Sunday 27 September 2009

Strategyn and tactics in fighting Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time

TROTSKYISTS SHOULD DEMAND JACK STRAW’S EXPULSION FROM THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY! AND WHY THE BIGGEST DEMONSTRATIONS SHOULD BE BUILT AGAINST NICK GRIFFIN’S APPEARANCE ON BBC QUESTION TIME!


Trotskyists have an excellent opportunity of showing the true character of Liberal Bourgeois elements to millions of workers and other oppressed elements used as scapegoats for Capitalist caused crises and who are threatened by any rise of Fascism. The Liberal Bourgeoisie in Britain are nervous of how millions of workers; unemployed workers/millions on benefits as single parents and disabled are going to react with massive cutbacks.


In that situation they are keeping their strategic and tactical options open. They may resort to Social Democracy to contain any revolutionary danger. In the medium and long-term if the Tories encounter resistance with layers of un-organised workers being right wing on other questions may attempt to use this to build right wing populist movements to weaken the organised working class. Ultimately if everything fails due to the organised working class resistance to attacks by Capital, especially as a final resort to stop a Socialist revolution Capital may turn to Fascism to salvage their rule by destroying the mass organisations of workers. The battle in Leeds shows how right wing populism is being used by an extremely right wing mayor to break the union among bin workers in alliance with other Bourgeois parties such as a Tory/Liberal Democrats controlled council.


Trotskyists argue for the biggest demonstrations against Griffin appearing on Question Time in order to improve the confidence of workers and oppressed elements that they will defend their democratic rights against Fascist attacks which could increasingly be emboldened by him appearing on that BBC TV programme. It will also make clear to any wavering middle class elements that the organised working class will lead a determined fight against any Fascist inroads.


Trotsky argued in a 1934 article “Bonapartism and Fascism” that all governments are run by Finance Capital except for revolutionary ones. The key point Trotsky made is that Finance Capital modify its’ strategy and tactics by changes between and within classes. Social Democracy is utilised when the working class are in a strong position against Capitalist attacks and Bourgeois elements use them for them to front their reforms to stop revolutionary threats. When Social Democracy is discredited they bring in Conservative Bourgeois parties to attack the working class. In an economic depression if despair dominates middle class elements and unorganised workers Capital can use this through Populism and Fascism to weaken and destroy the organised working class. Fascism in order to consolidate its’ power has to destroy the organised working class quickly because of their unstable middle class base. If there is resistance by organised workers even a Fascist attempt to win power can be smashed.


Within hours of Griffin being announced as possibly appearing on Question Time for October 22nd the Communication Workers Union (representing telecommunication and postal workers) has condemned it in strong terms. Social Democratic cabinet member Peter Hain has equally condemned it. This could possibly mobilise tens of thousands in mass protests outside the BBC. Tony Kearns Assistant General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union (CWU) has called for Labour MPs and cabinet members to join these protests outside the BBC.


Trotskyists are in favour of organising all those in a single issue campaign including liberals with a small l against the BNP appearing on major TV debates. A Trotskyist organisation while building such an limited united front campaign/protests argue for our positions particularly in Trotskyist publications about how the fight against Liberal Bourgeois elements in practice shows that Fascism can only be defeated in a final analysis through Socialist revolution.


Trotskyists also fight for a broader campaign based on the Trade Unions; Labour Party left and other parties to their left; and other oppressed elements building a classical workers united front against Fascism but also posing demands against Capitalism which breeds Fascism. We also argue that it is the semi-Bourgeois New Labour faction and right wing Social Democrats which have played into the BNP’s hands in their attack on workers.


As I have documented there is an open schism between even right wing Social Democrats such as Hain and the semi-Bourgeois elements in the Labour Party. Trotskyists should tactically take advantage of this schism to pose demands on the Social Democrats to expel Straw and Hodge. We should raise this demand in the Trade Unions and Labour Party. Millions of organised workers will be supportive and if the Social Democrats do not act they will go through an experience with them, which will open up opportunities for them to consider revolutionary ideas. In the process semi-Bourgeois elements will be destroyed and a serious fight back will begin to reverse Capitalist attacks which could provide revolutionary opportunities.

Sunday 13 September 2009

Debate on workers' states on we love Trotsky

A REPLY TO SAM DRACONIAN ON WORKERS’ STATES AND ANOTHER REPLY TO DAVID YOURMAN ON CLASS NATURE OF EASTERN EUROPEAN EX-SOVIET STATES POST 1989/1991.


The Marxist theory of the State in understanding how it defends specific property relations, are crucial in determining what its class character is. A Capitalist state stops the Bourgeoisie being expropriated as a class. Workers’ states exist to prevent Capitalists restoring their total economic power. In Bureaucratised workers’ states whichever wing of Stalinism is in power the Workers’ states they defend is tied to how it affects their privileges. Unfortunately except for the early Soviet Union; Cuba (even there a workers’ state with bureaucratic deformations); and Nicaragua from 1979 to 1990 the workers’ states have been ruled by hardened bureaucratic castes. In this sense the exception to healthy workers’ states has dominated rather than classical norms of workers’ democracy. The upturn in world revolution can lead to more classical norms of embryonic workers democracy in mass struggles against Capitalism and Stalinism.


