Ed Milliband's election as leader of Labour represents a massive radicalisation of the working class and a whole layer of middle class youth! It is only by understanding the Dialectical Materialist method of seeing contradictions which in this case saw Milliband went from being part of the Bourgeois New Labour faction to turning into his opposite of becoming a Social Democratic Populist demagogue! His election means the end of the New Labour project. This is why the ruling class are hysterical.
Milliband for opportunist reasons which he has utilised to defeat his brother knows there is a profound radicalisation of the working class and layers of the middle class. The middle class youth are the forefront of this process. Since the general election there has been a move away from ultra-leftism towards a serious orienatation to the Labour Party from Counterfire and Workers Power. In order to understand why the radicalisation is deepening now you have to trace it back to where it originated with the massive landslide for Labour in 1997. It is very important for Trotskyists to understand how these processes go back and then to see their complex evolution in order to comprehend what is unfolding now! The rise of Blarism was by-product of a number of historical factors such as the Capitalist crisis which necessiated a turn to neo-Liberalism; utilising the Liberal Bourgeois ideological offensive against Socialism by claiming the crisis of Eastern European and Russian Stalinism meant the end of Socialism; and the defeats of a number of key 1980s strikes within Britain. There has been resistance within Western Europe to neo-Liberalism after 1989 reprsente by the election of Social Democratic governments! Important strikes and mass mobilisations against this Bourgeois offensives have also occured in these countries. The most exploited and oppressed have also rebelled in such upheavals as Autumn 2005 riots in France.
Landslides for Social Democratic parties such as for example the Britsh Labour Party represented the beginning of a fightback against neo-Liberalism by the working class and layers of the middle class. Mandel argued that one of the factors which led to the mass radicalisation of middle class students during the late 1960 was that a lot of the middle classes within public services were becoming Proleterianised! This is why layers of the middle class threatened with public sector cuts can be easily won over to the workers. One of the factors which could have influnced Miliband's break from New Labour towards Social Democracy could be a reflection of the mass psychology of this middle class layer looking to the working class to fight for an alternative society. It is basic Marxism that you have a mass following among the social layer you represent! Milliband also knows how to speak to the working class even if it is demagogic. His acceptance speech showed this when he spoke of how Labour did not champion the poverty wages of long hours and low wages; and the need to challenge xenophobia effectively by a campign for social housing and fight for an increase in available jobs! He could potentially and Trotskyists should demand that he and Labour lead mass protests against possible evictions of 82,000 Londoners in potential high rent arrears which will not be covered due to housing benefit cuts.
There is a cross-fertilisation of an inter-linked working and middle class radicalisation which is being fused together by the massive coalition government's cuts! Trotsky always stressed how important radicalisations of middle class layers are and how it can influence the working class. The British Ruling Class have traditionally adapted to previous radicalisations and survived by dividing and ruling. British Capitalism's crisis is so great that it has to attempt to attack all gains by workers, and most of the middle class. They could be making a major strategic error of attacking all the workers and most of the middle class due to deluding themselves it can be accomplished due to to sucesses of Thatcherism and Blairism. I wrote as early as May 2007 that the ruling class's over-confidence could dialectically turn its oppostite if they carried on with their neo-Liberal attacks creating mass radicalisations which could potentially dangerously for for the ruling class explode into tendencies towards pre-revolutionary crisis. The Trade Union Bureaucrats went in behind Milliband in order to contain the mass workers radicalisation beginning among their rank-and-file. During his four month election campaign he went around the country organising for his Populist Social Democratic programme. I know he addressed mass youth meetings. Amongst Trade Unionists I do not know how many meetings he addressed as I have not followed his campaign. Sections of the Liberal Bourgeoise represented by the Guardian were worried about their universial attacks on workers and middle class layers by the coalition government could unleash all kind of radical forces which Miliband's election is a distorted reflection of. They are also worried about the Lib Dems destroying themselves among the middle class and confused workers who wrongly voted for a Bourgeois party!.
The ruling class has had a shock with Miliband's election as leader. They are going to have to decide what they do next. In the last few hours there are three initial reactions by differnt ruling class factions. Poly Toynbee representing the devious Liberal Bourgeos wing of muddying the waters and poison the wells by saying there was no major difference in social base between the Miliband brothers. Cameron has congratulated his election as leader. This could represent two different tactics. New Labour has been decomposing for three years, but the Bourgeoisie could put pressure on them to keep aspects of New Labour policies and personnel in the shadow cabinet. If there arises dangers of a pre-revolutioanry development the ruling class may dump the coalition government and let Miliband run a Social Democratic government to salvage Capitalism from a Socialist revolution.
The main response of the ruling class even by some Liberal Bourgeois elements is for the Bourgeois wing to declare war on Miliband and orgasnise an SDP-type split. Micheal Crick's intervention on News 24 tonight reflected this development. In this context it seems the majority of ruling class elements are going to launch a witchunt against the unions influence within the Labour Party. This seems to be counter-productive in deepening the dual working class/layers of a middle class radicalistion and destroying what remains of New Labour faster. Due to the ruling class's strategic and tactical errors the more devious elements such as the Toynbees will be marganlised in trying to salvage even a small element of New Labour. The main danger which Trotskyists have to fight against is a Labour and Lib Dem coalition government which would attempt to isolate the radicalising forces within the organised working class. Miliband has indicated in the last few weeks he might join a coaltion government with the Lib Dems. Trotskyists should utilise any move by Miliband towards a coaltion government with the Lib Dems to win his base over as the forces that led to his rise among the working and some middle class elements who could likely oppose any move in that direction. If there is another general election the Lib Dems will probally be electorally wiped out which will make it considerably more difficult for the Trade Union Bureaucrats and Stalinists to justify such a coalition government.
The main thrust of this article has been to argue why it is important for Trotskyists to understand what the election of Miliband represents. In this framework it is important Trotskyists challenge the Miliband leadership to deepen the radicalisation towards Trotskyism by breaking millions of workers from Social Democracy but until this happens having a united front approach with this leadership against the Capitalist witchunters and their New Labour agents. There are enormous opportunities for Trotskyists as this dual radicalisation but if we do not fill the vacumn there are dangers in two or three years of renewed reaction and even possible attempted counter-revolution especially if a revolutionary situation is betrayed. If we do not change the balance of forces against Miliband the hopes of the middle classs could turn into its dialectical opposite of despair which could then influence the Lumpenproletariat to carrying out Capital's agenda. This is where the danger of Fascism arises. As Trotsky said Fascism only becomes a mass movement after the Labour Bureaucrats (Trade Union; Social Democratic; and Stalinist) smash an attempted Socialist revolution.
In the beginning of this document I noted the positive move towards the mass movement of Counterfire and Workers Power particulary towards the Coalition of Resistance and the Labour Party. Trotskyists can work in a united front in the Coalition of Resistance and possibly building a left wing within the Labour Party but they have to be defeated on major programmatic mistakes. The Reesites have followed others from the IS/SWP tradition of breaking from sectariansim towards the mass movement but move in a movementist and opportunist direction. They lost the SWP leadership becaue of their Popular Frontism with Islamic Bourgeois forces. Martin Smith's leadership is a sign of a serious internal crisis within the SWP that somebody like that comes to the top. Smith has went from an opportunist line on Respect to the opposite side of the coin:- adventurist tendencies. Workers Power may have been interviewed on Russia Today because of their possible turn towards the mass movement. On the workers' states Workers Power have moved rightwards. They had an extreme Stalinphobic approach to the 2008 Chinese olympic games comparing it to the Berlin 1936 games! During the Russian-Georgian war they were to the right of Alex Callinicos who saw Russia's victory as a major blow to Imperialism.
Saturday 25 September 2010
Friday 25 June 2010
What the Chinese strikes signify about its class character and Political Revolution?
The deepening of workers struggles against Foreign Capital in China; domestic Capitalists; and Stalinist Bureaucrats confirm is a degenerate workers' state and requires a Political Revolution which will have social consequences. If Capitalism had been restored in China the workers social weight would have rapidly declined with tens of millions being driven into lumpen conditions as it would have destroyed the productive forces which predominance of central planning has brought about.
Capitalist restoration would require a historic defeat for Chinese workers because to close down the majority of Chinese industries is necessary to run them on a profitable basis. When sections of the Bureuacracy made concessions to foreign capital during the mid-to-late 1980s millions of workers were laid off. This is why millions supported the 1989 student struggle for democratic rights at Tiananmen Square. Once the Bureaucracy had crushed the students and workers they slowed down redundancies in nationalised industries and moved more resources away from Capitalist firms. This was done to reduce revolutionary threats to their rule and reinforce those Bureaucrats who wanted more resources to nationalised industries/sectors. During 1994 sections of the Bureaucracy pulled back when workers stopped simlar redundancies attempted by state banks cutting back funds to nationalised industries. Imperialism for years has called for Chinese state owned banks to pull the plug on what they saw as unprofiitable industries.
The massive expansion of China's economy has created hundreds of millions of workers which will ultinately threaten Stalinism's contiuned rule by their revolutionary moves in direction of Political Revolution. Due to the Chinese workers' state going forward workers are feeling confident to challenge foreign capital. Workers want the same wages and conditions that exist in nationalised industries. Trotskyists support workers struggles against foreign capital. We raise our Transitional demands for these foreign owned enterprises to be nationalised under workers control.
Despite promising possibilities of Political Revolution beginning to break out in struggles against Stalinism within Eastern Europe during 1989 the concillationist Bureaucratic elements to Imperialism who utilised those upheavals to gain power demoralised the masses by increasing their pillage over them and began to allow Capitalist inroads. In East Germany the beginning of a move into the direction of Political Revolution was turned into a social counter-revolution destroying that workers' state through German reunification in 1990. According to Mandel there was more unemployment in ex-East Germany due to Capitalist restoration than there was in the early 1930s within Germany.
As Mandel argued that the key gains for workers in Eastern Europe was winning democratic rights which are essential to resis Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads. Trotsky has been vindicated when he wrote "The Revolution Betrayed" and "In Defence of Marxism" that the Stalinist Bureaucracies would during their implosion and decay lead to absolute chaos in Russia. This is what is still happening in Eastern Europe. Bureaucratic pillage and chaos is one thing, Capitalist restoration is a separate process. It is true there have been massive Capitalist inroads into Eastern Europe. That only exists due to being accepted by certain Stalinist Bureaucrats. Capitalist inroads have made Eastern Europe's crisis worse. Under the law of Uneven and Combined Developmen there can be elements of previous modes of production subordinate to Bureaucratic pillage. Only the Political Revolution can halt the decay of Eastern Europe. Russia has been slightly different from Eastern Europe during 2000 to 2008 because with moves back to investing more into nationalised industries/public services that economy started to recover. Even in Russia the Bureaucracy is torn apart by several warring factions who lead to chaos.
Trotskyists call for the Chinese factory committees to be extended across all industries and services. This begins a process of Political Revolution with social consequences because it deepens the struggles against foreign capital; domestic Capitalists; and Stalinist Bureaucrats. To deepen the struggle against Stalinism Trotskyists call for the factory committees to run the nationalised workplaces by kicking out the Bureaucrats. The next stage oof struggle is to fight for the workers and users of public services to set up committees to wage a struggle on every aspect of social life. These struggles by Chinese workers are part of a rise in world revolution.
June 9th 2010.
Capitalist restoration would require a historic defeat for Chinese workers because to close down the majority of Chinese industries is necessary to run them on a profitable basis. When sections of the Bureuacracy made concessions to foreign capital during the mid-to-late 1980s millions of workers were laid off. This is why millions supported the 1989 student struggle for democratic rights at Tiananmen Square. Once the Bureaucracy had crushed the students and workers they slowed down redundancies in nationalised industries and moved more resources away from Capitalist firms. This was done to reduce revolutionary threats to their rule and reinforce those Bureaucrats who wanted more resources to nationalised industries/sectors. During 1994 sections of the Bureaucracy pulled back when workers stopped simlar redundancies attempted by state banks cutting back funds to nationalised industries. Imperialism for years has called for Chinese state owned banks to pull the plug on what they saw as unprofiitable industries.
The massive expansion of China's economy has created hundreds of millions of workers which will ultinately threaten Stalinism's contiuned rule by their revolutionary moves in direction of Political Revolution. Due to the Chinese workers' state going forward workers are feeling confident to challenge foreign capital. Workers want the same wages and conditions that exist in nationalised industries. Trotskyists support workers struggles against foreign capital. We raise our Transitional demands for these foreign owned enterprises to be nationalised under workers control.
Despite promising possibilities of Political Revolution beginning to break out in struggles against Stalinism within Eastern Europe during 1989 the concillationist Bureaucratic elements to Imperialism who utilised those upheavals to gain power demoralised the masses by increasing their pillage over them and began to allow Capitalist inroads. In East Germany the beginning of a move into the direction of Political Revolution was turned into a social counter-revolution destroying that workers' state through German reunification in 1990. According to Mandel there was more unemployment in ex-East Germany due to Capitalist restoration than there was in the early 1930s within Germany.
