role to the main domestic drive. Thornett claims that Capitalist restoration is complete! If this is the case why is Imperialism complaining that certain Chinese Banks remain Nationalised and allocate investemnets in what Capitalist firms see as "unprofitable?
If as Thornett claims China is Capitalist the Imperialist banks would dominate their banking system and the majority of "non-Profitable" industries would be decimated. How do you explain the social reforms with free education and healthcare being brought into the countryside if Cnina is Capitalist?
Another difficult question for Thornett if Chinese 'Capitalism' is so sucessful why cannot it show the rest of World Capitalism the way forward? The Workers' State tendencies in China will be strengthend with the collapse of exports as Imperialism has less say in China. It is terrible that 20 Million workers have lost their jobs due to big export falls. The restoration of Capitalism woukd be worse with hundreds of millions of workers being made redundant. If Trotskyists are going to influence Chinese workers they have to recognise the gains of a Workers' State while attacking the Bureaucratic pillage and inroads of Capitalists. It is the contradiction between the rising workers aspirations which develop as the Workers' State goes forward and growing resentment with Bureaucratic pillage will lead to the Political Revolution with social consuqences.
Thornett downplays the importance of Cuba. If they develop oil they will not be "economically unimportanr" as Thorentt claims. Cuba is key to Latin America because the gains of that Workers' State is helping to deepen revolutionary upheavals on this continent. This is why Thornett was fundamentally wrong in calling for Fidel Castro's overthrow. There is a contradiction in Thorentt's article in saying Capitalism dominates the world and then he has to recognise that Cuba stands against this!
Thornett overplays the possible social reforms under Obama. He does not point out that the purpose of any reforms is to stop a workers party independent of the main Capitalist parties. He does not argue against voting for Obama in the 2008 American Presidential elections. Who did he support in those elections? John Lister in the Morning Star argued pincipled position against supporting Obama. Americn Trotskyists in the 1930s and 1940s opposed the New Deal and its conversion into a War Dea! His biggest adaptation to Obama is Thornett calling for critical support to the New Deal! In another example of the dialectics of history is Thorentt being ultra-left on the Labour Party to calling in a Opportunist fashion for Brown's "New Deal" being critically supported! When I have more time I will write a article on why and how American Trotskyists opposed the New Deal in New International upto May 1940 and Fourth Internatioal published snce then.
Wednesday 4 March 2009
Typo error on title of build instead of big
I missed building out of a possibity of building a big anti-war movement in Britain against intervention in Sudan.
Typo error missed big in massive anti-war movement
I missed out the word big when analysing the possibility of a massive anti-war movement emerging in Britain.
Imperialist ruliing classes split on China!
One aspect which I missed out in my statement on Sudanese crisis is that the Imperialist Bourgeoisies' could be split on how to handle China. There are dangers of adventurism by Imperialism due to severe Capitalist crisis. There are Capitalist firms losing out in Africa to China. There is other sections of these Imperialist Bourgeoisies' who depend on trade with China and the Chinese Bureaucracy are in a strong position to deepen America's financial crisis by withdrawing money to the US Treasury. This split in these ruling classes towards China could help a big anti-war movement as happened over Iraq.
Typo error on Imperialism/Colonialism
I meant to use the word Colonialsm rather than Imperialsm to describe the African masses fighting against Imperialist intervention in Sudan.
Dangerous Imperialist provoation by Imperialism against Sudan!
The material I have been reading around the indicment against Sudan's President shows this is a dangerous provocation which could escalate into a major war. Yestersday the UN Peacekeeper command in Darfur issued a statement stating that they are staying regardless despite tensions being increased with Sudan.
Could Imperialism attempting to provoke the Sudanese armed forces into attacking UN forces?, which could then be used as a pretext to bomb Sudan. Two main motivations for Imperialism to carry out an adventure against Sudan is to gain more oil and to try to weaken the Chinese Workers' State influene which is growing rapidly in Africa due to their huge infrastucture projects. Imperialism may go after Sudan thinking they are an easier miltiary target than counties such as Iran. The Chinese Workers' State intervening with their African infrastructure projects is a major threat to Imperialism becuase despite their Opportunist policy to prop up Bourgeois Natalionalist regimes are beginning to seriously weaken Imperialist super-exploitation of Africa. Imperialism may decide to gamble a war to weaken China because they rather go down with a fight than risk losing billions more which could aggravate the depression.
