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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)