TWO GRAMMATICAL CORRECTIONS TO DOCUMENT ON BANKING COLLAPSE AND ONE SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS CONCERNING OCCUPY WALL STREET MOVEMENT AS AN INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT BY ANTHONY BRAIN.
First on the grammatical corrections I missed out important words on two paragraphs on contradictions between Miliband as really representing neo-New Labour in conflict with the Social Democratic nature of the Labour Party. On page 2, paragraph 2 I missed out the word correct on the main point of document written by me in September 2010 that the social base that elected Miliband as leader represented a radicalization despite my secondary errors he would mainly go over to Social Democracy. On Page 2, paragraph 3, extending to page 3, paragraph 1 I missed out Miliband made deal with Right Wing Social Democrats to oppose certain ConDem cuts.
What’s missing in the document is not mentioning the international dimension of the Occupy Wall Street movement. One million marched against Capitalism internationally in 80+ countries during October 15th 2011. It is the biggest mobilization since the February 15th 2003 internationally co-ordinated demonstrations against war in Iraq. The internationalist character of this movement will make it harder for Imperialist Bourgeoisies to contain this movement.
Monday 24 October 2011
Will banking collapse or more austerity measures in Greece lead to more pre-Revolutionary crises?
ARE REVOLUTIONARY UPHEAVALS WITHIN THE IMPERIALIST COUNTRIES MORE LIKELY IF AUSTERITY MEASURES GETS WORSE OR BANKS COLLAPSE? BY ANTHONY BRAIN
The Occupy Wall Street movement is a turning point in terms of mass struggles against Capital’s attempts to make workers and middle class pay for falling profits of Capitalists. In how this movement has emerged and its mass character shows millions of workers and sizeable middle class layers will not tolerate these attacks anymore.
This is very bad timing for the Western European Capitalists. Due to losses of Western European banks which are on the brink of going bankrupt there was talk on Newsnight programme last week that half a trillion Euros (500 Billion Euros) would be needed to stop these banks going bankrupt. French Capital hopes that this money is made available by the European Central Bank (ECB) based in Frankfurt, in Germany. There is big resistance by German Capitalists who do not want to help their Imperialist rivals. In periods of Capitalist crisis within the Imperialist countries Rosa Luxemburg argued was their nation states’ being strengthened in increased competition for declining markets.
In the last two days there have been rumours on the British TV news programmes that the ECB will allocate 100 Billion Euros to bank re-capitalization and that Greece will be given 7 billion in a loan to repay their debts. On ITV news tonight it is reported there are no real agreement on any concrete measures. It is clear that the Greeks cannot repay their debts in full. There is talk of the banks receiving losing between 50% and 60% of their loans investments. Bourgeois Economists use the jargon term of “taking a haircut” to describe these sorts of losses. The most likely development is banks using a lot of money forcing considerable number of them into bankruptcy. Reaching a plaster-like deal which prolongs Greek attempts to repay debts seems unlikely but cannot be ruled out.
Trotskyists need to understand whatever happens next the working class and middle class are going to rebel more as Capital attacks them more. Even in the best scenario for Western European bankers of Greek debt is repaid longer for several weeks to months (at most) the attempted increased austerity measures will lead to bigger revolutionary upheavals in Greece. If the banks’ collapse and millions of workers and middle class elements cannot access their bank accounts this could be a tipping point for revolutionary upheavals within Imperialist countries to threaten Finance Capital’s rule and governments. During December 2001 the banks’ collapse led to the overthrow of a right wing government within Argentina.
The Imperialist ruling classes will manouvre to contain any serious revolutionary threats. Trotsky uses the formula in such situations they make desperate last-minute concessions to the masses in order to stop Socialist revolutions succeeding. Under such threats Liberal Bourgeois elements may feel the necessity of making significant reforms to the working and middle class. Social Democracy may be utilized in Western Europe for those purposes and to hegemonies these radicalizations. Greek Social Democracy is becoming too discredited to play this role. Stalinism may be used by Greek ruling class as a second option to contain threat of Socialist revolution.
One secondary mistake I made in September 2010 was to think Miliband was going over to Social Democracy. On the major issue of his social base in terms of middle class youth, especially students; wider middle class; Trade Union Bureaucrats; and millions of workers were voting for him as leader hoping he strengthen Social Democracy and isolate New Labour. He only survives as leader due to opportunist deals by Trade Union Bureaucrats. Those forces (except for cynical Trade Union Bureaucrats) who voted for Miliband felt betrayed by his deceit.
If Miliband comes out again against the November 30th strikes his cosy relationship which some Trade Union bureaucrats have with Miliband could very likely end as they cannot justify it to rank-and-file Trade Unionists. Trotskyists are missing an historic opportunity due to Ultra-Left forces still having influence to build a mass left wing within the Labour Party of those working and middle class forces radicalizing. By conducting such united front tactics against Miliband Trotskyists would be in a good position to break millions of workers from Social Democracy and towards revolutionary politics. The mistake in September 2010 I made that Miliband would go over to Social Democracy willingly was to under-estimate that he represented New Labour despite the concessions to right wing Social Democrats in opposing ComDem (popular reference to Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition government) would do everything to salvage that New Labour social layer. As a Trotskyist I am opposed to all cuts.
Already Liberal Bourgeois layers reflected by the New York Times in America are trying to contain the radicalization which the Occupy Wall Street movement represents by appearing to support this movement and gear it into Keynesian measures to increase regulations of banking and speculation. Conservative Bourgeois elements in America such as Ron Paul are adapting to the Occupy Wall Street movement by appearing to support it hoping middle class layers move away from their left wing direction of looking to the workers for them to lead a fight against Capital. If the Trade Union Bureaucrats and other opportunists within the workers movement betray anti-Capitalist struggles Right Wing Populists such as Paul hopes to capitalize on despair that would generate within the middle class and hopes to turn them against the working class.
Imperialist Nationalism including liberal versions Trotskyists has to reject because they promote reactionary oppressor nationalism. The American SWP before 1981 in the tradition of Lenin and Trotsky correctly distinguished between the nationalism of the oppressor and those of the oppressed. Conservative Bourgeois elements within Imperialist countries utilize such nationalism to blame other Capitalists in other countries exclusively for socio-economic crises. They also use scapegoats such as Jews; Muslims; and other non-White ethnicities for those problems.
Liberal Bourgeois Imperialist nationalism is equally reactionary because it promotes illusions Imperialist ruling classes will fundamentally change from their exploitative character, and abandon racism; Islamophobia; or ant-Semitism altogether. Their differences with Conservative Bourgeois elements is at most strategic differences or sometimes tactical disagreements over how it affects Capitalist profits/markets or how best to maintain ruling class rule.
Rachael Horwitz has made her worse mistake in adapting to this middle class layer who have those illusions in Liberal Bourgeois layers. Horwitz obviously does not support the Liberal Bourgeoisie or shares these middle class illusions. The mistake is she makes is conceding to English Liberal Nationalism by even signing up to “We like England”. Trotskyists should set up separate facebook groups calling for a workers/Socialist England. We would pose transitional demands to win workers; middle class; and all oppressed nationalities/ethnicities; women; and gays/lesbians of those classes over to this politics.
If the banks’ collapse in Western Europe and America within days positive dynamics of Occupy Wall Street movement will advance much faster in possibly creating pre-revolutionary crises. Any prolonging of Capitalist crisis for several weeks/months will give the chances for Conservative Bourgeois elements to influence any despair coming from lack of success in Occupy Wall Street movement. Trotskyist strategies and tactics have to be to break any Bourgeois influences among those radicalizing and push for mass action to show the masses their power. These are the best ways to build up for Socialist revolutions.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is a turning point in terms of mass struggles against Capital’s attempts to make workers and middle class pay for falling profits of Capitalists. In how this movement has emerged and its mass character shows millions of workers and sizeable middle class layers will not tolerate these attacks anymore.
This is very bad timing for the Western European Capitalists. Due to losses of Western European banks which are on the brink of going bankrupt there was talk on Newsnight programme last week that half a trillion Euros (500 Billion Euros) would be needed to stop these banks going bankrupt. French Capital hopes that this money is made available by the European Central Bank (ECB) based in Frankfurt, in Germany. There is big resistance by German Capitalists who do not want to help their Imperialist rivals. In periods of Capitalist crisis within the Imperialist countries Rosa Luxemburg argued was their nation states’ being strengthened in increased competition for declining markets.
In the last two days there have been rumours on the British TV news programmes that the ECB will allocate 100 Billion Euros to bank re-capitalization and that Greece will be given 7 billion in a loan to repay their debts. On ITV news tonight it is reported there are no real agreement on any concrete measures. It is clear that the Greeks cannot repay their debts in full. There is talk of the banks receiving losing between 50% and 60% of their loans investments. Bourgeois Economists use the jargon term of “taking a haircut” to describe these sorts of losses. The most likely development is banks using a lot of money forcing considerable number of them into bankruptcy. Reaching a plaster-like deal which prolongs Greek attempts to repay debts seems unlikely but cannot be ruled out.