Sam Draconian does not understand Capitalist restoration requires the destruction of predominated nationalised industries/sectors of China’s economy. Draconian should read Trotsky’s writings on Soviet degenerated workers’ state such as “Class nature of Soviet State”, published in 1933; Trotsky’s “In defence of Marxism” and Joseph Hansen’s “Class nature of Eastern European states”, written in 1948/49 for a debate within the American Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) and 4th International (FI). Both Trotsky and Hansen distinguish between classical norms of healthy workers’ states and reality of exceptions of brutal Stalinist political rule resulting from Imperialist pressures on isolated backward workers’ states.


Trotskyists defend in China; Eastern Europe; and ex-Soviet states is those industries which are nationalised against Capitalist restoration. David Yourman fails to understand the complexities of transitional societies in deep crisis such as ex-Soviet states and Eastern Europe. In my opinion the Bureaucracies still rule these countries. It is true in large parts of Eastern Europe the Capitalists have made major inroads but have not totally overthrown the Bureaucracies stranglehold of certain industries/sectors of these economies. Until the Capitalists have overthrown the Bureaucratic state apparatus and defeated workers resistance Capitalist states will not emerge.


In Russia there are still considerable gains to be defended with this workers’ state with Capitalist elements being weakened. Despite falls in certain industries there is no mass unemployment which you would find under Capitalism due to being ruled by profit motives. Marx called the organisation of Capitalism for profit the Law of Value. Just two or three nights ago I watched on Russia Today that despite falls in domestic car production (which will now be reversed with new technology) they are still maintaining a million workers in employment within this industry. There are forecasts that in the 2nd part of this year Russia’s economy will grow 7%+.


Draconian by not seeing the Stalinist character of Russia and China leads him to falsely characterise them as semi-Fascist. Trotsky when he wrote “In defence of Marxism” argued correctly that Fascism and Stalinism rests on different economic systems. Fascism is a product of extreme Capitalist crisis within Imperialist countries which is forced to carry out expansionist military adventures in order to re-organise world markets. Stalinism rests on Bureaucracies which has more power in history by Capitalism being overthrown.


If Capitalism was restored in Russia and China they would become at least semi-colonies. This is tied up to Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution. Draconian does not spell out his political conclusions of his line that Russia and China are semi-Fascist. In Russia the Bureaucracy are still defending the Soviet military victories against Nazi Germany. They are fighting the rise of Fascism in Eastern Europe and any downgrading of Holocaust genocide as unique. If this was a semi-Fascist regime it would not being doing those things.


There is the beginning of a third phrase of open cold war. The 70th anniversary of Stalin-Hitler pact is being used to launch it. This is happening due to the failure to restore Capitalism in Russia, and economic problems of Capitalism not stopping an upsurge of the left. From 1989 to 2007 the Liberal Bourgeoisie utilised Stalinism’s problems to claim Socialism was dead. There will be a tactical change of line making the Russian workers’ state centre of a witch-hunt in order to isolate forces challenging Capitalism globally and within the Imperialist countries. Due to Imperialism threatening the Russian Bureaucracy they are arming Venezuela with tanks; warplanes; guns; and missiles. Does Draconian believe Venezuela wrong to do this in how you define Russia?

Sunday 6 September 2009

A very brief statement on why I mis-understood a comment on my blog!

I did not understand to re-reading the Kennington and Chelsea
comment of it's pro-Imperialist content. If I had realised this
I would have deleted it.

A very brief reply to Steve Revins on factors leading to Blairism

Steve Revins has not written the totality of my writings on this
blog which has looked several times all the factors playing into
Blairism's hands. I agree with Revins that the break-up of
the Soviet Union and industrial defeats for workers during the
1980s also contributed to the rise of Blairism.


There are two points where I fundamentally disagree with
Revins. Revins considering the Iranian revolution of 1979
as a defeat is a ultra-left sectarian line which Gerry
Downing as correctly attacked as an ultra-left break with
Permanent Revolution. This is one of the few issues
which I agree with Downing. In the early stages of
Iran's revolution in 1978 there were workers committees
challenging Capitalism within the factories. Mandel quoting
Marx in "Power and Money" said revolutions can be followed
by counter-revolution. This is what happened when Islamic
Fundamentalists consolidated their power.


Despite the counter-revolution, Imperialism did not restore a total
client regime in Iran, they have not overthrown an autonomous
Bourgeois Nationalist regime. As Downing argued in
the Weekly Worker many months ago the struggle against
Imperialism even by Bourgeois Nationalists is one key
Bourgeois-Democratic task which are tied up with
Socialist tasks which can only be achieved by overthrowing
Capitalism. Trotskyists while keeping their political
independence from Bourgeois Nationalists in the
semi-colonies utilise conflicts with Imperialism to organise
mass protests and utilise any military struggle against Imperialism
to strengthen the workers. This limited anti-Imperialist victory
in 1979 is very important as American Imperialism is being
defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan, and constitutes a major
obstacle to Imperialism totally controlling the Middle East.