As Mandel argued that the key gains for workers in Eastern Europe was winning democratic rights which are essential to resis Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads. Trotsky has been vindicated when he wrote "The Revolution Betrayed" and "In Defence of Marxism" that the Stalinist Bureaucracies would during their implosion and decay lead to absolute chaos in Russia. This is what is still happening in Eastern Europe. Bureaucratic pillage and chaos is one thing, Capitalist restoration is a separate process. It is true there have been massive Capitalist inroads into Eastern Europe. That only exists due to being accepted by certain Stalinist Bureaucrats. Capitalist inroads have made Eastern Europe's crisis worse. Under the law of Uneven and Combined Developmen there can be elements of previous modes of production subordinate to Bureaucratic pillage. Only the Political Revolution can halt the decay of Eastern Europe. Russia has been slightly different from Eastern Europe during 2000 to 2008 because with moves back to investing more into nationalised industries/public services that economy started to recover. Even in Russia the Bureaucracy is torn apart by several warring factions who lead to chaos.
Trotskyists call for the Chinese factory committees to be extended across all industries and services. This begins a process of Political Revolution with social consequences because it deepens the struggles against foreign capital; domestic Capitalists; and Stalinist Bureaucrats. To deepen the struggle against Stalinism Trotskyists call for the factory committees to run the nationalised workplaces by kicking out the Bureaucrats. The next stage oof struggle is to fight for the workers and users of public services to set up committees to wage a struggle on every aspect of social life. These struggles by Chinese workers are part of a rise in world revolution.
June 9th 2010.
Wednesday 2 June 2010
What Yeltsin represented and why did the Russian Bureaucracy remove him?
Campists who mostly turned into their opposite as Third Campists only predomiantly saw the Soviet Union as the only force preventing Imperialism from dominating the world. It is true the Soviet workers' state and Russsian workers' state since 1991 under Stalinism have assisted struggles by semi-Colonies and other workers' staes against Imperialism. One major mistake of the Campists is that they under-estimate struggles waged by semi-Colonial masses fighting against Imperialist exploitation or other workers' states against Imperialist attempts to restore Capitalism are autonmous struggles which are not totally determined by direct intervention by the Russian workers' state (positive or negative depending on Russian Bureaucracy's interests). Secondly the Campists play down the counter-revolutionary character of the Stalinist Bureaucraic Castes, and logically reject possibilities of fighting for Political Revoluion. Troskyists have no schema of world revolution has to come in any order within the Imperialist countries; semi-Colonies; and degenerated workers' states. We look to every possibiliy to deepen any revoluionary process in these three sectors of world revolution. Now the long detour of worlc revolution is coming to an end with world Capitalism combined with Stalinism being weakened will deepen radicalisations and revolutionary upheavels in all these three sectors of world revolution.
Once the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 Third Campism became the main problem for the left than Campism. Due to certain fears sections of the Russian Bureaucrats of mobilising millions (fearing they be overthrown at the same time by Political Revoluion) who opposed cubacks to their privileges, made worse by Capitalist inroads manourved by having a war of atrrition with the Yeltsinites for years. Yeltsin was a Stalinist in transiton. He reflected pressures to restore Capitalism but it would be wrong to call him an outright Capitalist restorationist because those Bureaucrats opposed to this course utilised their remaining power to threatern a coup or civil war if he went too far. There were Prime Ministers such as Yeger Gaidar (15th June 1992-14th December 1992) and Sergei Kinyenko (23rd March 1998-23rd August 1998) who were cerainly Capitalist restorationist lasted only five and six months each because they were removed for faster Privitisations which threatened certain Bureaucrats privileges. Those Bureaucrats opposed to Capitalist restoration did not remove Gaidar when he lifed state controls on prices which quickly led to hyper-inflation during 1992 but when he directly tried to remove certain Bureaucratic elements which was the only profitable way the predomiance of the Law of Value could be re-established.
Yeltsin sacked Viktor Chernmodrin on March 23rd 1998 after being Prime Minister for five years which reflected pressures to go further towards restoring Capitalism. Before he became Prime Minister Chernmodrin was chair of Gasprom (state owned oil and gas organisation) which is why those Bureaucrats opposed to Capitalist restoration kept him in that posiion in order to put more state investments in thir industries/organisations. Yeltsin was feeling the pressure of Capitalist elements who were attempting to gain the maxinum concessions knowing support was necessary by them to stay as President with opponent Bureaucrats trying to remove him. The Yeltsinites achieved a Pyrrhic Victory by sucessfully forcing Kinyenko's appoinment as Prime Minister through the duma (lower house of the Russian parliament) with those Bureaucrats opposed to this may have engineered a financial crisis which forced Yeltsin to suspend payment of IMF loan debts. This financial crisis forced intermediate Bureaucratic layers to break from the IMF influence and for more state resources to keep their privilges within the Stalinist caste. Once major Bureaucrats become pauperised because of that financial crisis they turned quickly against Imperialist agencies such as the IMF and backed those Stalinists who wanted more state-centred investments and resources. It was only to enrich themselves through pillage that certain Bureuacrats accepted IMF loans. Imperialism knew this but tolerated it because they utilised every opportunity to advance Capialist restoration in Russia. This is why after Yeltsin had to surrendor power to Bureaucrats who wanted to mainain the workers' state did Imperialism menion Yeltsin's corruption in October 1999. After Kiryenko was dismissed as Prime Minister Chermondrin and then Primikaov replaced him.
After the three day bombing of Iraq in 1998 and especially after NATO bombed Serbia during 1999 the Russian Bureaucracy started organsing more against Imperialism. Those Russian Bureaucrats who felt threatend by Imperialism's growing aggression forced Yeltsin to make an alliance with the Chinese workers' state in October-November 1999; smashed the Dagstanti separtists who attacked Russia; and re-established Russian rule over Chechnya. Primakov was forced on Yeltsin due to rise of one Stalinist faction wanting more socio-ecoomic resources for them in the workers' state, which is the materal base for their privilges. Primakov was fired on 12th May 2010 and replaced by Sergei Stepashin. He was fired due to allowing CP ministers draw up impeachment charges against President Yeltsin. It is said after the Russian Army seized Pristina Airport in June 1999 Yeltsin was not in office but had lost real power. The Russian Bureaucracy made that move at that airport because they were promised by Imperialist representives during secret negotitations at Dachas just outside Moscow they would have a say in Kosovo's future. Imperialism double crossed them by attempted exclusion. This process of Yeltsin losing power may have began with the August 1998 financial crisis. Putin replaced Stepashin on August 12th 1999 as Prime Minister becuase the Russian Bureaucracy felt that Stepashin was not fighting the Dagastani separtists sufficently. Putin moved to crush the Dagastani seperatists and re-establish Russian Bureaucratic control of Chechnya. The miltiary-industrial complex carried out a coup by forcing Yeltsin out as President on the last day of the second Millennium. It was timed to catch Imperialism by surprise. In the last few months it has been revealed that Yeltsin was under house arrest only allowed to leave there with the Kremlin's permission after he left as President on December 31st 1999 to he died during 2007. This is proof of the political coup with Putin becoming acting President after Yeltsin relinquished office.
There is undoubtedly national oppression by Russian Stalinism against the Chechnyan masses which Trotskyists oppose as part of our programme and strategy of Political Revolution. At the same time you cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater with defence of Russia as a workers' state. When the extreme Bureaucratic pillagers of Chcchyna's Bureaucracy and Islamic Fundamentalists deepened that society's crisis with increased ruins on all levels. From 1996 to the second Chechyan war which broke out in 1999 most of the finances allocated for schools; hospitals; and pensions came from Russia. This saved the Chechnyan Bureaucratic pillagers considerable sums of money. Since Russia has re-estabilshed their rule the physical ruins of buildings have been demolished with modern construction buildings and revival of their ecnonomy. This socio-economic development despite Stalinism strenghen forces which will eventually lead to their overthrow by Trotskyists leading a Political Revolution. Yeltsin lost the first Chechnyan war because of the Bureaucratic pillage which caused considerable poverty and unemployment. Even though he pledged to stop the dismemberment of Russia with launching that war during 1994 within Chechnya they did not trust him not to utilise it to undercut some of the Bureaucrats privliges by central government cutting spending and possibly deepening Capialist inroads. The Russian Bureaucrats partly launched the 1994 war in Chechyna because they were terrified of Tatarstan suceeding from Russia.
Putin moved quickly internationally to re-launch Russia as a major power by linking up with North Korea; India; and Latin America. Within monhs of gaining office he was driving powerful individial Capitalists out of Russia. Those sections of the Russian Bureauracy anxious about Imperialist encirclment felt betrayed by Putin allowing NATO especially American Imperialist bases in Central Asia after September 11th Individual Terrorist attacks on America. If it was not for the rapid decline of American Imperialism accelerated by their mistaken war on Iraq since 2003 the Russian Bureuacracy may have kicked him out as President due to him being unreliable in defending their interests. Russia's miltiary defeat of concillatonist elements within Georgia's Bureaucracy to Imperialism strenghened the confidence that Imperialism can be beat. This inspired some of the super-exploited by Imperialism to look for Rusia to back them up
The Russian Bureaucracy expropriated a Capitalist (Mikhail Khordorkavsky) who was the richest Russian and 16th most richest globally because he tried to own Sibneft, which had big reserves of oil, with Khordorkavsky offering massive stakes for Imperialist firms ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco. He was also trying to overthrow the Bureuacracy through organsing Bourgeois parties. Under Putin there were some social reforms such as more money going on nationalised services and public services (health; educaion; and welfare). At the same time he tried to reduce social security by monetising all social securiy subsudies which led to huge workers protests between 2005 and 2006. This rise in Bureaucratic pillage with economic growth falling has weakend Medvedov with the workers beginning to srike and elect Stalinist (CPRF) in local; regional; and national elections. There is a rise in world revolutions with upheavals in Thailand and Kyrgystan could deepen forces fighing for Political Revoluion in Russia.
Once the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 Third Campism became the main problem for the left than Campism. Due to certain fears sections of the Russian Bureaucrats of mobilising millions (fearing they be overthrown at the same time by Political Revoluion) who opposed cubacks to their privileges, made worse by Capitalist inroads manourved by having a war of atrrition with the Yeltsinites for years. Yeltsin was a Stalinist in transiton. He reflected pressures to restore Capitalism but it would be wrong to call him an outright Capitalist restorationist because those Bureaucrats opposed to this course utilised their remaining power to threatern a coup or civil war if he went too far. There were Prime Ministers such as Yeger Gaidar (15th June 1992-14th December 1992) and Sergei Kinyenko (23rd March 1998-23rd August 1998) who were cerainly Capitalist restorationist lasted only five and six months each because they were removed for faster Privitisations which threatened certain Bureaucrats privileges. Those Bureaucrats opposed to Capitalist restoration did not remove Gaidar when he lifed state controls on prices which quickly led to hyper-inflation during 1992 but when he directly tried to remove certain Bureaucratic elements which was the only profitable way the predomiance of the Law of Value could be re-established.
Yeltsin sacked Viktor Chernmodrin on March 23rd 1998 after being Prime Minister for five years which reflected pressures to go further towards restoring Capitalism. Before he became Prime Minister Chernmodrin was chair of Gasprom (state owned oil and gas organisation) which is why those Bureaucrats opposed to Capitalist restoration kept him in that posiion in order to put more state investments in thir industries/organisations. Yeltsin was feeling the pressure of Capitalist elements who were attempting to gain the maxinum concessions knowing support was necessary by them to stay as President with opponent Bureaucrats trying to remove him. The Yeltsinites achieved a Pyrrhic Victory by sucessfully forcing Kinyenko's appoinment as Prime Minister through the duma (lower house of the Russian parliament) with those Bureaucrats opposed to this may have engineered a financial crisis which forced Yeltsin to suspend payment of IMF loan debts. This financial crisis forced intermediate Bureaucratic layers to break from the IMF influence and for more state resources to keep their privilges within the Stalinist caste. Once major Bureaucrats become pauperised because of that financial crisis they turned quickly against Imperialist agencies such as the IMF and backed those Stalinists who wanted more state-centred investments and resources. It was only to enrich themselves through pillage that certain Bureuacrats accepted IMF loans. Imperialism knew this but tolerated it because they utilised every opportunity to advance Capialist restoration in Russia. This is why after Yeltsin had to surrendor power to Bureaucrats who wanted to mainain the workers' state did Imperialism menion Yeltsin's corruption in October 1999. After Kiryenko was dismissed as Prime Minister Chermondrin and then Primikaov replaced him.
After the three day bombing of Iraq in 1998 and especially after NATO bombed Serbia during 1999 the Russian Bureaucracy started organsing more against Imperialism. Those Russian Bureaucrats who felt threatend by Imperialism's growing aggression forced Yeltsin to make an alliance with the Chinese workers' state in October-November 1999; smashed the Dagstanti separtists who attacked Russia; and re-established Russian rule over Chechnya. Primakov was forced on Yeltsin due to rise of one Stalinist faction wanting more socio-ecoomic resources for them in the workers' state, which is the materal base for their privilges. Primakov was fired on 12th May 2010 and replaced by Sergei Stepashin. He was fired due to allowing CP ministers draw up impeachment charges against President Yeltsin. It is said after the Russian Army seized Pristina Airport in June 1999 Yeltsin was not in office but had lost real power. The Russian Bureaucracy made that move at that airport because they were promised by Imperialist representives during secret negotitations at Dachas just outside Moscow they would have a say in Kosovo's future. Imperialism double crossed them by attempted exclusion. This process of Yeltsin losing power may have began with the August 1998 financial crisis. Putin replaced Stepashin on August 12th 1999 as Prime Minister becuase the Russian Bureaucracy felt that Stepashin was not fighting the Dagastani separtists sufficently. Putin moved to crush the Dagastani seperatists and re-establish Russian Bureaucratic control of Chechnya. The miltiary-industrial complex carried out a coup by forcing Yeltsin out as President on the last day of the second Millennium. It was timed to catch Imperialism by surprise. In the last few months it has been revealed that Yeltsin was under house arrest only allowed to leave there with the Kremlin's permission after he left as President on December 31st 1999 to he died during 2007. This is proof of the political coup with Putin becoming acting President after Yeltsin relinquished office.