Trotskyists need to understand whatever happens next the working class and middle class are going to rebel more as Capital attacks them more. Even in the best scenario for Western European bankers of Greek debt is repaid longer for several weeks to months (at most) the attempted increased austerity measures will lead to bigger revolutionary upheavals in Greece. If the banks’ collapse and millions of workers and middle class elements cannot access their bank accounts this could be a tipping point for revolutionary upheavals within Imperialist countries to threaten Finance Capital’s rule and governments. During December 2001 the banks’ collapse led to the overthrow of a right wing government within Argentina.
The Imperialist ruling classes will manouvre to contain any serious revolutionary threats. Trotsky uses the formula in such situations they make desperate last-minute concessions to the masses in order to stop Socialist revolutions succeeding. Under such threats Liberal Bourgeois elements may feel the necessity of making significant reforms to the working and middle class. Social Democracy may be utilized in Western Europe for those purposes and to hegemonies these radicalizations. Greek Social Democracy is becoming too discredited to play this role. Stalinism may be used by Greek ruling class as a second option to contain threat of Socialist revolution.
One secondary mistake I made in September 2010 was to think Miliband was going over to Social Democracy. On the major issue of his social base in terms of middle class youth, especially students; wider middle class; Trade Union Bureaucrats; and millions of workers were voting for him as leader hoping he strengthen Social Democracy and isolate New Labour. He only survives as leader due to opportunist deals by Trade Union Bureaucrats. Those forces (except for cynical Trade Union Bureaucrats) who voted for Miliband felt betrayed by his deceit.
If Miliband comes out again against the November 30th strikes his cosy relationship which some Trade Union bureaucrats have with Miliband could very likely end as they cannot justify it to rank-and-file Trade Unionists. Trotskyists are missing an historic opportunity due to Ultra-Left forces still having influence to build a mass left wing within the Labour Party of those working and middle class forces radicalizing. By conducting such united front tactics against Miliband Trotskyists would be in a good position to break millions of workers from Social Democracy and towards revolutionary politics. The mistake in September 2010 I made that Miliband would go over to Social Democracy willingly was to under-estimate that he represented New Labour despite the concessions to right wing Social Democrats in opposing ComDem (popular reference to Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition government) would do everything to salvage that New Labour social layer. As a Trotskyist I am opposed to all cuts.
Already Liberal Bourgeois layers reflected by the New York Times in America are trying to contain the radicalization which the Occupy Wall Street movement represents by appearing to support this movement and gear it into Keynesian measures to increase regulations of banking and speculation. Conservative Bourgeois elements in America such as Ron Paul are adapting to the Occupy Wall Street movement by appearing to support it hoping middle class layers move away from their left wing direction of looking to the workers for them to lead a fight against Capital. If the Trade Union Bureaucrats and other opportunists within the workers movement betray anti-Capitalist struggles Right Wing Populists such as Paul hopes to capitalize on despair that would generate within the middle class and hopes to turn them against the working class.
Imperialist Nationalism including liberal versions Trotskyists has to reject because they promote reactionary oppressor nationalism. The American SWP before 1981 in the tradition of Lenin and Trotsky correctly distinguished between the nationalism of the oppressor and those of the oppressed. Conservative Bourgeois elements within Imperialist countries utilize such nationalism to blame other Capitalists in other countries exclusively for socio-economic crises. They also use scapegoats such as Jews; Muslims; and other non-White ethnicities for those problems.
Liberal Bourgeois Imperialist nationalism is equally reactionary because it promotes illusions Imperialist ruling classes will fundamentally change from their exploitative character, and abandon racism; Islamophobia; or ant-Semitism altogether. Their differences with Conservative Bourgeois elements is at most strategic differences or sometimes tactical disagreements over how it affects Capitalist profits/markets or how best to maintain ruling class rule.
Rachael Horwitz has made her worse mistake in adapting to this middle class layer who have those illusions in Liberal Bourgeois layers. Horwitz obviously does not support the Liberal Bourgeoisie or shares these middle class illusions. The mistake is she makes is conceding to English Liberal Nationalism by even signing up to “We like England”. Trotskyists should set up separate facebook groups calling for a workers/Socialist England. We would pose transitional demands to win workers; middle class; and all oppressed nationalities/ethnicities; women; and gays/lesbians of those classes over to this politics.
If the banks’ collapse in Western Europe and America within days positive dynamics of Occupy Wall Street movement will advance much faster in possibly creating pre-revolutionary crises. Any prolonging of Capitalist crisis for several weeks/months will give the chances for Conservative Bourgeois elements to influence any despair coming from lack of success in Occupy Wall Street movement. Trotskyist strategies and tactics have to be to break any Bourgeois influences among those radicalizing and push for mass action to show the masses their power. These are the best ways to build up for Socialist revolutions.
Sunday 16 October 2011
Why I am writing a book on the Dialetical unity of the Sciences?
o I am studying the natural sciences in order to write a book on the dialectical unity of the Sciences; and show the application of Dialectical Materialism and Law of Uneven and combined Development! I am researching the three theories of how the early universe was formed and developed. One of the things I learned watching Brian Cox's "Wonders of the Universe" TV series which was on BBC 2 this year is that Oxygen could not form without Hydrogen. This shows life could not emerge on Earth without those Cosmological-chemical changes. Is it true protons was one of the first materials that developed in the early universe? Did it precede Atoms? Did Atoms take later to form because they were more complex than Protons?
o
o
o One of the main reasons I am writing this book on the Dialectics of the Sciences is to explore why it took billions of years before life could develop and compare it socially with the culmination now in the worse Capitalist crisis of the struggle to abolish class society. It is no accident that it is now being determined whether humanity survives by overthrowing world Capitalism.
o
o On another level it is no accident that the greatest Scientific achievements are still going ahead. As Trotsky would say it is this historic dialectic of these social contradictions being worked out with all their complexities and subtleties. In other words it is the dialectical interplay of necessity and chance. The role of Marxism as Trotsky and Cannon would say is to give a conscious expression to these processes and push it in the direction of world revolution. Once Trotskyism has established world Socialism the mass of humanity will have chances to study all Sciences which enable them to deal with natural disasters; explore into space more extensively; and consciously deal with most situations.
o
o
o One of the main reasons I am writing this book on the Dialectics of the Sciences is to explore why it took billions of years before life could develop and compare it socially with the culmination now in the worse Capitalist crisis of the struggle to abolish class society. It is no accident that it is now being determined whether humanity survives by overthrowing world Capitalism.
o
o On another level it is no accident that the greatest Scientific achievements are still going ahead. As Trotsky would say it is this historic dialectic of these social contradictions being worked out with all their complexities and subtleties. In other words it is the dialectical interplay of necessity and chance. The role of Marxism as Trotsky and Cannon would say is to give a conscious expression to these processes and push it in the direction of world revolution. Once Trotskyism has established world Socialism the mass of humanity will have chances to study all Sciences which enable them to deal with natural disasters; explore into space more extensively; and consciously deal with most situations.
Thursday 15 September 2011
Letter to British Socialist Action on a David Fennell article on Libya
It is rare I agree with a British Socialist Action article. The article on Libya published on September 1st 2011 by David Fennell (except for one difference and another possible difference – which I deal with later) is an outstanding theoretical article especially those quotes from Lenin about science of totality and applies it well to Libyan situation. Fennel’s article demolishes the SWP and Counterfire and shows their anti-Marxist method.
Does Socialist Action support the Permanent Revolution? I was wondering about that because a few months ago when I glanced an article on your website which only talked about Lenin on the Colonial revolution and never mentioned Trotsky. What’s missing in Fennel’s article is mention of Permanent Revolution’s method. Fennel is correct to have a military united front with Gaddafi to defeat Imperialism. Within this framework Trotskyists fight for workers to lead the anti-Imperialist struggle in the direction of Socialist revolution.
I fundamentally disagree that Mao was a Revolutionary Marxist. He was always a Stalinist protecting Bureaucratic privileges first based on a party in the workers movement (Chinese Communist Party) and when he overthrow Capitalism during 1950 established a bureaucratic caste which still rules.
I am not sure about your criticism of the SWP and Counterfire on Britain. They are both Ultra-Left and Opportunist. On a lot of questions I consider your positions as opportunist. Despite these differences we should work together to build a united front to stop Imperialist war on Libya.
Anthony Brain
Does Socialist Action support the Permanent Revolution? I was wondering about that because a few months ago when I glanced an article on your website which only talked about Lenin on the Colonial revolution and never mentioned Trotsky. What’s missing in Fennel’s article is mention of Permanent Revolution’s method. Fennel is correct to have a military united front with Gaddafi to defeat Imperialism. Within this framework Trotskyists fight for workers to lead the anti-Imperialist struggle in the direction of Socialist revolution.
