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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)