There is undoubtedly national oppression by Russian Stalinism against the Chechnyan masses which Trotskyists oppose as part of our programme and strategy of Political Revolution. At the same time you cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater with defence of Russia as a workers' state. When the extreme Bureaucratic pillagers of Chcchyna's Bureaucracy and Islamic Fundamentalists deepened that society's crisis with increased ruins on all levels. From 1996 to the second Chechyan war which broke out in 1999 most of the finances allocated for schools; hospitals; and pensions came from Russia. This saved the Chechnyan Bureaucratic pillagers considerable sums of money. Since Russia has re-estabilshed their rule the physical ruins of buildings have been demolished with modern construction buildings and revival of their ecnonomy. This socio-economic development despite Stalinism strenghen forces which will eventually lead to their overthrow by Trotskyists leading a Political Revolution. Yeltsin lost the first Chechnyan war because of the Bureaucratic pillage which caused considerable poverty and unemployment. Even though he pledged to stop the dismemberment of Russia with launching that war during 1994 within Chechnya they did not trust him not to utilise it to undercut some of the Bureaucrats privliges by central government cutting spending and possibly deepening Capialist inroads. The Russian Bureaucrats partly launched the 1994 war in Chechyna because they were terrified of Tatarstan suceeding from Russia.
Putin moved quickly internationally to re-launch Russia as a major power by linking up with North Korea; India; and Latin America. Within monhs of gaining office he was driving powerful individial Capitalists out of Russia. Those sections of the Russian Bureauracy anxious about Imperialist encirclment felt betrayed by Putin allowing NATO especially American Imperialist bases in Central Asia after September 11th Individual Terrorist attacks on America. If it was not for the rapid decline of American Imperialism accelerated by their mistaken war on Iraq since 2003 the Russian Bureuacracy may have kicked him out as President due to him being unreliable in defending their interests. Russia's miltiary defeat of concillatonist elements within Georgia's Bureaucracy to Imperialism strenghened the confidence that Imperialism can be beat. This inspired some of the super-exploited by Imperialism to look for Rusia to back them up
The Russian Bureaucracy expropriated a Capitalist (Mikhail Khordorkavsky) who was the richest Russian and 16th most richest globally because he tried to own Sibneft, which had big reserves of oil, with Khordorkavsky offering massive stakes for Imperialist firms ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco. He was also trying to overthrow the Bureuacracy through organsing Bourgeois parties. Under Putin there were some social reforms such as more money going on nationalised services and public services (health; educaion; and welfare). At the same time he tried to reduce social security by monetising all social securiy subsudies which led to huge workers protests between 2005 and 2006. This rise in Bureaucratic pillage with economic growth falling has weakend Medvedov with the workers beginning to srike and elect Stalinist (CPRF) in local; regional; and national elections. There is a rise in world revolutions with upheavals in Thailand and Kyrgystan could deepen forces fighing for Political Revoluion in Russia.
Monday 26 April 2010
Some initial thoughs on what developments so far in the British General Election reflect?
This general election represents a combination of long term historical decline of British Capitalism; a Ruling Class divided; New Labour trying to salvage its influence in the Labour Party; rise of Social Democracy; and sizeable middle class layers rejecting the Tory Party. The ruling class divisions goes back for nearly two centuries. Differences over whether to go with the EU-Imperialist led bloc or American Imperialism is essentially the continuation of a dispute known as Free Trade versus Protectionism. The key difference is that since the 19th Century to the early decades of 20th Century British Capialism was a very dominant power. Today British Capitalism is massively in decline with Blair and Brown being linked to Neo-Con policies which is leading to US Imperialism losing a war in Iraq and British Imperialism losing a US-led Imperialist war within Afghanistan. Now on top of this British Capitalism is facing one one of its worse economic crisis in its history as world Capialism in its decay is entering its worse crisis. Will Hutton made an interesing historical observation in the Observer when the Northrn Rock crisis broke out in the Autumn of 1997 that there was no run on a British bank since the 19th Century. Hutton pointed out that Churchill remarked during the 1930s Depression that if there had been a run on a British bank it would have finished the British Empire.
These differnces over strategy and tactics within the ruling class is imporant to understand class and inter-class relations as they change rapidly change dialectically. Lenin and Trotsky argued divisions within a ruling class is one necessary condition for revoluion. Cameron has tried to win the Liberal Bourgeoisie over by saying that despite being a problem over Euroskepticism the Tories will attack the workers more effecively. When there are divisions within the ruling class they undercut each other and through manouvering with other classes attempt to shape events for their interests. Most Liberal Bourgeois elements do not want the Tories in office with the Euro in crisis which could further weaken and destroy that currency and the EU. The Lib Dems have been used to stop a Tory majority and also implement cutbacks by forming a coalition government wih a Bourgeois faction (New Labour) and right wing Social Democrats wihin a Social Democratic Labour Party. Another consideration is by the Lib Dems adapting to middle class anger is stop them temporially looking to working class leadership through the Trade Unions and potential left Social Democraic tendencies within the Labour Party. Capitalism is being shown to be bankrupt daily. British Imperialism's foreign policy strategies cannot work because the Euro will collapse at some point and Imperialist nation states will become more powerful as inter-Imperialist tensions deepen. Marx is still correct the two fundamental contradictions of Capialism is that they create world markets but are dominated by Imperialist nation states and that conflict between Capital and Labour cannot be reconciled.
The Liberal Bourgeoisie represented by Indusrial Capialists were in a growing conflict with Conservative Bourgeois Merchants and Arisocrats which led to revoluionary upheavals in 1832. This forced the middle class having a right to vote. Once the Tories introduced Corn Law leglislation Liberal Bourgeois elements removed them in government by a combinaion of splitting their party and forming coalitions with the Whigs (becoming Liberal Party during late 1850s). It was only after 30 years when they agreed under Disralei not to make Protectionism a major issue did the ruling class allow the Tories to form governments again. Another consideration which the ruling class may have used the Tories as a barganiship against the rise of German and American Imperialism which were competing for British markets and who were putting up protective tariffs. It is interesing to note it was the Primrose League led by Disraeli and Randoloph Churchill which was used to make sure Disreali became Tory leader. The Primrose League dissolved in 2004 when Howard was Tory leader, approxmately 12 months before Cameron became leader. This dissolving of the Primrose League after nearly one and half centuries existing is an interesting development which might mean the Tory Party could be in terminal crisis.
In 1866 Marx argued the victory of Lincoin in the American Civil War; Italian unifcation of 1861; and rise of Bourgeois Nationalism in Hungary during the 1860s helped a radicalisation among British workers. During 1866 workers demanding a right to vote when they were not allowed a rally at Hyde Park broke that park's railings. Fearing a revolution the ruling class allowed most male workers the right to vote. After certain workers run the right to vote the Liberal and Tory Parties vied to gain their vote. The Tories main base was among the Aristocracy of Labour. In order to prevent workers organising their own party the Liberal Party attemped to gain votes from poorer workers and to run Trade Union candidates who subordinated themselves to Liberal Bourgeois politics. Eventually Trade Unionists had to break from the Liberal Party and form their own party because both Tories and Liberals brought in anti-strike leglislation. This is why it is such a setback for class independence that the Bourgeois elements (New Labour faction) and right wing Social Democrats are pushing for a coalition government with an anti-working class party such as the Lib Dems who will attempt to make workers and middle class pay for Capitalist crisis. If there is a hung parliament and a coalition government is formed it could a major crisis which could lead to a mass left wing shift within the Labour Party or a massisve left split which could win a landslide under PR.
The Labour Represenation Committee was established in 1900. In 1905 the Tory government fell over differences concerning over Imperial British Empire tariffs. Campbell-Bannerman was asked to form a Liberal government. He decided to call a general election. It led to a Liberal Party landslide. Trotsky argued this was their last resurgence before the Labour Party eclisped them in the 1920s. Due to workers wanting cheap bread from imported foods the Liberal Pary argued in that election if tariffs were introduced the poorest workers would die from starvaion due to not affording bread prices. The Parliamentary Labour Pary was set up after Parliament reconvened in early 1906. They had increased their representation from 2 in 1900 General Election to 25+ during 1906 election. Reforms were introduced to stop Labour's growth; prevent a revolution; and outmanouvre the Tory Party. In the 1910 election there was a hung parlinament. The Liberals only stayed in power in alliance with Labour and Irish Bourgeois Nationalists. If Lloyd Geroge had not call for a slight tax on Aristocratic estates to fund old age pensions the Tories would have won that 1910 election which could have potentially streenghened Protectionist tendencies. This is an example of Liberal Bourgeois elements utilising other classes to strenghen their sectional faction within the ruling class. His demagogic speeches in East London is shown in episode 2 of Andrew Marr's series on "the making of modern Britain".
During 1916 the Liberal Party split when Llyod George with the Tories removed Asquith as Prime Minister. This represented a deal between Liberal and Conservative Bourgeois elements to close ranks in order to win World War 1 against German Imperialism attempting to replace them as a major Imperialist world power. Lloyd George remained Prime Minister until 1922 despite Tories being the largest party after a 1918 general election because Liberal Bourgeois elments wanted it guarnteed that Protectionist measures were not introduced. Labour in that 1918 election replaced Liberals as the second largest party. This was a result of a workers radicalisation due to strikes and increased hardships due to World War 1. The October 1917 Russian Socialist revolution also had a major radicalising effect. All these processes led to the rise of Social Democracy. Until the 1923 General Election there were two Liberal parties running against each other. There was a Liberal Party reunifcation to fight that general election becasue Baldwin was suggesing Protectionist measures. Out of that election there was the first minority Labour government. It was only in this election that the Liberal Party ever reached 150+ seats. The highest since then was at the 1929 and 2005 general elections of 50+ and 62.
After a few months the Tories brought down the Labour government in 1924. The Tories won a landslide in a general election held during October 1924. Bourgeois analysts believed by using the Zinionviev letter forgery they won Liberal Party voters over to voting Tory in order to stop Labour forming a government. There were sharp class conflicts after that election culminaing in a 1926 general strike. The workers looked politically after Trade Union Bureaucrats sold out that general strike by voting labour in 1929. Due to McDonald not being able to implement cuts in social security he formed a coalition with Tories and Liberals which led to his expulsion from the Labour Party. McDonald called a general election which led to the Tories being the biggest Coalition party with them winning 55% of the popular vote. This was the last general election where a party recieved 50% or over in popular votes. The closest was 1945 where Labour was a few thousand short of recieving 50%. Labour in the 1931 general election was reduced to 52 seats. McDonald was kept as Prime Minister partly to reduce Protectionist measures. During the mid-1930s Baldwin managed to implement protectionist measures. This led to the Liberal Party spliting three ways. Lloyd George refused to join the coalition government in 1931. Herbert Samuel left the coalition government once Baldwin annoucned those measures. There were established a party called Liberal National that stayed in the coalition due to agreements with protectionism.
Since World War 2 British Imperialism has been on the decline. American Imperialism humilating British Imperialism over Suez in 1956 made Britain's ruling class sober up to their real power in the world. Due to the Soviet victories against German Fascism/Imperialism despite those Bureaucrats intentions provoked revolutionary upheavals in France; Italy; and Greece. In Germany during May 1945 tens of thousands of workers were marching with red flags. Those developments influenced the 1945 British general election. Due to the 1930s depression and hardship of World War 2 there was a working and layers of a middle class radicalisation to rebuild houses; establishment of NHS; a welfare state; public services extended in education; and nationalisation of certain industries. All this led to Labour's 1945 lanslide vicory. It was only in 1997 and 2001 general elections did labour win a bigger landslide.
The Eden faction won out in the Tory Party over to accepting that they would not reverse most of Labour's reforms. In a 1951 general election labour won 13 million votes and won more popular votes than Tories but Tories won that election. They re-privaised 100 nationalised steel companies. This was their first act in government. By ending rationing was one factor in winning a 1955 general election. McMillan won the 1959 general election on a slogan "you never had it so good!" By that demagogic slogan he attempted to incorporate a workers radicalisation into Bourgeois poliics. This did no work with strikes increasing. There was also a middle class radicalisaion which was beginning to support workers struggles and fights against Racism. That trend was represented by what became known as angry young men. The radicalisation against Racism and Sexism was influenced by a civil rights movement in America. The Porfumo scanadal weakened the ruling class's authority over millions of workers. All these developments culminated in Labour winning the 1964 and 1966 general elections. There were reforms on social questions such as abortion and decriminalising Homosexuality. Wilson's attack on the Trade Unions led to disillusionment among workers which played into Heath's hand in 1970. Racism whipped up by Enoch Powell helped the Tories win the 1970 general election. There was a 9% swing in Powell's constitunency which indicated how racism and xenophobia strenghthens capital over the workers. The wokers payed a price with Tories viciously attacking Unions.