I fundamentally disagree that Mao was a Revolutionary Marxist. He was always a Stalinist protecting Bureaucratic privileges first based on a party in the workers movement (Chinese Communist Party) and when he overthrow Capitalism during 1950 established a bureaucratic caste which still rules.
I am not sure about your criticism of the SWP and Counterfire on Britain. They are both Ultra-Left and Opportunist. On a lot of questions I consider your positions as opportunist. Despite these differences we should work together to build a united front to stop Imperialist war on Libya.
Anthony Brain
Tuesday 13 September 2011
Supplementary comments to document on dangers of World War 3 by Anthony Brain if Capitalist crisis gets further out of control!
(These are supplementary comments to document on Capitalist crisis and how it could unleash forces if it gets out of control and not stopped leading to a third world war! based on developments I read and heard last night)
The Xinhua article makes crystal clear what the Israeli ruling class and American Imperialism is aiming if Palestine declares independence. They are obviously planning for full-scale war in West Bank; Gaza; Arab parts of Israel; and on Lebanese and Syrian border with cameras attached to Israeli armed forces in those areas. American Imperialism by using Israel wants to gain more natural resources by provoking wars with Lebanon and Syria. Due to anti-war feelings in America they could not directly do it themselves. Both American Imperialism and Israeli ruling class fear the mass movement for housing and support for Palestinians with the tent protests in Israel. Whipping up hostility to the Arabs may serve their purposes to derail that mass movement. Why has the Chinese Bureaucracy let this information out? They may be alarmed at the instability American Imperialism could cause. Another major factor is that if American Imperialism dominates the Middle East they will use increased oil ownership to increase pressure on the Chinese Bureaucracy through increased encirclement to make further inroads into that workers’ state.
There cannot be ruled out a last minute pulling back on independence by the Palestinian Authority. That is very unlikely. On Newsnight (a 45 minute news programme on British TV) last night mentioned that the Palestinian Authority will submit their independence call tonight or tomorrow at the UN. I noticed on Xinhua news agency that a Qatar representative is quoted saying that Palestine has not submitted recognition claim to UN yet.
In another important article Xinhua gives a statistical breakdown of how Turkish Imperialism is gaining further ownership and profitable investments within Egypt. Erdogan (Turkish Prime Minister) is in Egypt at least for two days to finalize trade and business agreements. Yesterday Erdogan met Egyptian Prime Minister whose name is Essam Sharaf to agree increasing trade volume from currently three billion dollars to five billion dollars. Co-operation was agreed in technology; communication; petroleum; and natural resources. Finally there was agreement for Turkish companies to invest in Egyptian textiles; clothes; tourism; food industries; and chemicals. Turkish industrial zones will increase. There will be considerable Turkish Imperialist investments in tourism; transportation; and energy sectors. Today Erdogan will meet with Sharaf alongside 200 Egyptian business representatives to finalize contracts. Sections of Egyptian Bourgeoisie are moving in Turkish Imperialism’s orbit because they get a slight more ownership of their economy by allying with them against American Imperialism.
On Newsnight last night there was a serious discussion about Greece leaving the Euro. There is a big battle within the German Ruling Class over what to do. It was revealed on that programme whatever decision is made in the next day or two could determine the Euro’s future. Sections of the German Ruling Class who think Greece will inevitably default on its debt which will lead to a bigger crisis for German banks. By bringing it to a head they believe they can limit the damage. Another equally important faction fears that if Greece defaults it would lead to a Lehman Brothers type collapse on German Banks. Merkel will find it a hard struggle to get rescue package for Greece through the German parliament. This was indicated by Newsnight interviewing Merkel’s chief whip. A British bank representative argued on that programme that whatever happens in Greece it would adversely affect British banks.
Capitalism is in crisis on every level. This creates the objective conditions for world revolution. The problem is that masses within the Imperialist countries do not see the dangers of a full scale Middle East war which Israel will use Palestinian declaration of independence as a pretext to start. When the danger sinks in there could be mass anger. The Stop the War Coalition should raise the dangers of what Israel is doing to stop any major war, If it cannot be stopped they should move to build a mass movement out of anger and fear of it escalating into a third world war.
The Xinhua article makes crystal clear what the Israeli ruling class and American Imperialism is aiming if Palestine declares independence. They are obviously planning for full-scale war in West Bank; Gaza; Arab parts of Israel; and on Lebanese and Syrian border with cameras attached to Israeli armed forces in those areas. American Imperialism by using Israel wants to gain more natural resources by provoking wars with Lebanon and Syria. Due to anti-war feelings in America they could not directly do it themselves. Both American Imperialism and Israeli ruling class fear the mass movement for housing and support for Palestinians with the tent protests in Israel. Whipping up hostility to the Arabs may serve their purposes to derail that mass movement. Why has the Chinese Bureaucracy let this information out? They may be alarmed at the instability American Imperialism could cause. Another major factor is that if American Imperialism dominates the Middle East they will use increased oil ownership to increase pressure on the Chinese Bureaucracy through increased encirclement to make further inroads into that workers’ state.
There cannot be ruled out a last minute pulling back on independence by the Palestinian Authority. That is very unlikely. On Newsnight (a 45 minute news programme on British TV) last night mentioned that the Palestinian Authority will submit their independence call tonight or tomorrow at the UN. I noticed on Xinhua news agency that a Qatar representative is quoted saying that Palestine has not submitted recognition claim to UN yet.
In another important article Xinhua gives a statistical breakdown of how Turkish Imperialism is gaining further ownership and profitable investments within Egypt. Erdogan (Turkish Prime Minister) is in Egypt at least for two days to finalize trade and business agreements. Yesterday Erdogan met Egyptian Prime Minister whose name is Essam Sharaf to agree increasing trade volume from currently three billion dollars to five billion dollars. Co-operation was agreed in technology; communication; petroleum; and natural resources. Finally there was agreement for Turkish companies to invest in Egyptian textiles; clothes; tourism; food industries; and chemicals. Turkish industrial zones will increase. There will be considerable Turkish Imperialist investments in tourism; transportation; and energy sectors. Today Erdogan will meet with Sharaf alongside 200 Egyptian business representatives to finalize contracts. Sections of Egyptian Bourgeoisie are moving in Turkish Imperialism’s orbit because they get a slight more ownership of their economy by allying with them against American Imperialism.
On Newsnight last night there was a serious discussion about Greece leaving the Euro. There is a big battle within the German Ruling Class over what to do. It was revealed on that programme whatever decision is made in the next day or two could determine the Euro’s future. Sections of the German Ruling Class who think Greece will inevitably default on its debt which will lead to a bigger crisis for German banks. By bringing it to a head they believe they can limit the damage. Another equally important faction fears that if Greece defaults it would lead to a Lehman Brothers type collapse on German Banks. Merkel will find it a hard struggle to get rescue package for Greece through the German parliament. This was indicated by Newsnight interviewing Merkel’s chief whip. A British bank representative argued on that programme that whatever happens in Greece it would adversely affect British banks.
Capitalism is in crisis on every level. This creates the objective conditions for world revolution. The problem is that masses within the Imperialist countries do not see the dangers of a full scale Middle East war which Israel will use Palestinian declaration of independence as a pretext to start. When the danger sinks in there could be mass anger. The Stop the War Coalition should raise the dangers of what Israel is doing to stop any major war, If it cannot be stopped they should move to build a mass movement out of anger and fear of it escalating into a third world war.
Some prelimary comments (to a much longer document):- how close are we to World War 3?
“The economic prerequisite for the proletarian revolution has already in general achieved the highest point of fruition that can be reached under capitalism. Humanity’s productive forces stagnate. Already new inventions and improvements fail to raise the level of material wealth. Conjunctural crises under the conditions of the social crisis of the whole capitalist system inflict ever heavier deprivations and sufferings upon the masses. Growing unemployment, in its turn, deepens the financial crisis of the state and undermines the unstable monetary systems. Democratic regimes, as well as fascist, stagger on from one bankruptcy to another...
... The bourgeoisie itself sees no way out. In countries where it has already been forced to stake its last upon the card of fascism, it now toboggans with closed eyes toward an economic and military catastrophe. In the historically privileged countries, i.e., in those where the bourgeoisie can still for a certain period permit itself the luxury of democracy at the expense of national accumulations (Great Britain, France, United States, etc.), all of capital’s traditional parties are in a state of perplexity bordering on a paralysis of will...
... The “New Deal,” despite its first period of pretentious resoluteness, represents but a special form of political perplexity, possible only in a country where the bourgeoisie succeeded in accumulating incalculable wealth. The present crisis, far from having run its full course, has already succeeded in showing that “New Deal” politics, like Popular Front politics in France, opens no new exit from the economic blind alley...
... International relations present no better picture. Under the increasing tension of capitalist disintegration, imperialist antagonisms reach an impasse at the height of which separate clashes and bloody local disturbances (Ethiopia, Spain, the Far East, Central Europe) must inevitably coalesce into a conflagration of world dimensions. The bourgeoisie, of course, is aware of the mortal danger to its domination represented by a new war. But that class is now immeasurably less capable of averting war than on the eve of 1914” – Trotsky: Transitional Programme”.