On China I draw the opposite conclusion to Revins. Despite
the crimes of Stalinism in Tinaman Square during 1989 the
example of China as a workers' state particularly its massive
socio-economic development pose an alternative to Capitalism.
This is even more so since the world Capitalist depression
is entering into. Examples of this is that China is one of the
few places where massive infrastructure projects are being
undertaken; whereas Britain is not allowing 40,000 students
to do their degrees this year, China turns out millions
of university graduates each year; and China has lifted
300 million from poverty.


Revins has a un-dialectical and does not apply the
concept of law of Uneven and Combined Development
in seeing the weakening of Stalinism since 1989 as
totally negative. It is true Imperialism made tremendous
inroads into Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states; and
this was utilised by Liberal Bourgeois ideologues
to claim Socialism was dead. Now with the mistakes of
Imperialism with the Iraq war and trends towards a global
Capitalist depression Trotskyism can now become a mass force.



This would not be possible without the 1989 events.
As a tendency within the Socialist Action editorial board in
Britain argued in a document to the FI's 13th World Congress
that the crisis of the workers' states were tied up with deepening
economic problems within the world capitalist economy.
Trotskyism largely blew its opportunity from 1989 to 2007 because
elements went from adaptation to Stalinism towards another extreme
of Third Campism.

A very

Thursday 3 September 2009

NHS crisis and political recomposition within Social Democratic and Bourgeois politics

WHY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAS OFFICIALLY REJECTED MANAGMENT CONSULTANTS TO AXE 136,000 NHS JOBS! AND IT’S RELATIONSHIP TO RECOMPOSITION WITHIN SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC AND BOURGEOIS POLITICS.


The British ruling class has skilfully minimised the possibility of major reforms benefiting workers through New Labour being in alliance with right wing Social Democrats, with certain amount of Trade Union Bureaucratic acceptance blocking classical Social Democratic measures. This is in a context of mass radicalisation represented by Labour’s landslide during 1997.

Bourgeois strategists reacted to this limited radicalisation by slowing down the Bourgeoisification of Labour and conceding very limited reforms to the workers and middle class. Their main strategy was/is to wait for despair to set in so parties to the right of Labour could gain support and could attack the working class more effectively without constraints of a party (Labour) based on a massive Social Democratic base.

The growth of despair was/is not inevitable. It was/is a product of Blairism’s attack on workers; Social Democratic/Trade Union Bureaucratic inability to wage an effective struggle against these policies; and most revolutionaries playing into Blairism’s and Social Democracy’s hands by not building a serious left wing inside the Labour Party to challenge Blairism. In May 1997 the Times paper argued that Labour’s landslide may lead to major reforms for workers and the middle class. Due to a number of historical factors the ruling class managed to successfully to concede very little.

This short to medium-term gain for ruling class elements may dialectically turn into its opposite with increased anger if there are further massive attacks on workers and the middle class. The danger for ruling class elements is if anger exploded in a pre-revolutionary crisis could Old Labour-type Social Democrats contain it? Trotskyists cannot rely on Social Democrats to fight Blairism and Brownism. They either do it to protect their privileges or to contain a growing radicalisation. We as a Trotskyist movement argue to build a left wing within Labour is because if there is a strong left millions of workers and middle class elements will have perspective of fighting for a better society and revolutionaries can influence those millions radicalising. There will be an inevitable split between Trotskyists and Social Democratic Bureaucrats. Out of this crisis Trotskyists hope to construct a new mass revolutionary party.

Blairism could have been seriously weakened if revolutionaries had organised a serious left wing within the Labour Party. It is almost certain that Blair would have been forced out quicker if Trotskyists had delivered leadership and direction of anti-Iraq war movement into the Labour Party. The reason New Labour is not implementing that 10% axe of NHS staff before next year’s general election is that it would caused such an internal Labour Party rupture they could have been kicked out of the leadership by left Wing Social Democrats or a massive split with a large left wing Social Democratic party which could have won a landslide. We are moving into the phrase of the epoch what Trotsky characterised as rapid changes.

There are two main dangers at the next general election of a Tory or coalition government. Liberal Bourgeois elements do not want a big Tory majority because Conservative Bourgeois layers and Aristocrats will attempt to sabotage their EU project. Within the Tory party there are some extreme right wingers such as the Cornerstone group who have publically declared in their 2005 manifesto of using increased xenophobia to destroy Bourgeois Liberalism. If these right wing forces are unleashed in a deep Capitalist crisis it could cause massive explosions. This is why the ruling class are trying to win the ideological arguments for massive cutbacks. After the next election a deepening radicalisation will reflect itself within the Labour Party.