Thatcher accelerate this decline further with closing a third of manufacturing industry. Trotsky said that finance capital dominates Capitalism. This is why Trotskyists argue that you have to protect productive forces Capitalism tends to destroy by overthrowing Capital which will centralise socialisation of economic capacity. As Marx said in the Communist Manifesto in periods of crisis Capital will destroy what was economically built up in order to reduce surplus products which are no longer profitable. Due to Thatcher beating the unions she suceeded in destroying millions of jobs. In other Western European countries workers won more battles, therefore stopping their ruling classes carrying out redundancies on a similar scale.
Workers brought Heath down during a 1973-74 miners strike. This led to a minority labour government after winning February and October 1974 general elections. They were used by the ruling class to contain a workers radicalisation. When they imposed wage reductions it upset the Aristocracy of Labour. The middle class was alienated due to class battles not being won by capital or labour. Thatcher played on middle class layers being against strikes to win the 1979 general election. She won the Aristocracy of Labour by allowing them to own their own council homes and buy shares through privatising certain nationalised industries. If it was not for the Falklands War in 1982 she would have lost the 1983 general election due to her policies of causing millions being made unemployed. The 1987 general election was just won by Thatcher due to a economic recovery beginning.
After the 1987 general election there were beginnings of a middle class radicalisation. It was over against the strong state championed by Thatcher; they feared losing out in 1987-90 recession; and against the Poll Tax. This combined with a growing workers radicalisation forced Thatcher out. Liberal Bourgeois elements also removed Thatcher as Prime Minister because she was too destructive to the EEC (predeccessor to EU). Major attemped to adapt to a middle class radicalisation by attempting to appear more liberal. In the 1992 general election the Tory Party won 14 million votes, the highest of any party in British electoral history. Then dialectically after that election it turned into its opposite by the nex general election in 1997 where they suffered their worse defeat since 1832. This was a result of the working and sizeable layers of a middle class radicalisation deepening. Britain pulling out of ERM (Exchange Rate Mechanism) in September 1992 led to middle class losing confidence in the Tories. There is an histoiric myth that it was New Labour who won the 1997 landslide. Even under John Smith Labour was 15% to 20% ahead of Tories in the polls. The middle class were involved in ecologial campaigns against motorways in Newbury; against Criminal Justice 1994 Bill which limited right to assembly; and for cancellation of Third World debts.
I have analysed in previous documents what the 1997 and 2001 general elections represented a radicalisaion; and left/right shifts since then (see blog 1 report on 2007 LRC conference). I am not going to repeat myself on these themes. It is difficult to predict the outcome of this general election. The workers could go back to labour due to fearing Tory attacks. Clegg may have overplayed his hand in trying to determine the next Labour Party leader. Balls coming out against a coalition government with him sidelining Mandelson could represent a move by Trade Union Bureaucrats to stop a coalition. There is competition between Lib Dems and Tories to be the main Bourgeois party. Portillo said last night that the masses may vote Lib Dem to get PR introduced. PR will allow more left wing and right wing parties chance to get a bigger base. During a week Portillo has changed his line from supporing PR to opposing it. He maybe trying to win the Bourgeoisie away from PR by convincing them that it will destabalise politics. The Lib Dems will decline after this election due to possible resurgance of Social Democracy and polarisation beween left and right. If the Tories lose this election Cameron maybe removed as leader with right wing populists becoming leader. Trotskyists oppose a coalition governmnt with the Lib Dems because a working class party is subordinating themselves to a Capitalist party. There maybe revolutionary upheavals against the extent of cuts.
These differnces over strategy and tactics within the ruling class is imporant to understand class and inter-class relations as they change rapidly change dialectically. Lenin and Trotsky argued divisions within a ruling class is one necessary condition for revoluion. Cameron has tried to win the Liberal Bourgeoisie over by saying that despite being a problem over Euroskepticism the Tories will attack the workers more effecively. When there are divisions within the ruling class they undercut each other and through manouvering with other classes attempt to shape events for their interests. Most Liberal Bourgeois elements do not want the Tories in office with the Euro in crisis which could further weaken and destroy that currency and the EU. The Lib Dems have been used to stop a Tory majority and also implement cutbacks by forming a coalition government wih a Bourgeois faction (New Labour) and right wing Social Democrats wihin a Social Democratic Labour Party. Another consideration is by the Lib Dems adapting to middle class anger is stop them temporially looking to working class leadership through the Trade Unions and potential left Social Democraic tendencies within the Labour Party. Capitalism is being shown to be bankrupt daily. British Imperialism's foreign policy strategies cannot work because the Euro will collapse at some point and Imperialist nation states will become more powerful as inter-Imperialist tensions deepen. Marx is still correct the two fundamental contradictions of Capialism is that they create world markets but are dominated by Imperialist nation states and that conflict between Capital and Labour cannot be reconciled.
The Liberal Bourgeoisie represented by Indusrial Capialists were in a growing conflict with Conservative Bourgeois Merchants and Arisocrats which led to revoluionary upheavals in 1832. This forced the middle class having a right to vote. Once the Tories introduced Corn Law leglislation Liberal Bourgeois elements removed them in government by a combinaion of splitting their party and forming coalitions with the Whigs (becoming Liberal Party during late 1850s). It was only after 30 years when they agreed under Disralei not to make Protectionism a major issue did the ruling class allow the Tories to form governments again. Another consideration which the ruling class may have used the Tories as a barganiship against the rise of German and American Imperialism which were competing for British markets and who were putting up protective tariffs. It is interesing to note it was the Primrose League led by Disraeli and Randoloph Churchill which was used to make sure Disreali became Tory leader. The Primrose League dissolved in 2004 when Howard was Tory leader, approxmately 12 months before Cameron became leader. This dissolving of the Primrose League after nearly one and half centuries existing is an interesting development which might mean the Tory Party could be in terminal crisis.
In 1866 Marx argued the victory of Lincoin in the American Civil War; Italian unifcation of 1861; and rise of Bourgeois Nationalism in Hungary during the 1860s helped a radicalisation among British workers. During 1866 workers demanding a right to vote when they were not allowed a rally at Hyde Park broke that park's railings. Fearing a revolution the ruling class allowed most male workers the right to vote. After certain workers run the right to vote the Liberal and Tory Parties vied to gain their vote. The Tories main base was among the Aristocracy of Labour. In order to prevent workers organising their own party the Liberal Party attemped to gain votes from poorer workers and to run Trade Union candidates who subordinated themselves to Liberal Bourgeois politics. Eventually Trade Unionists had to break from the Liberal Party and form their own party because both Tories and Liberals brought in anti-strike leglislation. This is why it is such a setback for class independence that the Bourgeois elements (New Labour faction) and right wing Social Democrats are pushing for a coalition government with an anti-working class party such as the Lib Dems who will attempt to make workers and middle class pay for Capitalist crisis. If there is a hung parliament and a coalition government is formed it could a major crisis which could lead to a mass left wing shift within the Labour Party or a massisve left split which could win a landslide under PR.
The Labour Represenation Committee was established in 1900. In 1905 the Tory government fell over differences concerning over Imperial British Empire tariffs. Campbell-Bannerman was asked to form a Liberal government. He decided to call a general election. It led to a Liberal Party landslide. Trotsky argued this was their last resurgence before the Labour Party eclisped them in the 1920s. Due to workers wanting cheap bread from imported foods the Liberal Pary argued in that election if tariffs were introduced the poorest workers would die from starvaion due to not affording bread prices. The Parliamentary Labour Pary was set up after Parliament reconvened in early 1906. They had increased their representation from 2 in 1900 General Election to 25+ during 1906 election. Reforms were introduced to stop Labour's growth; prevent a revolution; and outmanouvre the Tory Party. In the 1910 election there was a hung parlinament. The Liberals only stayed in power in alliance with Labour and Irish Bourgeois Nationalists. If Lloyd Geroge had not call for a slight tax on Aristocratic estates to fund old age pensions the Tories would have won that 1910 election which could have potentially streenghened Protectionist tendencies. This is an example of Liberal Bourgeois elements utilising other classes to strenghen their sectional faction within the ruling class. His demagogic speeches in East London is shown in episode 2 of Andrew Marr's series on "the making of modern Britain".
During 1916 the Liberal Party split when Llyod George with the Tories removed Asquith as Prime Minister. This represented a deal between Liberal and Conservative Bourgeois elements to close ranks in order to win World War 1 against German Imperialism attempting to replace them as a major Imperialist world power. Lloyd George remained Prime Minister until 1922 despite Tories being the largest party after a 1918 general election because Liberal Bourgeois elments wanted it guarnteed that Protectionist measures were not introduced. Labour in that 1918 election replaced Liberals as the second largest party. This was a result of a workers radicalisation due to strikes and increased hardships due to World War 1. The October 1917 Russian Socialist revolution also had a major radicalising effect. All these processes led to the rise of Social Democracy. Until the 1923 General Election there were two Liberal parties running against each other. There was a Liberal Party reunifcation to fight that general election becasue Baldwin was suggesing Protectionist measures. Out of that election there was the first minority Labour government. It was only in this election that the Liberal Party ever reached 150+ seats. The highest since then was at the 1929 and 2005 general elections of 50+ and 62.
After a few months the Tories brought down the Labour government in 1924. The Tories won a landslide in a general election held during October 1924. Bourgeois analysts believed by using the Zinionviev letter forgery they won Liberal Party voters over to voting Tory in order to stop Labour forming a government. There were sharp class conflicts after that election culminaing in a 1926 general strike. The workers looked politically after Trade Union Bureaucrats sold out that general strike by voting labour in 1929. Due to McDonald not being able to implement cuts in social security he formed a coalition with Tories and Liberals which led to his expulsion from the Labour Party. McDonald called a general election which led to the Tories being the biggest Coalition party with them winning 55% of the popular vote. This was the last general election where a party recieved 50% or over in popular votes. The closest was 1945 where Labour was a few thousand short of recieving 50%. Labour in the 1931 general election was reduced to 52 seats. McDonald was kept as Prime Minister partly to reduce Protectionist measures. During the mid-1930s Baldwin managed to implement protectionist measures. This led to the Liberal Party spliting three ways. Lloyd George refused to join the coalition government in 1931. Herbert Samuel left the coalition government once Baldwin annoucned those measures. There were established a party called Liberal National that stayed in the coalition due to agreements with protectionism.
Since World War 2 British Imperialism has been on the decline. American Imperialism humilating British Imperialism over Suez in 1956 made Britain's ruling class sober up to their real power in the world. Due to the Soviet victories against German Fascism/Imperialism despite those Bureaucrats intentions provoked revolutionary upheavals in France; Italy; and Greece. In Germany during May 1945 tens of thousands of workers were marching with red flags. Those developments influenced the 1945 British general election. Due to the 1930s depression and hardship of World War 2 there was a working and layers of a middle class radicalisation to rebuild houses; establishment of NHS; a welfare state; public services extended in education; and nationalisation of certain industries. All this led to Labour's 1945 lanslide vicory. It was only in 1997 and 2001 general elections did labour win a bigger landslide.
The Eden faction won out in the Tory Party over to accepting that they would not reverse most of Labour's reforms. In a 1951 general election labour won 13 million votes and won more popular votes than Tories but Tories won that election. They re-privaised 100 nationalised steel companies. This was their first act in government. By ending rationing was one factor in winning a 1955 general election. McMillan won the 1959 general election on a slogan "you never had it so good!" By that demagogic slogan he attempted to incorporate a workers radicalisation into Bourgeois poliics. This did no work with strikes increasing. There was also a middle class radicalisaion which was beginning to support workers struggles and fights against Racism. That trend was represented by what became known as angry young men. The radicalisation against Racism and Sexism was influenced by a civil rights movement in America. The Porfumo scanadal weakened the ruling class's authority over millions of workers. All these developments culminated in Labour winning the 1964 and 1966 general elections. There were reforms on social questions such as abortion and decriminalising Homosexuality. Wilson's attack on the Trade Unions led to disillusionment among workers which played into Heath's hand in 1970. Racism whipped up by Enoch Powell helped the Tories win the 1970 general election. There was a 9% swing in Powell's constitunency which indicated how racism and xenophobia strenghthens capital over the workers. The wokers payed a price with Tories viciously attacking Unions.
Thatcher accelerate this decline further with closing a third of manufacturing industry. Trotsky said that finance capital dominates Capitalism. This is why Trotskyists argue that you have to protect productive forces Capitalism tends to destroy by overthrowing Capital which will centralise socialisation of economic capacity. As Marx said in the Communist Manifesto in periods of crisis Capital will destroy what was economically built up in order to reduce surplus products which are no longer profitable. Due to Thatcher beating the unions she suceeded in destroying millions of jobs. In other Western European countries workers won more battles, therefore stopping their ruling classes carrying out redundancies on a similar scale.
Workers brought Heath down during a 1973-74 miners strike. This led to a minority labour government after winning February and October 1974 general elections. They were used by the ruling class to contain a workers radicalisation. When they imposed wage reductions it upset the Aristocracy of Labour. The middle class was alienated due to class battles not being won by capital or labour. Thatcher played on middle class layers being against strikes to win the 1979 general election. She won the Aristocracy of Labour by allowing them to own their own council homes and buy shares through privatising certain nationalised industries. If it was not for the Falklands War in 1982 she would have lost the 1983 general election due to her policies of causing millions being made unemployed. The 1987 general election was just won by Thatcher due to a economic recovery beginning.