This description by Trotsky on socio-economic crisis of Capitalism in 1938 could be written today. What’s changed is that after the end of World War 2 the workers’ states expanded; and the Colonial revolution drove out most direct Imperialist rule. Fascism is also not in full power within any Imperialist country. American Capitalism is in a worse crisis now than during the New Deal years. This is why the class struggle could be sharper due to faster falling profit rates. Trotsky mentioned that being a possibility in 1938 but the Second World War enabled them to make concessions to workers as American Capitalists made massive profits from re-dividing world markets and international division of labour.
If Capitalism is not overthrown within the Imperialist countries a worse catastrophe than the previous two world wars with the danger of nuclear war. The Imperialists do not want nuclear war at this stage. There are however several number of flashpoints globally once ignited could easily escalate out of control. Trotsky’s key point is made is that the Imperialist ruling classes have little control when there is a severe Capitalist crisis. This is what should be stressed in Trotskyist agitation.
We should also promote an important idea that only mass action of millions can stop Imperialist wars. Bush and the Neo-Cons with their crudity in their tactics weakened the creditability of Capitalism with at least millions within the Imperialist countries fearing a third world war, particularly how that America administration handled Iraq’s 2002-03 crises. Bush and Blair were exposed as liars over Iraq. Then came the beginning of what could be the worse Capitalist economic crisis ever after 2007. This has further undermined the creditability of ruling class rule in Britain. Wikileaks exposing double dealing with Imperialist diplomacy has also further weakens the Imperialist ruling classes rule.
From 2002 there were great opportunities missed when Bush-led offensive against the semi-Colonies and workers’ states started to run into objective trouble. 1989 was not predetermined that Imperialism would make major gains. It was the failure of the ex-Trotskyists to build leadership in Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet States to deepen the process of Political Revolution after disillusionment set in with the concillationist elements of Bureaucratic Castes to Imperialism started implementing their policies.
Imperialism did not succeed in restoring Capitalism (except for ex-GDR and Kosovo) but utilized those workers states’ crisis to demoralize whole layers of workers militants within the Imperialist countries which enabled Capital to gain at the expense of workers. American Imperialism really went on the offensive with Russia’s decline to re-colonize semi-colonies; and attempted overthrow of Serbian workers’ state. By Yeltsin being defeated in 2000 and American Imperialism losing the Afghan and Iraq wars slowed down timetable for World War 3.
Dialectically we are at the crossroads. There is the greatest chance objectively to overthrow Capitalism but we need to reconstruct a revolutionary leadership. The masses are beginning to radicalize and early stages questioning Capitalism. They sense some major crisis is coming but are still lagging behind objective reality. This is why I am spending several days/weeks analyzing the tensions between semi-Colonies and Imperialism; the growing conflict between workers’ states and Imperialism; inter-Semi-Colonial Bourgeois wars (between states and civil wars); and inter-Imperialist rivalries. That is my next big document. From that analysis strategies and tactics can be worked out to stop a third world war.
Trotskyists should utilize the crisis within Centrist groups and internationals to challenge their retreat on the workers’ states and semi-Colonies to theoretically clarify the situation in an educational manner by pointing out superiority of Revolutionary Marxist method over their methodological errors. As American Trotskyist Jim Cannon argued you cannot train a cadre in factional abuse but utilize great disputes over programme; method; and strategy to forge such a cadre. Lenin argued in “Left Wing Communism and infantile disorder” that the Bolshevik cadre was forged in such battles. Out of that process of left centrist currents emerging we hope to win the better elements to Trotskyism. The main focus in terms of accumulating initial Trotskyist cadres should be to the middle class intellectuals who are beginning to radicalize.
Before I finish I want to analyze current developments within the Middle East; tensions over Greek Cypriot gas rights; and tensions between Russian workers’ state and EU Imperialists over Caspian gas pipeline. The Palestinian Bourgeoisie in the West Bank are trying to stay in power by gaining major concessions from Israeli Zionist ruling class. Israel’s ruling class cannot afford to make any significant compromises because it would unravel the Zionist project.
Revolutionary upheavals in Tunisia; Egypt; Yemen; and Bahrain potentially strengthen the Palestinian struggle. In yesterday’s Jerusalem Post I read that a leading Saudi prince who an ex-Saudi ambassador to America has warned if they veto Palestine’s recognition this could lead to an all out Middle East war and even his regime falling in revolution. Trotskyists are opposed to a separate Palestinian state because it is an abandonment of a struggle to overthrow Zionism. At the same time we respect the Palestinian right to declare independence and demand Israel does not anything to stop it. We do everything to stop Israel starting a war over this. Unfortunately a war is very likely. Trotskyists within Israel should do utilize the civil unrest over housing to stop their ruling class launching a war against the Palestinians. In any war Trotskyists call for a Palestinian victory and support other Arab countries if they fight against Israel. If there is a crisis on this scale we utilize it to overthrow Zionism, and fight for a democratic and secular Palestine.
Turkish Imperialism is going on the offensive to gain more markets within the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean. Their naked Imperialist character is shown in how they are threatening to send warships to eastern Mediterranean to stop Greek Cypriots and Israel from gaining gas resources. Both Imperialist powers :- Greek Cypriots and Israel have threatened military retaliation. In this context Turkish Imperialism is utilizing the Palestinian declaration of independence to weaken American Imperialism and their allies so they can gain more markets at their expense. In the Jerusalem Post today there are articles saying that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan is in Egypt to meet that country’s new leadership and Abbas (Palestinian President) to encourage them towards Palestinian independence.
If a major war breaks out over Palestine there is a dangerous conflict between Turkish Imperialism against American Imperialism and their ally Israel a dangerous situation to world peace could occur. If Turkish Imperialism becomes predominant in the fight against Israel we may withdraw support to some Arab Bourgeois armies because they are becoming their pawns. This would certainly be my position if Turkish troops fought alongside Arab troops.
Another dangerous situation is the report in today’s Xinhua website that American Imperialism has heavily bombed on September 5th this year Jaar. Jaar is the second largest city in southern Abyan province. It is located in southern Yemen. Two mosques were destroyed in the air raids.
In what is the potential worse flashpoint for world peace is the growing tensions between EU Imperialists and Russian workers’ state over a Caspian Sea pipeline. Yesterday the EU is making provisional agreements with Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan to bypass Russia in gas pipelines directly to Western Europe. This has really upset the Russian Bureaucracy. What will the Russian Bureaucracy do in that context if there is a Turkish-Israeli war? They may be indifferent hoping they are both weakened. Will American Imperialism enter the war if Israel is losing very much? In 1973 the Soviet Bureaucracy threatened a nuclear war if American Imperialism had intervened n the Yom Kipper war. Could the Russian Bureaucracy react in a similar way if American Imperialism utilized the war chaos as a pretext to go into Syria? Anti-war movements in America could restrain American Imperialism from going too far.
... The bourgeoisie itself sees no way out. In countries where it has already been forced to stake its last upon the card of fascism, it now toboggans with closed eyes toward an economic and military catastrophe. In the historically privileged countries, i.e., in those where the bourgeoisie can still for a certain period permit itself the luxury of democracy at the expense of national accumulations (Great Britain, France, United States, etc.), all of capital’s traditional parties are in a state of perplexity bordering on a paralysis of will...
... The “New Deal,” despite its first period of pretentious resoluteness, represents but a special form of political perplexity, possible only in a country where the bourgeoisie succeeded in accumulating incalculable wealth. The present crisis, far from having run its full course, has already succeeded in showing that “New Deal” politics, like Popular Front politics in France, opens no new exit from the economic blind alley...
... International relations present no better picture. Under the increasing tension of capitalist disintegration, imperialist antagonisms reach an impasse at the height of which separate clashes and bloody local disturbances (Ethiopia, Spain, the Far East, Central Europe) must inevitably coalesce into a conflagration of world dimensions. The bourgeoisie, of course, is aware of the mortal danger to its domination represented by a new war. But that class is now immeasurably less capable of averting war than on the eve of 1914” – Trotsky: Transitional Programme”.
This description by Trotsky on socio-economic crisis of Capitalism in 1938 could be written today. What’s changed is that after the end of World War 2 the workers’ states expanded; and the Colonial revolution drove out most direct Imperialist rule. Fascism is also not in full power within any Imperialist country. American Capitalism is in a worse crisis now than during the New Deal years. This is why the class struggle could be sharper due to faster falling profit rates. Trotsky mentioned that being a possibility in 1938 but the Second World War enabled them to make concessions to workers as American Capitalists made massive profits from re-dividing world markets and international division of labour.
If Capitalism is not overthrown within the Imperialist countries a worse catastrophe than the previous two world wars with the danger of nuclear war. The Imperialists do not want nuclear war at this stage. There are however several number of flashpoints globally once ignited could easily escalate out of control. Trotsky’s key point is made is that the Imperialist ruling classes have little control when there is a severe Capitalist crisis. This is what should be stressed in Trotskyist agitation.
