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.