After the 1987 general election there were beginnings of a middle class radicalisation. It was over against the strong state championed by Thatcher; they feared losing out in 1987-90 recession; and against the Poll Tax. This combined with a growing workers radicalisation forced Thatcher out. Liberal Bourgeois elements also removed Thatcher as Prime Minister because she was too destructive to the EEC (predeccessor to EU). Major attemped to adapt to a middle class radicalisation by attempting to appear more liberal. In the 1992 general election the Tory Party won 14 million votes, the highest of any party in British electoral history. Then dialectically after that election it turned into its opposite by the nex general election in 1997 where they suffered their worse defeat since 1832. This was a result of the working and sizeable layers of a middle class radicalisation deepening. Britain pulling out of ERM (Exchange Rate Mechanism) in September 1992 led to middle class losing confidence in the Tories. There is an histoiric myth that it was New Labour who won the 1997 landslide. Even under John Smith Labour was 15% to 20% ahead of Tories in the polls. The middle class were involved in ecologial campaigns against motorways in Newbury; against Criminal Justice 1994 Bill which limited right to assembly; and for cancellation of Third World debts.
I have analysed in previous documents what the 1997 and 2001 general elections represented a radicalisaion; and left/right shifts since then (see blog 1 report on 2007 LRC conference). I am not going to repeat myself on these themes. It is difficult to predict the outcome of this general election. The workers could go back to labour due to fearing Tory attacks. Clegg may have overplayed his hand in trying to determine the next Labour Party leader. Balls coming out against a coalition government with him sidelining Mandelson could represent a move by Trade Union Bureaucrats to stop a coalition. There is competition between Lib Dems and Tories to be the main Bourgeois party. Portillo said last night that the masses may vote Lib Dem to get PR introduced. PR will allow more left wing and right wing parties chance to get a bigger base. During a week Portillo has changed his line from supporing PR to opposing it. He maybe trying to win the Bourgeoisie away from PR by convincing them that it will destabalise politics. The Lib Dems will decline after this election due to possible resurgance of Social Democracy and polarisation beween left and right. If the Tories lose this election Cameron maybe removed as leader with right wing populists becoming leader. Trotskyists oppose a coalition governmnt with the Lib Dems because a working class party is subordinating themselves to a Capitalist party. There maybe revolutionary upheavals against the extent of cuts.
Monday 29 March 2010
Sunday 28 March 2010
A reply to Carrie Hamilton's economistic and sectarian line on aspects of a new Feminist radicalisation!
This is a reply to Carrie Hamilton's article in the Guardian published on the 24th of March 2010:-
Carrie Hamilton makes classical mistakes historically associated with Sectarian Economists. Lenin and Trotsky always faught against such currents. The American Socialist Workers Party developed when they were Trotskyist during the late 1960/early 1970s this Leninist-Trotskyist position by developing a programme and strategy of a combined third American Socialist revolution. This combined Socialist revolution would be under the leadership of workers (which makes that revolution having a Socialist character) but winning over oppressed Afro Americans and Women from working class and some middle class backgrounds by a programme of specific demands related to their oppression.
Lenin argued in "What is to be done" in 1902 that a revolutionary party had to champion the struggles of oppressed elements in order to stop ruling class elements dividing and ruling and winning these movements over to the working class. Trotsky deepened this understanding by arguing that revolutionaries in America had to lead the workers towards a Socialist revolution required winning white workers away from Racism by winning them to fighting for certain specially oppressed demands such as mandatory quotas to reduce Racist discrimination of Afro Americans in employment. During this process of winning over white workers to fight against Racism it unites the workers to fight the common enemy which is American Capitalism. This is how Trotsky saw Permanent Revolution being creatively applied to America. As Anthony Marcus points out in his introduction to a 2005 book editing George Brietman's writings on Afro American struggles one major reason American workers have not won the same welfare state gains as Western Europe is by some white workers being Racist to Afro Americans. In other words the Racism of some white workers played into the hands of America's rulers in dividing and ruling.
Trotsky when he analysed the rise of Fascism during the 1930s stated that everything rotten in Capitalism
comes to the surface. All the worse aspects of class exploitation and oppression in terms of Racism and Sexism is re-emerging. This confirms my prediction made on my last blog 1 ("Brain on Trotskyism") article on January 1st 2008 that this would lead to all past struggles aganist exploitation and oppression coming to the political centre in a growing radicalisation. Also I was correct that this depression is the worse Capitalist crisis and Trotsky would develop into a major politiclal figure on a scale not seen since the rise of Stalinism in the 1920s.
Hamilton argues a totally sectarian line towards women who are beginning to enter the political arena against extrmee Sexism which this Capitalist crisis is making worse. On an abstract level she attacks sexual violence. Then she condemns the early stages of a movement fighting against it for being limited. This is sectarian abstentionism of the worse kind. When Afro-British and British-Asians fight against forms of Racist violence we would not probably have the same sectarianism from Hamilton. It is very positive women are beginning to fight against extreme Sexism which stems from seeing Women as sexual objects. The worse mistake of Hamilton is her refusal to condemn men working in the sex industry. They are being used to oppress Women which increases super- profits for Capital. Trotskyists would also call on workers not to comply with Racist practices.
It is fundamentally wrong of Hamilton to draw an analogy between male Sex workers and Women secretaries. In the tradition going back to Marx and Engels Trotskyists intervene against exploitation by working with fellow workers in the factories and offices but refuse on principle to work in oppressive areas against oppressed ethnicities/nationalities and Women. There is some useful points in Nina Power's presenation launching the 21st Century manifesto despite her Economistic focus. Power locates correctly all workers in a contractual employment (even unemployed workers, some of which are called job seekers).
Additionally she points out there is a class difference in attitude by ruling class ideologues between higher class (middle class women) and sexually permsisive women who are working class. There is some truth to this but has a dual and contradictory character as all Women are oppressed which as Capitalism's crisis deepens is intensfied. This is what the sectarian Economists downplay in not recognising the special character of oppression. Most ruling class women will have to be destroyed in the process of a Socialist revolution because they will put their class privliges before their oppression. The Leninist-Trotskyist strategy is to win the working class and decisive middle class layer of Women over to the workers struggle for power by winning their confidence through having a specific series of demands drawing them into struggle against Capitalism related to their oppression, and in this process win them over to seeing their liberation can only be acheived by a workers-led Socialist revolution.
Hamilton has no idea of a Trotskyist transitional approach. She has an abstract and Maxiamist approach of uniting all partial struggles to end class rule. This has to be part of a revolutionary strategy. In order to achieve this as Trotsky points out you have to start where the specially oppresed and workers are at in consciousnes and link by involving them in struggles through Transitional Demands to ultimatley towards a Socialist revolution.
There are partial struggles breaking out against extreme Sexism which is leading to violence against Women and battles against increasing Xenophobia. The growing xenophobia and limited Fascist successes is encouraging Fascists to post openly pro-Nazi videos from the 1930s and 1940s Nazi Germany on You Tube There are strikes breaking out against Capital trying to make workers pay for this Capitalist crisis. Trotskysists have to link single issue campaigns and movements against xenophobia; and Sexism with the workers struggles against Capital lowering their standard of living. Tactical timing is important. There are wider demands Trotskyists would raise in social movements on general oppression. In single issue campaigns there are maybe more limited demands to keep a united front together and mobilise the maxinum number through mass actions by one or two demands which shows in practice the power of masses being mobilised. Brinking the Trade Union into these struggles will bring the workers and oppressed unity closer.
The Tories are planning to attack the workers and oppressed. A right wing Tory think-tank called the Cornerstone group has its stated aim to destroy Bourgeois Liberalism by whipping up Xenophobia. They also want to attack womens rights to Abortion. By fighting for a Labour government at this general election we can begin through united front with Social Democrats warn the workers and oppressed how they be attacked by the Tories through cutbacks; by reducing abortions; and more xenophoblic leglisation. If the Tories are defeated this strengthens the workers and oppressed to fightback as the Social Democrats adapt to stop a growing radicalisation of workers and the oppressed through the social movements. Trotskyists by going through their experinces with Social Democracy can win the workers and oppressed over to a programme of Socialist revolution.
Carrie Hamilton makes classical mistakes historically associated with Sectarian Economists. Lenin and Trotsky always faught against such currents. The American Socialist Workers Party developed when they were Trotskyist during the late 1960/early 1970s this Leninist-Trotskyist position by developing a programme and strategy of a combined third American Socialist revolution. This combined Socialist revolution would be under the leadership of workers (which makes that revolution having a Socialist character) but winning over oppressed Afro Americans and Women from working class and some middle class backgrounds by a programme of specific demands related to their oppression.
Lenin argued in "What is to be done" in 1902 that a revolutionary party had to champion the struggles of oppressed elements in order to stop ruling class elements dividing and ruling and winning these movements over to the working class. Trotsky deepened this understanding by arguing that revolutionaries in America had to lead the workers towards a Socialist revolution required winning white workers away from Racism by winning them to fighting for certain specially oppressed demands such as mandatory quotas to reduce Racist discrimination of Afro Americans in employment. During this process of winning over white workers to fight against Racism it unites the workers to fight the common enemy which is American Capitalism. This is how Trotsky saw Permanent Revolution being creatively applied to America. As Anthony Marcus points out in his introduction to a 2005 book editing George Brietman's writings on Afro American struggles one major reason American workers have not won the same welfare state gains as Western Europe is by some white workers being Racist to Afro Americans. In other words the Racism of some white workers played into the hands of America's rulers in dividing and ruling.
Trotsky when he analysed the rise of Fascism during the 1930s stated that everything rotten in Capitalism
comes to the surface. All the worse aspects of class exploitation and oppression in terms of Racism and Sexism is re-emerging. This confirms my prediction made on my last blog 1 ("Brain on Trotskyism") article on January 1st 2008 that this would lead to all past struggles aganist exploitation and oppression coming to the political centre in a growing radicalisation. Also I was correct that this depression is the worse Capitalist crisis and Trotsky would develop into a major politiclal figure on a scale not seen since the rise of Stalinism in the 1920s.
Hamilton argues a totally sectarian line towards women who are beginning to enter the political arena against extrmee Sexism which this Capitalist crisis is making worse. On an abstract level she attacks sexual violence. Then she condemns the early stages of a movement fighting against it for being limited. This is sectarian abstentionism of the worse kind. When Afro-British and British-Asians fight against forms of Racist violence we would not probably have the same sectarianism from Hamilton. It is very positive women are beginning to fight against extreme Sexism which stems from seeing Women as sexual objects. The worse mistake of Hamilton is her refusal to condemn men working in the sex industry. They are being used to oppress Women which increases super- profits for Capital. Trotskyists would also call on workers not to comply with Racist practices.
It is fundamentally wrong of Hamilton to draw an analogy between male Sex workers and Women secretaries. In the tradition going back to Marx and Engels Trotskyists intervene against exploitation by working with fellow workers in the factories and offices but refuse on principle to work in oppressive areas against oppressed ethnicities/nationalities and Women. There is some useful points in Nina Power's presenation launching the 21st Century manifesto despite her Economistic focus. Power locates correctly all workers in a contractual employment (even unemployed workers, some of which are called job seekers).
Additionally she points out there is a class difference in attitude by ruling class ideologues between higher class (middle class women) and sexually permsisive women who are working class. There is some truth to this but has a dual and contradictory character as all Women are oppressed which as Capitalism's crisis deepens is intensfied. This is what the sectarian Economists downplay in not recognising the special character of oppression. Most ruling class women will have to be destroyed in the process of a Socialist revolution because they will put their class privliges before their oppression. The Leninist-Trotskyist strategy is to win the working class and decisive middle class layer of Women over to the workers struggle for power by winning their confidence through having a specific series of demands drawing them into struggle against Capitalism related to their oppression, and in this process win them over to seeing their liberation can only be acheived by a workers-led Socialist revolution.
Hamilton has no idea of a Trotskyist transitional approach. She has an abstract and Maxiamist approach of uniting all partial struggles to end class rule. This has to be part of a revolutionary strategy. In order to achieve this as Trotsky points out you have to start where the specially oppresed and workers are at in consciousnes and link by involving them in struggles through Transitional Demands to ultimatley towards a Socialist revolution.
There are partial struggles breaking out against extreme Sexism which is leading to violence against Women and battles against increasing Xenophobia. The growing xenophobia and limited Fascist successes is encouraging Fascists to post openly pro-Nazi videos from the 1930s and 1940s Nazi Germany on You Tube There are strikes breaking out against Capital trying to make workers pay for this Capitalist crisis. Trotskysists have to link single issue campaigns and movements against xenophobia; and Sexism with the workers struggles against Capital lowering their standard of living. Tactical timing is important. There are wider demands Trotskyists would raise in social movements on general oppression. In single issue campaigns there are maybe more limited demands to keep a united front together and mobilise the maxinum number through mass actions by one or two demands which shows in practice the power of masses being mobilised. Brinking the Trade Union into these struggles will bring the workers and oppressed unity closer.