We should also promote an important idea that only mass action of millions can stop Imperialist wars. Bush and the Neo-Cons with their crudity in their tactics weakened the creditability of Capitalism with at least millions within the Imperialist countries fearing a third world war, particularly how that America administration handled Iraq’s 2002-03 crises. Bush and Blair were exposed as liars over Iraq. Then came the beginning of what could be the worse Capitalist economic crisis ever after 2007. This has further undermined the creditability of ruling class rule in Britain. Wikileaks exposing double dealing with Imperialist diplomacy has also further weakens the Imperialist ruling classes rule.
From 2002 there were great opportunities missed when Bush-led offensive against the semi-Colonies and workers’ states started to run into objective trouble. 1989 was not predetermined that Imperialism would make major gains. It was the failure of the ex-Trotskyists to build leadership in Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet States to deepen the process of Political Revolution after disillusionment set in with the concillationist elements of Bureaucratic Castes to Imperialism started implementing their policies.
Imperialism did not succeed in restoring Capitalism (except for ex-GDR and Kosovo) but utilized those workers states’ crisis to demoralize whole layers of workers militants within the Imperialist countries which enabled Capital to gain at the expense of workers. American Imperialism really went on the offensive with Russia’s decline to re-colonize semi-colonies; and attempted overthrow of Serbian workers’ state. By Yeltsin being defeated in 2000 and American Imperialism losing the Afghan and Iraq wars slowed down timetable for World War 3.
Dialectically we are at the crossroads. There is the greatest chance objectively to overthrow Capitalism but we need to reconstruct a revolutionary leadership. The masses are beginning to radicalize and early stages questioning Capitalism. They sense some major crisis is coming but are still lagging behind objective reality. This is why I am spending several days/weeks analyzing the tensions between semi-Colonies and Imperialism; the growing conflict between workers’ states and Imperialism; inter-Semi-Colonial Bourgeois wars (between states and civil wars); and inter-Imperialist rivalries. That is my next big document. From that analysis strategies and tactics can be worked out to stop a third world war.
Trotskyists should utilize the crisis within Centrist groups and internationals to challenge their retreat on the workers’ states and semi-Colonies to theoretically clarify the situation in an educational manner by pointing out superiority of Revolutionary Marxist method over their methodological errors. As American Trotskyist Jim Cannon argued you cannot train a cadre in factional abuse but utilize great disputes over programme; method; and strategy to forge such a cadre. Lenin argued in “Left Wing Communism and infantile disorder” that the Bolshevik cadre was forged in such battles. Out of that process of left centrist currents emerging we hope to win the better elements to Trotskyism. The main focus in terms of accumulating initial Trotskyist cadres should be to the middle class intellectuals who are beginning to radicalize.
Before I finish I want to analyze current developments within the Middle East; tensions over Greek Cypriot gas rights; and tensions between Russian workers’ state and EU Imperialists over Caspian gas pipeline. The Palestinian Bourgeoisie in the West Bank are trying to stay in power by gaining major concessions from Israeli Zionist ruling class. Israel’s ruling class cannot afford to make any significant compromises because it would unravel the Zionist project.
Revolutionary upheavals in Tunisia; Egypt; Yemen; and Bahrain potentially strengthen the Palestinian struggle. In yesterday’s Jerusalem Post I read that a leading Saudi prince who an ex-Saudi ambassador to America has warned if they veto Palestine’s recognition this could lead to an all out Middle East war and even his regime falling in revolution. Trotskyists are opposed to a separate Palestinian state because it is an abandonment of a struggle to overthrow Zionism. At the same time we respect the Palestinian right to declare independence and demand Israel does not anything to stop it. We do everything to stop Israel starting a war over this. Unfortunately a war is very likely. Trotskyists within Israel should do utilize the civil unrest over housing to stop their ruling class launching a war against the Palestinians. In any war Trotskyists call for a Palestinian victory and support other Arab countries if they fight against Israel. If there is a crisis on this scale we utilize it to overthrow Zionism, and fight for a democratic and secular Palestine.
Turkish Imperialism is going on the offensive to gain more markets within the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean. Their naked Imperialist character is shown in how they are threatening to send warships to eastern Mediterranean to stop Greek Cypriots and Israel from gaining gas resources. Both Imperialist powers :- Greek Cypriots and Israel have threatened military retaliation. In this context Turkish Imperialism is utilizing the Palestinian declaration of independence to weaken American Imperialism and their allies so they can gain more markets at their expense. In the Jerusalem Post today there are articles saying that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan is in Egypt to meet that country’s new leadership and Abbas (Palestinian President) to encourage them towards Palestinian independence.
If a major war breaks out over Palestine there is a dangerous conflict between Turkish Imperialism against American Imperialism and their ally Israel a dangerous situation to world peace could occur. If Turkish Imperialism becomes predominant in the fight against Israel we may withdraw support to some Arab Bourgeois armies because they are becoming their pawns. This would certainly be my position if Turkish troops fought alongside Arab troops.
Another dangerous situation is the report in today’s Xinhua website that American Imperialism has heavily bombed on September 5th this year Jaar. Jaar is the second largest city in southern Abyan province. It is located in southern Yemen. Two mosques were destroyed in the air raids.
In what is the potential worse flashpoint for world peace is the growing tensions between EU Imperialists and Russian workers’ state over a Caspian Sea pipeline. Yesterday the EU is making provisional agreements with Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan to bypass Russia in gas pipelines directly to Western Europe. This has really upset the Russian Bureaucracy. What will the Russian Bureaucracy do in that context if there is a Turkish-Israeli war? They may be indifferent hoping they are both weakened. Will American Imperialism enter the war if Israel is losing very much? In 1973 the Soviet Bureaucracy threatened a nuclear war if American Imperialism had intervened n the Yom Kipper war. Could the Russian Bureaucracy react in a similar way if American Imperialism utilized the war chaos as a pretext to go into Syria? Anti-war movements in America could restrain American Imperialism from going too far.
Wednesday 7 September 2011
How fast is Putin reconstructing the old Soviet Union?
From what I have been reading in Xinhua since last Saturday indicates that Putin is moving very fast to reconstruct as much of the old Soviet Union as possible. I read on Saturday at Xinhua is the 11 economic ministers agreed in May this year to establish a CIS-wide free trade zone. In Tajikistan the same evening the heads of governments agreed to that free trade zone. It will receive final ratification in November.
There was an interesting article in Xinhua that Saturday arguing the non-Russian CIS countries (except for Georgia) stuck with Russia to stop Imperialism destroying what remained of the bureaucratic caste privileges and stop them becoming semi-Colonies of cheap raw materials. This is why Imperialism did everything to pressure Yeltsin to make massive Capitalist inroads because if they could restore Capitalism in Russia they could have completed that process in ex-Soviet states and Eastern Europe. Imperialism’s defeat by the removal of Yeltsin slowed Capitalist restoration in those areas of the world. It was an important victory for world revolution because it weakened Imperialism globally. If Yeltsin was not defeated Imperialism may have launched additional wars.
The material in this Xinhua article (see appendix) shows the nationalized parts of the workers’ states are linking up. There could be underhanded Russian Bureaucratic pressure for Gazprom to control Zalkar (Kyrgyz nationalized bank) and take over Kyrgyzneftgas and Kyrgzgas. Trotskyists argue the break-up of the Soviet Union was a major setback for the productive forces. We would be in favour of it coming back together on a voluntary basis.
There a number of Bureaucratic adventures Trotskyists would not support tactically. For example Trotskyists would not have been cutting off gas to the Ukrainian masses. Such moves could have alienated the masses and played into the hands of concillationist elements of Ukrainian Bureaucracy to Imperialism and Capitalist restorationist forces. In another similar situation I disagreed with how the Soviet Bureaucracy carried out the Berlin blockade during 1948-49 which alienated the West German masses and played into Imperialism’s hands. They were trying to pressure Imperialism through Bureaucratic manoeuvres but not want to extend the Socialist revolution westwards because if they overthrow Capitalist West Germany it would have caused the political revolution within Soviet Union. At the same if Imperialism had attacked the Soviet occupying forces we would defend that military force of Soviet workers’ state against Imperialism. Trotskyists give critical support under certain conditions if specific bureaucratic actions in economically reconstructing the Soviet Union coincide with what is in the workers’ states interest.
There was an interesting article in Xinhua that Saturday arguing the non-Russian CIS countries (except for Georgia) stuck with Russia to stop Imperialism destroying what remained of the bureaucratic caste privileges and stop them becoming semi-Colonies of cheap raw materials. This is why Imperialism did everything to pressure Yeltsin to make massive Capitalist inroads because if they could restore Capitalism in Russia they could have completed that process in ex-Soviet states and Eastern Europe. Imperialism’s defeat by the removal of Yeltsin slowed Capitalist restoration in those areas of the world. It was an important victory for world revolution because it weakened Imperialism globally. If Yeltsin was not defeated Imperialism may have launched additional wars.