Trotskyists should support Sudan against Imperialism against an attempt to re-impose Colonialism if war breaks out. Those on the left who wrongly charaterise China as China "Imperialist" have a problem if the Chinese Workers' State is dragged into the Sudan war. Will they dump defence of Sudan if China arms them or goes to war with Imperialism in Sudan. Trotskyists would support China arming Sudan and if China intervenes miltiary to support assistance to a semi-Colony fighting Imperialism. The main tasks of Trotskyists would be to build up mass movements internationally to stop the war before China is drawn in miltiary which reduces the danger of a Third World War breaking out.
If Imperialism embarks on such an adventure it would be the worst mistake since war on Iraq launched in 2003. The Sudanese regime in the last few months has hinted that Darfur and southern Sudan civil war could reignite. Bourgeois Nationalists in Sudan have hugh influence in Chad and other neighbouring countries. Africa could explode in revolutionary upheavals against the attempt to re-impose Imperialism. If a war breaks out tensions could massively increase between China and Imperialism. There are dangers of regional wars in Afria escalating and if China is drawn in miltiary a Third World War cannot be ruled out.
The demands of the anti-war movement should be oppositon to any Western war against Sudan and immeadiate withdrawl of Western armed forces from the Sudanese region! If tensions escalate the biggest anti-war movement could be potentially built in Britain since 2003 opposed to Western intervention. If Imperialism mis-calculates this could lead to a deepening of world revolution against Imperialism and Capitalism.
Could Imperialism attempting to provoke the Sudanese armed forces into attacking UN forces?, which could then be used as a pretext to bomb Sudan. Two main motivations for Imperialism to carry out an adventure against Sudan is to gain more oil and to try to weaken the Chinese Workers' State influene which is growing rapidly in Africa due to their huge infrastucture projects. Imperialism may go after Sudan thinking they are an easier miltiary target than counties such as Iran. The Chinese Workers' State intervening with their African infrastructure projects is a major threat to Imperialism becuase despite their Opportunist policy to prop up Bourgeois Natalionalist regimes are beginning to seriously weaken Imperialist super-exploitation of Africa. Imperialism may decide to gamble a war to weaken China because they rather go down with a fight than risk losing billions more which could aggravate the depression.
Trotskyists should support Sudan against Imperialism against an attempt to re-impose Colonialism if war breaks out. Those on the left who wrongly charaterise China as China "Imperialist" have a problem if the Chinese Workers' State is dragged into the Sudan war. Will they dump defence of Sudan if China arms them or goes to war with Imperialism in Sudan. Trotskyists would support China arming Sudan and if China intervenes miltiary to support assistance to a semi-Colony fighting Imperialism. The main tasks of Trotskyists would be to build up mass movements internationally to stop the war before China is drawn in miltiary which reduces the danger of a Third World War breaking out.
If Imperialism embarks on such an adventure it would be the worst mistake since war on Iraq launched in 2003. The Sudanese regime in the last few months has hinted that Darfur and southern Sudan civil war could reignite. Bourgeois Nationalists in Sudan have hugh influence in Chad and other neighbouring countries. Africa could explode in revolutionary upheavals against the attempt to re-impose Imperialism. If a war breaks out tensions could massively increase between China and Imperialism. There are dangers of regional wars in Afria escalating and if China is drawn in miltiary a Third World War cannot be ruled out.
The demands of the anti-war movement should be oppositon to any Western war against Sudan and immeadiate withdrawl of Western armed forces from the Sudanese region! If tensions escalate the biggest anti-war movement could be potentially built in Britain since 2003 opposed to Western intervention. If Imperialism mis-calculates this could lead to a deepening of world revolution against Imperialism and Capitalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)