The Tories are planning to attack the workers and oppressed. A right wing Tory think-tank called the Cornerstone group has its stated aim to destroy Bourgeois Liberalism by whipping up Xenophobia. They also want to attack womens rights to Abortion. By fighting for a Labour government at this general election we can begin through united front with Social Democrats warn the workers and oppressed how they be attacked by the Tories through cutbacks; by reducing abortions; and more xenophoblic leglisation. If the Tories are defeated this strengthens the workers and oppressed to fightback as the Social Democrats adapt to stop a growing radicalisation of workers and the oppressed through the social movements. Trotskyists by going through their experinces with Social Democracy can win the workers and oppressed over to a programme of Socialist revolution.
Thursday 25 March 2010
What does the fact that 90 Industrial Relations academics writing in the Guardian supporting the BA workers strike represent?
The economic depression from 2007 and Capital's attempts to make workers combined with middle class elements pay for this economic crisis is deepening a radicalisation in Britain started in 1997. This blog and my earlier blog called "Brain on Trotskyism" has analysec all these trends towards radicalisation and reaction since writing from 2007 onwards. There have been reactionary trends until recently with the Tories having a big poll lead. Deep periods of economic crisis sharpen up class conflicts. Cameron has been exposed despite his slick manouvres as an un-reconstructed Monetarist and ant-working class.
It is a very positive development that workers are resisting at the beginning of major attacks on their standard of living. Duing the 1929-39 depression it took the workers years to recover from similar attacks. There is a different balance of forces now since the 2003 Iraq war which has strengthend tendencies strengthening revolutionary upheavals worldwide. Before the October 1929 American Stock Market crash there were three defeats of the world revolution (1923 German revolution never came to fruitition; the second Chinese revolution between 1925 and 1927 was crushed; and the British workers lost the 1926 General Strike). Stalinism's rise in the Soviet Union assisted these defeats which in turn strenggthened their political counter-revolution within the USSR. It was all these setbacks which played into German's Fascism's hands.
Ernest Mandel a Belgium Trotskysist correctly analysed there was a radicalisation within Western Europe against Fascism outraged at what German Fascism did to the organised working class there. This process culminated with the 1936 sit-down strikes by millions of French workers. There was also a pre-revolutionary crisis broke out in Spain which forced Capital to wage a civil war against it through Spanish Fascism. Mandel argued this 1934-37 upsurge in workers struggles meant even if German Imperialism had invaded other European countries there would have been such an upheaval provokd as a result it might have provoked a pre-revoltionary crisis in Germany. If you read the American Trotskyist Magazine called New International wrote articles during the late 1930s showing how the workers in Germany wanting a 35-hour week which they had won in France which the Nazi leadership were not prepared to concede. The revoluionary feeling was so strong by workers that the German Nazis had to make limited concessions by allowing German workers to have holidays. Also appearing in New International was a report from Czechoslavkia showing massive strikes there a year or two before German Imperialism invaded that country which included even German Sudaten workers. The Czech Communist Party it stated even had a mass base among those Sudaten workers. Due to failure to make a Socialist revolution in Czechoslavakia the Sudaten masses went in behind German Imperialism in 1938 due to counter-revolutionary forces growing.
There was a period of reaction in Western Europe after 1937 due to the Popular Fronts in Spain and France playing into Spanish Fascism's hand. The French Bourgeoisie by 1938 went on the offensive against the workers, reversing in particular the 35 hour week won in 1936. All these defeats allowed German Imperialism to expand eastwards which eventually led to World War 2 breaking out in September 1939. The Neo-Conservatives (Neo-Cons) due to their mistakes in launching two wars and using brutal methods such as torture has weakened the creditability of Capitalism and reversed some of the gains won by Imperialism in 1989. This tendency emerging in American Imperialism was not a sign of American Imperialism's strength but came out of a need for them to expand or lose their super-profits. Despite the fact that the Neo-Cons did not destroy Bourgeois democracy there was a similar tendency for Imperialist expansionism by Germany due to similar crises accumulating. One major reason for the international resistance to Bushism and a radicalisation it eventually led to in America was that they had not defeated their own working class and had not overcome the obstacles to them dominating the world. This is why Fidel Castro made a major strategic error to call Bush a Fascist.
There are severe limitations to the health bill based by the House of Representatives last sunday. Despite that qualification it represents a move towards 95% of the population recieving health care. Trotskyists oppose it being based on private insurance and that is not universial enough, We would also oppose the capitulation to the right wing on Federal abortion spending. Some on the left have had an ultra-left line of not recognising what the Liberal Bourgeoisie in making this limited reform is trying to make conessions to the masses who hate the bankers. They have used this health bill in order to incorporate them into Bougeois politics to stop a Labour Party forming and stop any radicalisation deepening into a revoluionary upheaval. David Ellis is correct that Trotskyists have to support any move towards recieving health care however inadquate because unless you do play into the hands of Liberal Bourgeois elements isolating ourselves from millions of workers and middle class elements who see it as a step forward. Within this framework Trotskyists call on the workers to fight for an improved health service. Out of these struggles Trotskyists fight for workers to break from the Bourgeois parties and estabish their own party which we fight to become revolutionary. The only reason I commented on this health bill in America is that it is going to have a hugh impact in Britain and Western Europe. When the Tories call for massive cutbacks and with Darling annoucing 4.5 Billion pounds of health service cuts, we should point out that mass struggle has forced Amercian Capitalism to spend over the next ten years 970 billion dollars on health care.
There have been strikes breaking out in Western Europe during the last year against the impact of a growing economic depression. In Holland; Austria; and France a polarisation is beginning to occur between Social Democracy and Fascism. This could be very explosive for Capitalism. Social Democracy's rise represents a growing radicalisation against Capital's attacks. It is a political expression of workers beginning to use their traditional organisation to fightback against Capitalism. Mandel argued that it was the historic role of Fascism to implement the kind of cutbacks which are being suggested in Western Europe. After World War 2 Capitalism is less likely to experiment with Fascism. If Fascism's growth gets out of control with the workers being more militant it could cause massive revolutionry upheavals which could threaten Capitalism's existence. There would only be a pre-revolutionary crisis in one Western European country it would spread like wildfire. The deepening radicalisation within Western Europe and Britain could influence the middle class to move leftwards. Trotskyists have to break tens of millions Western European workers from Social Democracy towards revolution which could begin Socialist Revolutions led by workers, supported by the lower middle classes. There have been enormous opportunities for Trotskyism since the 2003 Iraq War which have been missed. This is why the ex-Trotskyists are in crisis and breaking up. Authentic Trotskyism could re-emerge out of this radicalisation.
The strikes by BA workers; the RMT strike against cutbacks in safety; and civil servants strike represents a turning point in workers' radicalisation. There have been middle class elements hit by the economic crisis since 2007 with tens of thousands of them made redundant by their tens of thousands in banking. Both millions of workers and sizeable middle class layers are threatend by the cuts in public services. This is why there have been massive political changes in support for different parties in opinion polls. Blairism and Brownism played into the Tories hands until they nationalised Northern Rock, and one or two other banks in October 2008. Until then Cameron tried to win the election by coning millions pledging to 2009 that the Tories would match Labour spending on public services. Since then he has called for massive cutbacks in public services.
Cameron's call for crossing picket lines has played into the Labour Party's hands. Another tactical error he made in linking UNITE with the Labour Party is that he has told millions of workers and lower middle classes that they will have more influence with Labour being in power due to it being harder for them to take on the unions. It is interesting on tonight's six o'clock news that the BBC were trying to reduce Labour's majority by pointing that there are those in the government would want to cut more than Thatcher did on public services. There are some financial Capitalists reported in today's Telegraph who think the Labour Party may stay in power.
The Ultra-Lefts in not seeing that Labour remains a Social Democratic party (with the Bourgeois elements weakened in that party,and be possibly destroyed after the next general election) and that millions of workers and even middle class elements will vote Labour to stop the drastic Tory cuts. In my opinion like 1997 the growing working class and elements of the middle class radicalising by voting Labour with no illusions in the Blarites this time because of them looking to the Trade Unions and their politcal representivies in the Labour Party to solutions for their problems. A landsldie like 1997 is very unlikely. This middle class radicalisation is very important. The letter in today's Guardian by 90 Industrial Relations professors from Universities throughout Britain supporting the BA workers against attempts by that management to smash UNITE in order to implement massive wage reducations. Trotskyists do not agree with them supporting the UNITE's Bureaucrats concessions to BA which this letter calls to be implemented. Despite that difference this letter represents a radicalisation by sizeable middle class elements. This radicalisation could deepen as the workers increase their struggles. The new Trotskyist cades could come out of this growing working and midde class radicalisation,
It is a very positive development that workers are resisting at the beginning of major attacks on their standard of living. Duing the 1929-39 depression it took the workers years to recover from similar attacks. There is a different balance of forces now since the 2003 Iraq war which has strengthend tendencies strengthening revolutionary upheavals worldwide. Before the October 1929 American Stock Market crash there were three defeats of the world revolution (1923 German revolution never came to fruitition; the second Chinese revolution between 1925 and 1927 was crushed; and the British workers lost the 1926 General Strike). Stalinism's rise in the Soviet Union assisted these defeats which in turn strenggthened their political counter-revolution within the USSR. It was all these setbacks which played into German's Fascism's hands.
Ernest Mandel a Belgium Trotskysist correctly analysed there was a radicalisation within Western Europe against Fascism outraged at what German Fascism did to the organised working class there. This process culminated with the 1936 sit-down strikes by millions of French workers. There was also a pre-revolutionary crisis broke out in Spain which forced Capital to wage a civil war against it through Spanish Fascism. Mandel argued this 1934-37 upsurge in workers struggles meant even if German Imperialism had invaded other European countries there would have been such an upheaval provokd as a result it might have provoked a pre-revoltionary crisis in Germany. If you read the American Trotskyist Magazine called New International wrote articles during the late 1930s showing how the workers in Germany wanting a 35-hour week which they had won in France which the Nazi leadership were not prepared to concede. The revoluionary feeling was so strong by workers that the German Nazis had to make limited concessions by allowing German workers to have holidays. Also appearing in New International was a report from Czechoslavkia showing massive strikes there a year or two before German Imperialism invaded that country which included even German Sudaten workers. The Czech Communist Party it stated even had a mass base among those Sudaten workers. Due to failure to make a Socialist revolution in Czechoslavakia the Sudaten masses went in behind German Imperialism in 1938 due to counter-revolutionary forces growing.
There was a period of reaction in Western Europe after 1937 due to the Popular Fronts in Spain and France playing into Spanish Fascism's hand. The French Bourgeoisie by 1938 went on the offensive against the workers, reversing in particular the 35 hour week won in 1936. All these defeats allowed German Imperialism to expand eastwards which eventually led to World War 2 breaking out in September 1939. The Neo-Conservatives (Neo-Cons) due to their mistakes in launching two wars and using brutal methods such as torture has weakened the creditability of Capitalism and reversed some of the gains won by Imperialism in 1989. This tendency emerging in American Imperialism was not a sign of American Imperialism's strength but came out of a need for them to expand or lose their super-profits. Despite the fact that the Neo-Cons did not destroy Bourgeois democracy there was a similar tendency for Imperialist expansionism by Germany due to similar crises accumulating. One major reason for the international resistance to Bushism and a radicalisation it eventually led to in America was that they had not defeated their own working class and had not overcome the obstacles to them dominating the world. This is why Fidel Castro made a major strategic error to call Bush a Fascist.
There are severe limitations to the health bill based by the House of Representatives last sunday. Despite that qualification it represents a move towards 95% of the population recieving health care. Trotskyists oppose it being based on private insurance and that is not universial enough, We would also oppose the capitulation to the right wing on Federal abortion spending. Some on the left have had an ultra-left line of not recognising what the Liberal Bourgeoisie in making this limited reform is trying to make conessions to the masses who hate the bankers. They have used this health bill in order to incorporate them into Bougeois politics to stop a Labour Party forming and stop any radicalisation deepening into a revoluionary upheaval. David Ellis is correct that Trotskyists have to support any move towards recieving health care however inadquate because unless you do play into the hands of Liberal Bourgeois elements isolating ourselves from millions of workers and middle class elements who see it as a step forward. Within this framework Trotskyists call on the workers to fight for an improved health service. Out of these struggles Trotskyists fight for workers to break from the Bourgeois parties and estabish their own party which we fight to become revolutionary. The only reason I commented on this health bill in America is that it is going to have a hugh impact in Britain and Western Europe. When the Tories call for massive cutbacks and with Darling annoucing 4.5 Billion pounds of health service cuts, we should point out that mass struggle has forced Amercian Capitalism to spend over the next ten years 970 billion dollars on health care.
There have been strikes breaking out in Western Europe during the last year against the impact of a growing economic depression. In Holland; Austria; and France a polarisation is beginning to occur between Social Democracy and Fascism. This could be very explosive for Capitalism. Social Democracy's rise represents a growing radicalisation against Capital's attacks. It is a political expression of workers beginning to use their traditional organisation to fightback against Capitalism. Mandel argued that it was the historic role of Fascism to implement the kind of cutbacks which are being suggested in Western Europe. After World War 2 Capitalism is less likely to experiment with Fascism. If Fascism's growth gets out of control with the workers being more militant it could cause massive revolutionry upheavals which could threaten Capitalism's existence. There would only be a pre-revolutionary crisis in one Western European country it would spread like wildfire. The deepening radicalisation within Western Europe and Britain could influence the middle class to move leftwards. Trotskyists have to break tens of millions Western European workers from Social Democracy towards revolution which could begin Socialist Revolutions led by workers, supported by the lower middle classes. There have been enormous opportunities for Trotskyism since the 2003 Iraq War which have been missed. This is why the ex-Trotskyists are in crisis and breaking up. Authentic Trotskyism could re-emerge out of this radicalisation.