The material in this Xinhua article (see appendix) shows the nationalized parts of the workers’ states are linking up. There could be underhanded Russian Bureaucratic pressure for Gazprom to control Zalkar (Kyrgyz nationalized bank) and take over Kyrgyzneftgas and Kyrgzgas. Trotskyists argue the break-up of the Soviet Union was a major setback for the productive forces. We would be in favour of it coming back together on a voluntary basis.
There a number of Bureaucratic adventures Trotskyists would not support tactically. For example Trotskyists would not have been cutting off gas to the Ukrainian masses. Such moves could have alienated the masses and played into the hands of concillationist elements of Ukrainian Bureaucracy to Imperialism and Capitalist restorationist forces. In another similar situation I disagreed with how the Soviet Bureaucracy carried out the Berlin blockade during 1948-49 which alienated the West German masses and played into Imperialism’s hands. They were trying to pressure Imperialism through Bureaucratic manoeuvres but not want to extend the Socialist revolution westwards because if they overthrow Capitalist West Germany it would have caused the political revolution within Soviet Union. At the same if Imperialism had attacked the Soviet occupying forces we would defend that military force of Soviet workers’ state against Imperialism. Trotskyists give critical support under certain conditions if specific bureaucratic actions in economically reconstructing the Soviet Union coincide with what is in the workers’ states interest.
Tuesday 6 September 2011
A reply to Charlie Hore on why Imperialism rather than Chinese Stalinism is responible for social inequalities within China!
IS CHARLE HORE CONCLUDING FROM HIS LINE THAT CHINESE STALINISM IS MORE RESPONIBLE FOR SOCIAL INEQUALITY THAN IMPERIALISM THAT IN PRATCICE STALINISM IS WORSE THAN IMPERIALISM?:- A REPLY BY ANTHONY BRAIN.
(Three sections missing :- debate on contradictions of Taafe's line and his increasingly revisionist line of "State Capitalism" on China; the extent of collapse in Capitalist firms within two provinces within China since 2008; and a reply to Heiko Khoo's adaptation to Chinese Stalinism. I may not be able to complete these 3 section due to having dental treatement but I published it now for reader's interest).
Charlie Hore seems to be moving towards an extremely Stalinphobic position when he argues due to Imperialism being weakened within China that Chinese Stalinism is now more responsible than Imperialism for social inequalities within China. Hore coming from the “State Capitalist” tradition does not understand workers’ states as transitional societies ruled by bureaucratic castes which require Political Revolution. Imperialism always impacts on workers’ states at different times until Capitalism is overthrown in the Imperialist countries, especially within America.. This is why the Monopoly of Foreign Trade is so important and you cannot build Socialism in one country.
There are Capitalist firms operating within China. At the same time there are layer of Chinese Bureaucrats who are enriching themselves by investing in the U.S. Treasury. It is what Mandel would call the dialectics of ziz-zags of the British SWP and their predecessors that you argue the complete opposite of several decades. Mandel wrote in 1951 in “Ten theses on Stalinism”, which he submitted to 3rd World Congress of the Fourth International (FI) that the key methodological error of “Bureaucratic Collectivism” was that it under-estimated world Capitalist pressures on the Soviet and Eastern European Bureaucracies and ignored in particular the Bourgeois norms of distribution (money; trade; and currencies etc) . He argued against “State Capitalism” in the same document because it did not recognise the non-Capitalist mode of production within those economies.
Does Hore draw the logical conclusion from his line on social inequality that Stalinism in practice now is worse than Imperialism? His third article is an eclectic mix of downplaying Imperialist pressures on the Chinese workers’ state to justify not defending that society from Imperialist attack; and to the worse aspects of “State Capitalism”.
There are two basic contradictions within Hore’s series of three articles on China. At first he has to admit some of the development within productive forces within China and social gains for workers. He has to adapt towards the accomplished facts because he would be more in denial what is happening within China than what the Bourgeois intelligentsia within Imperialist countries has to admit. It would isolate the SWP from a possible radicalization among middle class academics who look to Chinese workers’ state as an alternative to Capitalism.
Even on a factual level Hore contradicts himself when he outlines socio-economic accomplishments with examples at the beginning of his first article and then says conditions for workers has generally worsened. These are the following examples he gives:- 10% growth for several years even after the crisis of world Capitalism from 2008 onwards; several years after 1978 rural incomes doubled; hundreds of millions being lifted out of poverty; 7 out of 10 Chinese households have computers; 8 out of 10 households have cars; and almost every households have at least 2 mobile phones.
After Hore making these factual concessions he then returns to arguing against a Trotskyist analysis of why this is happening (which argues the Bureaucracy carrying out the Permanent Revolution distorted for their caste interests) saying the workers have made no gains it is only in the interests of “rich and business” and “complexity of Capitalist exploitation”. On Hore’s latter point Trotsky took up the exact argument in a introduction to “Revolution Betrayed” about” Capitalist exploitation” being responsible for massive industrialization within the Soviet Union’s economy during the 1930s. Trotsky refuted this by saying:- why did the Soviet economy expand when there was a global Capitalist depression? The same is applicable within China today which those on the left who argue China is “Capitalist” cannot answer.
By not recognizing the workers’ state within China you cannot see why only the class rule of workers despite being politically expropriated is the rapid development of productive forces made possible by a planned economy and public services being expanded. Trotsky also argued in “the Revolutionary Betrayed” that socio-economic gains listed below is only possible by overthrowing Capitalism. The Bureaucracy has a dual role of undermining the workers’ state through bureaucratic pillage and defending their own privileges based on it. This contradiction leads to conflicts within the bureaucracies. You can see this in Eastern Europe and Russia in the battles within these castes between those who gain from pillage and cutbacks:-governments and those who lose out those who work in public services or nationalized industries.
Marx argued in the “Communist Manifesto” that Capitalism requires mass poverty and destroying any past workers gains as the way to offset declining profits. This can be seen even in the Imperialist countries with millions of workers and even middle class elements having their living standards slashed and public services being rapidly cut and privatized. China shows most clearly the validity of Permanent Revolution of how a Socialist revolution can accomplish even in a former semi-Colony.
American Trotskyists Joseph Hansen and Tom Kerry updated Trotsky’s analysis of independent Stalinist-led Socialist revolutions (which Trotsky did not see as a theoretical possibly except as a workers and farmers government) independent of the Soviet Bureaucracy. Kerry argued during the 1960s that Stalinism is one of the most contradictory phenomena which ever exists. It is one of the most counter-revolutionary forces but also protects property relations due to its caste privileges being based on the greatest mode of production within class society as a result of Capitalist property relations being overthrown. The objective basis for Socialism is laid due to socialization of productive relations. Bureaucratic castes resist the restoration of Capitalism because most of them would lose their privileges as they would have to be eliminated if Capitalist profits Marx called the law of Value is to predominate.
I am going to finish where I began with the Imperialist pressures on the Chinese workers’ state. (Contradictions of Taafe’s position on China. His July-August article in Socialism Today gave statistical data which could be used to argue China is a degenerate workers’ states and quotes Bourgeois economists showing that there different factions within the Chinese Bureaucracy. Later in that article he refrains from drawing conclusions that it is a workers’ state and goes more revisionist by defining China as “State Capitalist”. Taafe while denying he is different from Cliff echoes similar arguments that “State Capitalism” will not privatize for a whole period. In reality if the Capitalist firms unlike Cliff/Taafe revisionists had the upper hand they would quickly overthrow Chinese Stalinism and defeat working class so Capitalist restoration could proceed quickly. At CWI summer school this summer Taafe emphasized less socio-economic gains in China and stressed more his “State Capitalism” revisionism. Taafe even though shift in emphasis in July-August Socialism Today article is a prisoner of Third Camp/Stalinphobic elements who has accommodated in the past and may faced a backlash from that right-wing of the CWI because he began to change his line on China. The CWI’s Stalinphobia is clearly seen when they will not defend North Korea from Imperialism even though they admit that regime is Stalinist, which means for Trotskyists a degenerate workers’ state. Trotskyists defend the North Korean workers’ state from Imperialism. We try to overthrow them with a political revolution but if Imperialism threatens them we have a united front with that bureaucracy to defeat Imperialism).
(I read somewhere – check sources those Capitalist firms semi-collapsed in those two provinces – after 2008 crisis. Criticism of Heiko Khoo when he adapts to Chinese Stalinism; wrong method on class nature of Libya; and his wrong line on Russia).
(Three sections missing :- debate on contradictions of Taafe's line and his increasingly revisionist line of "State Capitalism" on China; the extent of collapse in Capitalist firms within two provinces within China since 2008; and a reply to Heiko Khoo's adaptation to Chinese Stalinism. I may not be able to complete these 3 section due to having dental treatement but I published it now for reader's interest).
