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.
Tuesday 9 June 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)