The strikes by BA workers; the RMT strike against cutbacks in safety; and civil servants strike represents a turning point in workers' radicalisation. There have been middle class elements hit by the economic crisis since 2007 with tens of thousands of them made redundant by their tens of thousands in banking. Both millions of workers and sizeable middle class layers are threatend by the cuts in public services. This is why there have been massive political changes in support for different parties in opinion polls. Blairism and Brownism played into the Tories hands until they nationalised Northern Rock, and one or two other banks in October 2008. Until then Cameron tried to win the election by coning millions pledging to 2009 that the Tories would match Labour spending on public services. Since then he has called for massive cutbacks in public services.
Cameron's call for crossing picket lines has played into the Labour Party's hands. Another tactical error he made in linking UNITE with the Labour Party is that he has told millions of workers and lower middle classes that they will have more influence with Labour being in power due to it being harder for them to take on the unions. It is interesting on tonight's six o'clock news that the BBC were trying to reduce Labour's majority by pointing that there are those in the government would want to cut more than Thatcher did on public services. There are some financial Capitalists reported in today's Telegraph who think the Labour Party may stay in power.
The Ultra-Lefts in not seeing that Labour remains a Social Democratic party (with the Bourgeois elements weakened in that party,and be possibly destroyed after the next general election) and that millions of workers and even middle class elements will vote Labour to stop the drastic Tory cuts. In my opinion like 1997 the growing working class and elements of the middle class radicalising by voting Labour with no illusions in the Blarites this time because of them looking to the Trade Unions and their politcal representivies in the Labour Party to solutions for their problems. A landsldie like 1997 is very unlikely. This middle class radicalisation is very important. The letter in today's Guardian by 90 Industrial Relations professors from Universities throughout Britain supporting the BA workers against attempts by that management to smash UNITE in order to implement massive wage reducations. Trotskyists do not agree with them supporting the UNITE's Bureaucrats concessions to BA which this letter calls to be implemented. Despite that difference this letter represents a radicalisation by sizeable middle class elements. This radicalisation could deepen as the workers increase their struggles. The new Trotskyist cades could come out of this growing working and midde class radicalisation,
Sunday 14 March 2010
Some brief comments on Heiko Khoo first document on his China website by Steve Jackson Part 1
Steve Jackson has asked me to post the following document on my blog:-
This is the first part of Jackson's review of Khoo's document 1. Part 2 will be posted in the next 24 hours!
In the next few weeks I will be reviewing Heiko Khoo's documents on China. This first document is in response to his first document published by him on November 25th 2008 entitled "Chinse state intervenes in amid sharp fall in growth".
Khoo is generally correct that the top Bureaucracy in China will be forced into a certain re-orientation towards more domsetic production; and use of domestic services; certain Bureaucrats regaining their privliges by re-gaining control of firms closed down by Capitalists; there is still capacity for massive infrastructure projects; and more concessions will be made in an attempt to reduce and defuse the workers revolutionary threat to Stalinism. In his Hyde Park's Speaking Corner's presentation Khoo points out the development of a mightly working class of 300 million can potentially shake the world. In the course of that presentation he recorded an important fact that this working class in China is slightly bigger than the American and Western European working classes combined. Khoo is correct that if this working class moves it will shake the Chinese Bureaucracy.
Thornett in his report on the FI's 16th World Congress moves further to the right when he defines China as Imperialist. He made an absurd claim that it was "Chinese Imperialism that has created a sizeable part of the world working class". Trotsky wrote in the 1930s that if Socialist revolutions were not carried out in the Imperialist countries the organised working class would be reduced. This was one of the main reasons he called for German Fascism to be destroyed before they came to power. There is mass unemployment in the Third World and millions being made unemployed in individual Imperialist countries.
Imperialism has mainly used the semi-colonies as cheap raw materials and during Colonialism to dominate them with their products. Any developments such as the Tiger Economies and South Korea were to stop the Socialist Revolutions spreading from China and North Korea into these countries. All of those Tiger economies collapsed with their depression beginining in 1997. The Chinese workers' state carried on with their massive economic development because it is mainly based on production for use value. Thornett has broken with Permanent Revolution totally when he argues that Capitalism can develop China into a major Imperialist power. It was only by China by ending Imperialist domination by carrying a combined revolution of the Bourgeois-Democratic and Socialist tasks that it has emerged as a a major power. (I deal with the dual effect of Chinese Stalinism on the world scene by looking at China's role in the international division of labour - see part 2 of my document).
In reply to Thornett: where has Imperialism developed the infrastructure in Third World countries; which has cancelled a lot of debt from Africa; and build up public services such as schools and hospitals in the semi-colonies? Trotskyists disagree with the Chinese Bureaucracy's proping up Bourgeois Nationalists but recognise even linited anti-Imperialist actions can threatern losing billions for Western European and American Imperialist companies. It is precisely because Imperialism cannot but hinder these semi-colonies' developments that the Permanent Revolution is such a burning necessity
Due to the latest world Capitalist crisis Capitalism's decay is going to reveal itself more an more. This will open up revolutionary possibilities with the Chinese workers' state showing a major alternative to Capitallism. The potentual for Political Revolution which Trotskyists can take advantage and eventally lead will supplement this rise in world revolution. Thornett by defining Chinas as "Imperialist" means he will take an abstentionist position when the Chinese Bureaucracy helps certain semi-Colonial Bourgeoisies fight Imperialism.
This will also mean he be the right-wing of any anti-war movement which began with his semi-Third Campist line on NATO's war with Serbia in 1999 where he abadoned effectived defence of that workers' state against Imperialism by drawing an equal sign with Stalinism's crimes in Kosovo and the Imperialist intervention. It was only the AWL majority led by Matgamma which was more right wing than Thornett where they refused to condemm the NATO intervention into Serbia. T
The British SWP moved towards defending Serbia against NATO on the justification it was a semi-colony. Despite their wrong theory on Serbia this represented a left turn! There was also an opportunist zig-zag when Tony Cliff in a reply to the ISO suggested that the IST adapt to the the Russian foriegn policy on the basis that it would weaken American Imperialism. As a Trotskyist I do believe in utilising the Russian workers' state being in conflict with Imperialism to weaken Capitalism and strengthen forces for the world Socialist revolution. Alex Callincios retreated into classical Third Campism at an anti-NATO confernce in October/November 1999 when he argued that the Russian Bureaucracy is not at times anti-Imperialist. I wish that I could in my contribution quoted Trotsky in a 1937 article entitled "Not a Workers and not a Bourgeois state" that the Russian Bureaucracy reflects Imperialist pressures on the workers' state and on the other hand it is in conflict with Imperialism because they need to defend their privliges based on that workers' state which Imperialism attempts to overthrow. Starting from Trotsky's analysis I would have said the Soviet Bureaucracy after all the sacrifices of World War 2 did not want Imperialism to use Eastern Europe as buffer states to attack them again. There were big dangers of a Third World War when NATO bombed Serbia beause it was aimed to strenghen Capitalist restorationist forces throughout Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet countries and NATO's bombing started the same month that 3 ex-Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO. Callincios in a April 1999 anti-NATO public meeting in Birmingham capitulated to Petty-Bourgeois forces in the anti-NATO movement a Third World War by arguing for UN troops in Kosovo. This was a complete break from a Leninst-Trotskyist position of opposing Imperialist interventions in all its guises. Myra-Tanner Weiss wrote in a 1954 Fourth International article that Stalinphobia and adaptation to Stalinism are both polar opposites which are both Petty-Bourgeois. This was when she was with Cannon and before she made her own adaptations to Stalinism in the late 1950s which Cannon opposed. It is still scientifically correct! (This article by Tanner-Weiss is available on Marxist Internet Archive under Fourth International magazine archive)
Another indication of this rightward move was when the Socialist Resistance majority in 2008 during the Russian-Georgian war dumped defence of that workers' state who were fighting an Imperialist-influenced Georgian regime which if Georgia won would have strengthed Capitalist restorationist forces by concillationist elements to Imperialism from among those Bureaucrats would have been strengthened. The SR majority were neutral unlike when they supported a Capitalist Kosovo state independence from a workers' state in 2008. During this war the SR majority argued for the first time that Russia was "Imperialist". If the SR majority had supported Georgia with most of the opprssed (even among the Muslim community) being supportive of Russia in checking American Imperialism's ability to dominate the world would have reduced their influence in the anti-war movement to a rump. The British SWP were at six and sevens on this war. Lindsey German was Third Campist on this war in Socialist Worker dismissing it as "Inter-Imperialist". Callincios adapted to the pro-Russian mood when he said in the same paper that Russia had shown that the West could be beat if Imperialism was stood upto. How is that possible when he usually defines Russia as "Imperialist"?
Where I disagree with Khoo is that he is not clear in his first document that the Bureaucracy will have to be overthrown by Political Revolution led by the working class. When Napolean made that famous statement in the 19th century about a sleeping giant if aroused he realised Imperialism was lucky in having miltiary supremacy over most of Asia (except Japan) and may only last for a certain period of time. This is is why all the Imperialist powers united in 1900 to crush the Boxer rebellion. Even with all the limitations of Chinese Stalinism a Socialist revolution occured which is shaking the world. George Novack argued in an article on transitional societies that even in the 1960s there was a lack of understanding the complexities of these workers' state and other political questions which required a transitional appraoch. Novack pointed out that you can have processes unfolding such as Stalinist political counter-revolututions which have extreme contradictions which history resolves. This article can be found on the Marxist Internet Archive under Novack. In that article Novack traced the role of transition in the natural and social scicnces.
Khoo echoes Micheal Pablo and Harry Frankel that the Bureaucracy will allow genuine working class representation. Joseph Hansen argued in a spring 1953 American SWP internal document against Frankel that his anoligies with the Soviet Bureaucracy sharing power with the working class with how declining Liberal Aristocracies shared power with the rising Bourgeosies was a major mistake on Frankel's part. As Hansen points out even in that epoch of the rising European Bourgeoises it required several Bourgeois revolutions to establish Capitalism. Hansen argued that the Bureaucracies could not tolerate any real workers' demoracy because workers once they organised threatened the Bureaucracies with potential Political Revolutions. The 1989 Eastern European events shows quite clearly that other Bureaucratic factions can use mass upheavals for their own ends. It also revealed they could share power with Bourgeois elements provided they accept the Bureaucracies rule. This is why I see Eastern Europe still as degenerated workers' states because Capital can only exist by Bureaucratic factions allowing them to operate. In order for the Bourgeois layers to became ruling classes requires the overthrow of the Bureaucrats standing in the way of Capitalist restoration and defeating the workers resisting their social gains being destroyed. Jim Cannon argued against Pablo and Frankel corectly that the Bureaucracies will not peacefuly give up their privliges to either the workers or Capitalists!
This is the first part of Jackson's review of Khoo's document 1. Part 2 will be posted in the next 24 hours!
In the next few weeks I will be reviewing Heiko Khoo's documents on China. This first document is in response to his first document published by him on November 25th 2008 entitled "Chinse state intervenes in amid sharp fall in growth".
Khoo is generally correct that the top Bureaucracy in China will be forced into a certain re-orientation towards more domsetic production; and use of domestic services; certain Bureaucrats regaining their privliges by re-gaining control of firms closed down by Capitalists; there is still capacity for massive infrastructure projects; and more concessions will be made in an attempt to reduce and defuse the workers revolutionary threat to Stalinism. In his Hyde Park's Speaking Corner's presentation Khoo points out the development of a mightly working class of 300 million can potentially shake the world. In the course of that presentation he recorded an important fact that this working class in China is slightly bigger than the American and Western European working classes combined. Khoo is correct that if this working class moves it will shake the Chinese Bureaucracy.
Thornett in his report on the FI's 16th World Congress moves further to the right when he defines China as Imperialist. He made an absurd claim that it was "Chinese Imperialism that has created a sizeable part of the world working class". Trotsky wrote in the 1930s that if Socialist revolutions were not carried out in the Imperialist countries the organised working class would be reduced. This was one of the main reasons he called for German Fascism to be destroyed before they came to power. There is mass unemployment in the Third World and millions being made unemployed in individual Imperialist countries.
Imperialism has mainly used the semi-colonies as cheap raw materials and during Colonialism to dominate them with their products. Any developments such as the Tiger Economies and South Korea were to stop the Socialist Revolutions spreading from China and North Korea into these countries. All of those Tiger economies collapsed with their depression beginining in 1997. The Chinese workers' state carried on with their massive economic development because it is mainly based on production for use value. Thornett has broken with Permanent Revolution totally when he argues that Capitalism can develop China into a major Imperialist power. It was only by China by ending Imperialist domination by carrying a combined revolution of the Bourgeois-Democratic and Socialist tasks that it has emerged as a a major power. (I deal with the dual effect of Chinese Stalinism on the world scene by looking at China's role in the international division of labour - see part 2 of my document).