Charlie Hore seems to be moving towards an extremely Stalinphobic position when he argues due to Imperialism being weakened within China that Chinese Stalinism is now more responsible than Imperialism for social inequalities within China. Hore coming from the “State Capitalist” tradition does not understand workers’ states as transitional societies ruled by bureaucratic castes which require Political Revolution. Imperialism always impacts on workers’ states at different times until Capitalism is overthrown in the Imperialist countries, especially within America.. This is why the Monopoly of Foreign Trade is so important and you cannot build Socialism in one country.
There are Capitalist firms operating within China. At the same time there are layer of Chinese Bureaucrats who are enriching themselves by investing in the U.S. Treasury. It is what Mandel would call the dialectics of ziz-zags of the British SWP and their predecessors that you argue the complete opposite of several decades. Mandel wrote in 1951 in “Ten theses on Stalinism”, which he submitted to 3rd World Congress of the Fourth International (FI) that the key methodological error of “Bureaucratic Collectivism” was that it under-estimated world Capitalist pressures on the Soviet and Eastern European Bureaucracies and ignored in particular the Bourgeois norms of distribution (money; trade; and currencies etc) . He argued against “State Capitalism” in the same document because it did not recognise the non-Capitalist mode of production within those economies.
Does Hore draw the logical conclusion from his line on social inequality that Stalinism in practice now is worse than Imperialism? His third article is an eclectic mix of downplaying Imperialist pressures on the Chinese workers’ state to justify not defending that society from Imperialist attack; and to the worse aspects of “State Capitalism”.
There are two basic contradictions within Hore’s series of three articles on China. At first he has to admit some of the development within productive forces within China and social gains for workers. He has to adapt towards the accomplished facts because he would be more in denial what is happening within China than what the Bourgeois intelligentsia within Imperialist countries has to admit. It would isolate the SWP from a possible radicalization among middle class academics who look to Chinese workers’ state as an alternative to Capitalism.
Even on a factual level Hore contradicts himself when he outlines socio-economic accomplishments with examples at the beginning of his first article and then says conditions for workers has generally worsened. These are the following examples he gives:- 10% growth for several years even after the crisis of world Capitalism from 2008 onwards; several years after 1978 rural incomes doubled; hundreds of millions being lifted out of poverty; 7 out of 10 Chinese households have computers; 8 out of 10 households have cars; and almost every households have at least 2 mobile phones.
After Hore making these factual concessions he then returns to arguing against a Trotskyist analysis of why this is happening (which argues the Bureaucracy carrying out the Permanent Revolution distorted for their caste interests) saying the workers have made no gains it is only in the interests of “rich and business” and “complexity of Capitalist exploitation”. On Hore’s latter point Trotsky took up the exact argument in a introduction to “Revolution Betrayed” about” Capitalist exploitation” being responsible for massive industrialization within the Soviet Union’s economy during the 1930s. Trotsky refuted this by saying:- why did the Soviet economy expand when there was a global Capitalist depression? The same is applicable within China today which those on the left who argue China is “Capitalist” cannot answer.
By not recognizing the workers’ state within China you cannot see why only the class rule of workers despite being politically expropriated is the rapid development of productive forces made possible by a planned economy and public services being expanded. Trotsky also argued in “the Revolutionary Betrayed” that socio-economic gains listed below is only possible by overthrowing Capitalism. The Bureaucracy has a dual role of undermining the workers’ state through bureaucratic pillage and defending their own privileges based on it. This contradiction leads to conflicts within the bureaucracies. You can see this in Eastern Europe and Russia in the battles within these castes between those who gain from pillage and cutbacks:-governments and those who lose out those who work in public services or nationalized industries.
Marx argued in the “Communist Manifesto” that Capitalism requires mass poverty and destroying any past workers gains as the way to offset declining profits. This can be seen even in the Imperialist countries with millions of workers and even middle class elements having their living standards slashed and public services being rapidly cut and privatized. China shows most clearly the validity of Permanent Revolution of how a Socialist revolution can accomplish even in a former semi-Colony.
American Trotskyists Joseph Hansen and Tom Kerry updated Trotsky’s analysis of independent Stalinist-led Socialist revolutions (which Trotsky did not see as a theoretical possibly except as a workers and farmers government) independent of the Soviet Bureaucracy. Kerry argued during the 1960s that Stalinism is one of the most contradictory phenomena which ever exists. It is one of the most counter-revolutionary forces but also protects property relations due to its caste privileges being based on the greatest mode of production within class society as a result of Capitalist property relations being overthrown. The objective basis for Socialism is laid due to socialization of productive relations. Bureaucratic castes resist the restoration of Capitalism because most of them would lose their privileges as they would have to be eliminated if Capitalist profits Marx called the law of Value is to predominate.
I am going to finish where I began with the Imperialist pressures on the Chinese workers’ state. (Contradictions of Taafe’s position on China. His July-August article in Socialism Today gave statistical data which could be used to argue China is a degenerate workers’ states and quotes Bourgeois economists showing that there different factions within the Chinese Bureaucracy. Later in that article he refrains from drawing conclusions that it is a workers’ state and goes more revisionist by defining China as “State Capitalist”. Taafe while denying he is different from Cliff echoes similar arguments that “State Capitalism” will not privatize for a whole period. In reality if the Capitalist firms unlike Cliff/Taafe revisionists had the upper hand they would quickly overthrow Chinese Stalinism and defeat working class so Capitalist restoration could proceed quickly. At CWI summer school this summer Taafe emphasized less socio-economic gains in China and stressed more his “State Capitalism” revisionism. Taafe even though shift in emphasis in July-August Socialism Today article is a prisoner of Third Camp/Stalinphobic elements who has accommodated in the past and may faced a backlash from that right-wing of the CWI because he began to change his line on China. The CWI’s Stalinphobia is clearly seen when they will not defend North Korea from Imperialism even though they admit that regime is Stalinist, which means for Trotskyists a degenerate workers’ state. Trotskyists defend the North Korean workers’ state from Imperialism. We try to overthrow them with a political revolution but if Imperialism threatens them we have a united front with that bureaucracy to defeat Imperialism).
(I read somewhere – check sources those Capitalist firms semi-collapsed in those two provinces – after 2008 crisis. Criticism of Heiko Khoo when he adapts to Chinese Stalinism; wrong method on class nature of Libya; and his wrong line on Russia).
Friday 2 September 2011
Anthony Brain exchange on Facebook between me debating a Blairite and an Ultra-Left!
• ANTHONY BRAIN’S REPLY IN A DEBATE WITH A BLAIRITE AND ULTRALEFT!
o Merlin Reader wrote the following not fully realizing the workers government slogan and why revolutionaries pose demands on Left Wing Social Democrats:-
o
o “Changing the government doesn't change attitudes any more than changing the law. The only point of a left wing government is to encourage a push for further change. And it will be opposed by the police, political establishment and military. Examples: Paris 1871, Russia 1917, Germany 1918-23, Portugal 1974, Iran 1979 etc”.
A Blairite Lukey Stanger wrote the following in defence of New Labour:-
o “Hahaa what about the 80s when we were a pathetic far left hardcore socialism party which resulted in us being completely un-electable however luckily then blair, mandy and brown came along and modernised it, took it to the right in a progressive way and made us electable again which resulted in our record time ever in government and us to achieve all the amazing things we achieved, @merlin, no mate I will defend my party's track record in education till the day I die, record levels of investment in it which resulted in more teachers and tas then ever before as well more students leaving school with 5 a* to c grades than ever before as well as also played a part in us taking more kids out of poverty since we introduced the welfare state when recently in government and yes we did introduced tution fees however at a fair reasonable price and what did it enable, 70% more students to attend uni, we don't however support them being trebled which is y we were vigorously opposed to the tory plans to do so and will no doubt retract them when DAVID miliband is the next pm of britainn :)”
o
o Below is my answer to a Blarite who attacks me for calling for McDonnell to challenge Miliband for Labour Party leadership. It is unusual for the Blairites to respond! Are they worried about the growth of the Labour left particularly from the Unions? If there was any Trotskyist cadre knew what they were doing New Labour would not last long within the Labour Party. It is partly Ultra-Leftism which has played into their hands.
New Labour played into the Tory hands. They enabled a hated party to manouvre back into power. They are a half way house to the Tory attacks. Despite New Labour's character as a Bourgeois faction they had to make compromises with the Social Democrats due to their failure to convert Labour into a Bourgeois party whose measures Stanger mentions to justify New Labour's role. New Labour did this inspite themselves. It is an example of contradictions within dialectics of intermediary stages in uncompleted transitions where opposite end-results emerge. It is also an example of law of uneven and combined development
o
o
o As a Trotskyist I argue Social Democracy is going to find it hard to defend workers past gains due to relying on the ruling class to rule. This does not mean they will not defend specific gains against Capital due to them being based on the organized working class. Trotskyists through united fronts’ involving millions of workers aims to show them that their gains can only be ensured by overthrowing Capitalism.