In reply to Thornett: where has Imperialism developed the infrastructure in Third World countries; which has cancelled a lot of debt from Africa; and build up public services such as schools and hospitals in the semi-colonies? Trotskyists disagree with the Chinese Bureaucracy's proping up Bourgeois Nationalists but recognise even linited anti-Imperialist actions can threatern losing billions for Western European and American Imperialist companies. It is precisely because Imperialism cannot but hinder these semi-colonies' developments that the Permanent Revolution is such a burning necessity
Due to the latest world Capitalist crisis Capitalism's decay is going to reveal itself more an more. This will open up revolutionary possibilities with the Chinese workers' state showing a major alternative to Capitallism. The potentual for Political Revolution which Trotskyists can take advantage and eventally lead will supplement this rise in world revolution. Thornett by defining Chinas as "Imperialist" means he will take an abstentionist position when the Chinese Bureaucracy helps certain semi-Colonial Bourgeoisies fight Imperialism.
This will also mean he be the right-wing of any anti-war movement which began with his semi-Third Campist line on NATO's war with Serbia in 1999 where he abadoned effectived defence of that workers' state against Imperialism by drawing an equal sign with Stalinism's crimes in Kosovo and the Imperialist intervention. It was only the AWL majority led by Matgamma which was more right wing than Thornett where they refused to condemm the NATO intervention into Serbia. T
The British SWP moved towards defending Serbia against NATO on the justification it was a semi-colony. Despite their wrong theory on Serbia this represented a left turn! There was also an opportunist zig-zag when Tony Cliff in a reply to the ISO suggested that the IST adapt to the the Russian foriegn policy on the basis that it would weaken American Imperialism. As a Trotskyist I do believe in utilising the Russian workers' state being in conflict with Imperialism to weaken Capitalism and strengthen forces for the world Socialist revolution. Alex Callincios retreated into classical Third Campism at an anti-NATO confernce in October/November 1999 when he argued that the Russian Bureaucracy is not at times anti-Imperialist. I wish that I could in my contribution quoted Trotsky in a 1937 article entitled "Not a Workers and not a Bourgeois state" that the Russian Bureaucracy reflects Imperialist pressures on the workers' state and on the other hand it is in conflict with Imperialism because they need to defend their privliges based on that workers' state which Imperialism attempts to overthrow. Starting from Trotsky's analysis I would have said the Soviet Bureaucracy after all the sacrifices of World War 2 did not want Imperialism to use Eastern Europe as buffer states to attack them again. There were big dangers of a Third World War when NATO bombed Serbia beause it was aimed to strenghen Capitalist restorationist forces throughout Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet countries and NATO's bombing started the same month that 3 ex-Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO. Callincios in a April 1999 anti-NATO public meeting in Birmingham capitulated to Petty-Bourgeois forces in the anti-NATO movement a Third World War by arguing for UN troops in Kosovo. This was a complete break from a Leninst-Trotskyist position of opposing Imperialist interventions in all its guises. Myra-Tanner Weiss wrote in a 1954 Fourth International article that Stalinphobia and adaptation to Stalinism are both polar opposites which are both Petty-Bourgeois. This was when she was with Cannon and before she made her own adaptations to Stalinism in the late 1950s which Cannon opposed. It is still scientifically correct! (This article by Tanner-Weiss is available on Marxist Internet Archive under Fourth International magazine archive)
Another indication of this rightward move was when the Socialist Resistance majority in 2008 during the Russian-Georgian war dumped defence of that workers' state who were fighting an Imperialist-influenced Georgian regime which if Georgia won would have strengthed Capitalist restorationist forces by concillationist elements to Imperialism from among those Bureaucrats would have been strengthened. The SR majority were neutral unlike when they supported a Capitalist Kosovo state independence from a workers' state in 2008. During this war the SR majority argued for the first time that Russia was "Imperialist". If the SR majority had supported Georgia with most of the opprssed (even among the Muslim community) being supportive of Russia in checking American Imperialism's ability to dominate the world would have reduced their influence in the anti-war movement to a rump. The British SWP were at six and sevens on this war. Lindsey German was Third Campist on this war in Socialist Worker dismissing it as "Inter-Imperialist". Callincios adapted to the pro-Russian mood when he said in the same paper that Russia had shown that the West could be beat if Imperialism was stood upto. How is that possible when he usually defines Russia as "Imperialist"?
Where I disagree with Khoo is that he is not clear in his first document that the Bureaucracy will have to be overthrown by Political Revolution led by the working class. When Napolean made that famous statement in the 19th century about a sleeping giant if aroused he realised Imperialism was lucky in having miltiary supremacy over most of Asia (except Japan) and may only last for a certain period of time. This is is why all the Imperialist powers united in 1900 to crush the Boxer rebellion. Even with all the limitations of Chinese Stalinism a Socialist revolution occured which is shaking the world. George Novack argued in an article on transitional societies that even in the 1960s there was a lack of understanding the complexities of these workers' state and other political questions which required a transitional appraoch. Novack pointed out that you can have processes unfolding such as Stalinist political counter-revolututions which have extreme contradictions which history resolves. This article can be found on the Marxist Internet Archive under Novack. In that article Novack traced the role of transition in the natural and social scicnces.
Khoo echoes Micheal Pablo and Harry Frankel that the Bureaucracy will allow genuine working class representation. Joseph Hansen argued in a spring 1953 American SWP internal document against Frankel that his anoligies with the Soviet Bureaucracy sharing power with the working class with how declining Liberal Aristocracies shared power with the rising Bourgeosies was a major mistake on Frankel's part. As Hansen points out even in that epoch of the rising European Bourgeoises it required several Bourgeois revolutions to establish Capitalism. Hansen argued that the Bureaucracies could not tolerate any real workers' demoracy because workers once they organised threatened the Bureaucracies with potential Political Revolutions. The 1989 Eastern European events shows quite clearly that other Bureaucratic factions can use mass upheavals for their own ends. It also revealed they could share power with Bourgeois elements provided they accept the Bureaucracies rule. This is why I see Eastern Europe still as degenerated workers' states because Capital can only exist by Bureaucratic factions allowing them to operate. In order for the Bourgeois layers to became ruling classes requires the overthrow of the Bureaucrats standing in the way of Capitalist restoration and defeating the workers resisting their social gains being destroyed. Jim Cannon argued against Pablo and Frankel corectly that the Bureaucracies will not peacefuly give up their privliges to either the workers or Capitalists!
Tuesday 12 January 2010
A contribution to the Lippman-RIddell debate on the class nature of China
Walter Lippmen correctly attacks the un-dialectical method of John Riddell in being too negative towards China due to falsely concluding Capitalism has been restored. He points to China's massive economic development which even Bourgeois economists have argued is unique in history. Riddell's major methodlogical error is believing Capitalism can develop third world countries on the scale of China. This is a logical step from when you went along with Jack Barnes's break from Permanent Revolution during the early 1980s. After the Bourgeois elements were defeated in the 15th centuy , Feudalism was consolidated within China. During that period there was a possibility of a major Capitalist development with China possessing the world's biggest navy and their extensive trade with Africa. A major Capitalist development became impossible due to the Chinese Bourgeoisie being weakened by a dominant Aristocracy. Once Capitalism had domianance over the world during the 19th Century Capitalism imposed their subordination of China to the needs of their markets.
From the Boxer rebellion of 1900 to the Chinese revolution of 1949 there were anti-Imperialist rebellions. A Chinese Trotskyist by the name of Peng Shu-Tse analysed that Amerian Imperialism for a whole variety of factors was unable to put down the Socialist Revolution in 1950. As Trotsky said of Russia the attempted Bourgeois revolution in China during the 15th century fail due to their weakeness, once Imperialism dominated China it was only through carrying out a Socialist revolution could the productive forces go forward. Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution which China vindicates is that you have combine the Bourgeois-Democratic tasks of national liberation against Imperialism combined with the Socialist tasks of overthrowing Capitalism.
The model for Trotskyists in analysing China is Trotsky's "Revolution Betrayed". Trotskyists should point out how China proves that a workers' State can massively develop the productive forces than Capitalism; can innovate with new technologies; and lift millions of millions out of poverty. This is what Trotsky said about the Soviet Union in the "Revolution Betrayed". China has lifted 300 million out of poverty! One significant change which makes China different from Russia is that due to Capitalism's weakness China has become part of the international division of labour. China at the same time maintains a monopoly of foreign trade. This contradiction of China threatening Capitalism's markets and maintaining the workers' state through that monoploy of foriegn trade could escalate the trade tensions with Imperialism. The restoration of Capitalism would destroy the productive forces accumulated since 1950 and the social gains which workers have accomplished. By doing this work Trotskyists can popularise our program by showing that even through the distortion of Stalinism of what a workers' state can accomplish by carrying out Permanent Revolution.
Riddell has to admit in his reply to Lippman that rapid economic development is occuring within China. Riddel is correct that state intervention in China has prevented a depression in their economy. How is this possible under Capitalism? when Trotsky argued that state intervention is to bail out a decaying economic system. Trotsky pointed out however a Workers' state however degenerated has a different dynamic to Capitalism because the socialisation of productive forces liberated by a Socialist revolution. When Riddell attacks the concepts of state ownership being Socialist just by those measures alone and then goes on to label it "State Capitalist" breaks from a Marxist understanding of the different economic laws of Capitalism and workers' states. Even before the rise of Stalinism, Marx and Engels, and in documents of the first 4 world congress of the Comintern the socialisation of production through Socialist revolutions was one indication for the existence of workers' states.
One major mistake Riddell makes is not realising that the restoration of Capitalism requires the destruction of the bulk of state-owned industries. At the end of his reply Riddell correctly concludes that China is not Imperialist but then poses a question mark in defending it from Imperialism. It is peculair that Riddell will not defend a workers' state but will support correctly semi-Colonies in any wars against Imperialism. Trotskyists oppose Stalinist oppression of nationalities such as Tibet but defend the Chinese workers' state against Imperialism. Riddell was correct to break from Barnes' abandonment of the Colonial revolution but to his right on the workers' states. It is important for Trotskyists to challenge Liberal Human rights justifications for Imperialist intervention in workers' states and semi-Colonies.
Lippman's reply to Riddell is 90% correct but where does he stand on Permanent Revolution? One disagreement I have with him is his rejection of historical models. Trotskyists contiuing with Lenin have to make assessements incorporated into programme of what worked and failed. This is so the working class do not make the same disatrous mistakes.
From the Boxer rebellion of 1900 to the Chinese revolution of 1949 there were anti-Imperialist rebellions. A Chinese Trotskyist by the name of Peng Shu-Tse analysed that Amerian Imperialism for a whole variety of factors was unable to put down the Socialist Revolution in 1950. As Trotsky said of Russia the attempted Bourgeois revolution in China during the 15th century fail due to their weakeness, once Imperialism dominated China it was only through carrying out a Socialist revolution could the productive forces go forward. Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution which China vindicates is that you have combine the Bourgeois-Democratic tasks of national liberation against Imperialism combined with the Socialist tasks of overthrowing Capitalism.
The model for Trotskyists in analysing China is Trotsky's "Revolution Betrayed". Trotskyists should point out how China proves that a workers' State can massively develop the productive forces than Capitalism; can innovate with new technologies; and lift millions of millions out of poverty. This is what Trotsky said about the Soviet Union in the "Revolution Betrayed". China has lifted 300 million out of poverty! One significant change which makes China different from Russia is that due to Capitalism's weakness China has become part of the international division of labour. China at the same time maintains a monopoly of foreign trade. This contradiction of China threatening Capitalism's markets and maintaining the workers' state through that monoploy of foriegn trade could escalate the trade tensions with Imperialism. The restoration of Capitalism would destroy the productive forces accumulated since 1950 and the social gains which workers have accomplished. By doing this work Trotskyists can popularise our program by showing that even through the distortion of Stalinism of what a workers' state can accomplish by carrying out Permanent Revolution.
Riddell has to admit in his reply to Lippman that rapid economic development is occuring within China. Riddel is correct that state intervention in China has prevented a depression in their economy. How is this possible under Capitalism? when Trotsky argued that state intervention is to bail out a decaying economic system. Trotsky pointed out however a Workers' state however degenerated has a different dynamic to Capitalism because the socialisation of productive forces liberated by a Socialist revolution. When Riddell attacks the concepts of state ownership being Socialist just by those measures alone and then goes on to label it "State Capitalist" breaks from a Marxist understanding of the different economic laws of Capitalism and workers' states. Even before the rise of Stalinism, Marx and Engels, and in documents of the first 4 world congress of the Comintern the socialisation of production through Socialist revolutions was one indication for the existence of workers' states.
One major mistake Riddell makes is not realising that the restoration of Capitalism requires the destruction of the bulk of state-owned industries. At the end of his reply Riddell correctly concludes that China is not Imperialist but then poses a question mark in defending it from Imperialism. It is peculair that Riddell will not defend a workers' state but will support correctly semi-Colonies in any wars against Imperialism. Trotskyists oppose Stalinist oppression of nationalities such as Tibet but defend the Chinese workers' state against Imperialism. Riddell was correct to break from Barnes' abandonment of the Colonial revolution but to his right on the workers' states. It is important for Trotskyists to challenge Liberal Human rights justifications for Imperialist intervention in workers' states and semi-Colonies.
Lippman's reply to Riddell is 90% correct but where does he stand on Permanent Revolution? One disagreement I have with him is his rejection of historical models. Trotskyists contiuing with Lenin have to make assessements incorporated into programme of what worked and failed. This is so the working class do not make the same disatrous mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)