If Social Democracy is incapable of defending the old workers gains even less the Bourgeois New Labour faction can. Their aim is to weaken workers past gains and destroy Social Democracy which stands in the way of Capital taking the falling rate of profit at the expense of workers and middle class. New Labour's ability to do this internally within the Labour Parry is going to be reduced. This means they either join the Lib Dems or Tories in the near future.
Reader does not understand the workers government slogan of revolutionaries’ and why they call on left wing Social Democrats to fight Bourgeois faction or right wing Social Democrats. The workers government slogan is the jewel in the ground of the Transitional Programme. Trotskyists pose demands on mass Social Democratic parties or Stalinist parties in Western Europe and Japan to form a government so we can show their base that reformism serves Capitalism and only Socialist revolutions can defend and extends workers gains.
In periods of crisis within Social Democratic parties Trotskyists like in the British Labour Party call for left wing Social Democrats like McDonnell to drive the Blairites out so out of the turmoil we defeat the worse Bourgeois elements and show through going through struggles of millions of workers politically in the Labour Party that you can break them from reformism towards revolutionary politics.
o Merlin Reader wrote the following not fully realizing the workers government slogan and why revolutionaries pose demands on Left Wing Social Democrats:-
o
o “Changing the government doesn't change attitudes any more than changing the law. The only point of a left wing government is to encourage a push for further change. And it will be opposed by the police, political establishment and military. Examples: Paris 1871, Russia 1917, Germany 1918-23, Portugal 1974, Iran 1979 etc”.
A Blairite Lukey Stanger wrote the following in defence of New Labour:-
o “Hahaa what about the 80s when we were a pathetic far left hardcore socialism party which resulted in us being completely un-electable however luckily then blair, mandy and brown came along and modernised it, took it to the right in a progressive way and made us electable again which resulted in our record time ever in government and us to achieve all the amazing things we achieved, @merlin, no mate I will defend my party's track record in education till the day I die, record levels of investment in it which resulted in more teachers and tas then ever before as well more students leaving school with 5 a* to c grades than ever before as well as also played a part in us taking more kids out of poverty since we introduced the welfare state when recently in government and yes we did introduced tution fees however at a fair reasonable price and what did it enable, 70% more students to attend uni, we don't however support them being trebled which is y we were vigorously opposed to the tory plans to do so and will no doubt retract them when DAVID miliband is the next pm of britainn :)”
o
o Below is my answer to a Blarite who attacks me for calling for McDonnell to challenge Miliband for Labour Party leadership. It is unusual for the Blairites to respond! Are they worried about the growth of the Labour left particularly from the Unions? If there was any Trotskyist cadre knew what they were doing New Labour would not last long within the Labour Party. It is partly Ultra-Leftism which has played into their hands.
New Labour played into the Tory hands. They enabled a hated party to manouvre back into power. They are a half way house to the Tory attacks. Despite New Labour's character as a Bourgeois faction they had to make compromises with the Social Democrats due to their failure to convert Labour into a Bourgeois party whose measures Stanger mentions to justify New Labour's role. New Labour did this inspite themselves. It is an example of contradictions within dialectics of intermediary stages in uncompleted transitions where opposite end-results emerge. It is also an example of law of uneven and combined development
o
o
o As a Trotskyist I argue Social Democracy is going to find it hard to defend workers past gains due to relying on the ruling class to rule. This does not mean they will not defend specific gains against Capital due to them being based on the organized working class. Trotskyists through united fronts’ involving millions of workers aims to show them that their gains can only be ensured by overthrowing Capitalism.
If Social Democracy is incapable of defending the old workers gains even less the Bourgeois New Labour faction can. Their aim is to weaken workers past gains and destroy Social Democracy which stands in the way of Capital taking the falling rate of profit at the expense of workers and middle class. New Labour's ability to do this internally within the Labour Parry is going to be reduced. This means they either join the Lib Dems or Tories in the near future.
Reader does not understand the workers government slogan of revolutionaries’ and why they call on left wing Social Democrats to fight Bourgeois faction or right wing Social Democrats. The workers government slogan is the jewel in the ground of the Transitional Programme. Trotskyists pose demands on mass Social Democratic parties or Stalinist parties in Western Europe and Japan to form a government so we can show their base that reformism serves Capitalism and only Socialist revolutions can defend and extends workers gains.
In periods of crisis within Social Democratic parties Trotskyists like in the British Labour Party call for left wing Social Democrats like McDonnell to drive the Blairites out so out of the turmoil we defeat the worse Bourgeois elements and show through going through struggles of millions of workers politically in the Labour Party that you can break them from reformism towards revolutionary politics.
Friday 26 August 2011
A few remarks about Argentinian PTS Morenoite group showing film of Trotsky based on a novel of Trotsky overthrowing Stalinism with Political Revolution!
This is a PTS video! (who are a Morenoite group) in Argentina). I have lost touch with the Morenotes and Lambertists. It seems an impressive film about how the Political Revolution could unfold in Russia. Even if it posed as a historic novel about Trotsky leading it and overthrowing Stalin. I do not know the PTS line on the workers' states. As the pre-Barnes American SWP leadership used to say if they promoting a process which they do not see applicable today it's their contradiction!
Last week there was an article within the Economist calling the Putin presidency as a neo-Soviet regime weakening the Capitalist elements promoted by Yeltsin. This could be a conscious move by Imperialist Bourgeoisies if Putin gets the Presidency back to launch a new Cold War. They can no longer pretend the left is historically finished which they tried to make out after 1989. Due to the upturn of the world revolution they cannot hide the rise of the left but if they concede the truth about Russia it will lead to a new balance of forces on the left of what its class character is.
I was re-reading Trotsky the other week on the rise of German Fascism and his tactic of a united front with Social Democracy to defeat Hitler. The key point I picked up glancing at those documents again was Trotsky utilized every contradiction and opportunity to show workers their power. Russia's working class will not put up with the extent of Bureaucratic pillage and major Capitalist inroads under Yeltsin. This could be seen by the mass workers protests against monetization of social benefits during 2004-05. This potential mobilization of the Russian working class moving in the direction of Political Revolution with social consequences is only possible due to the defeat of Yeltsin’s wing of the Bureaucracy between 1998 and 2000.
Last week there was an article within the Economist calling the Putin presidency as a neo-Soviet regime weakening the Capitalist elements promoted by Yeltsin. This could be a conscious move by Imperialist Bourgeoisies if Putin gets the Presidency back to launch a new Cold War. They can no longer pretend the left is historically finished which they tried to make out after 1989. Due to the upturn of the world revolution they cannot hide the rise of the left but if they concede the truth about Russia it will lead to a new balance of forces on the left of what its class character is.
I was re-reading Trotsky the other week on the rise of German Fascism and his tactic of a united front with Social Democracy to defeat Hitler. The key point I picked up glancing at those documents again was Trotsky utilized every contradiction and opportunity to show workers their power. Russia's working class will not put up with the extent of Bureaucratic pillage and major Capitalist inroads under Yeltsin. This could be seen by the mass workers protests against monetization of social benefits during 2004-05. This potential mobilization of the Russian working class moving in the direction of Political Revolution with social consequences is only possible due to the defeat of Yeltsin’s wing of the Bureaucracy between 1998 and 2000.
Sunday 21 August 2011
Left recomposition on Libya!
Gerry Downing is correct that the groups who supported the rebels or were openly pro-Imperialist military intervention such as AWL and SP minority will go through a massive crisis. They will go into crisis regardless of how the Libyan war goes with either pro-Imperialist rebel forces being driven out of Tripoli or Imperialism oust Gaddafi could embolden Imperialism to go further into other adventures. If Imperialism is defeated it will strengthen the radicalization within the Imperialist countries with those factions within the Centrist groups under Imperialist countries paying the price for supporting the wrong side. If dangers of a third world war become more obvious with dangers of nuclear suicide the workers and middle classes within the Imperialist countries will want it stopped. In that situation those who were openly pro-Imperialist or pro-Libyan rebels will be seen to assist that process of allowing Imperialism to go further down the road to a Third World War. The Libyan War has to be seen in an international context of Capitalist crisis which is forcing Imperialism to attempt re-Colonizing the semi-Colonies and overthrow the workers' states. If Imperialism is not stopped in its adventures a Third World War could break out.
Downing has spelled out correctly what will happen if Imperialism wins out in Libya in terms of massive privatization and women rights being dramatically worsened under Sharia law. Downing has kept the continuity of Trotskyism on most aspects of semi-Colonies. In 1994 he broke with Trotskyism by being opportunist when he supported calling for a vote to a Bourgeois party: - the ANC.
On the workers' states he has abandoned Trotskyism completely with him giving up battle within Russia before it is really beginning. Cannon said in "The struggle for a Proletarian Party" that it is the worse crime to give up defence of workers' states when the struggle against Capitalist restoration is in the balance. Downing argues Russia and China are "Imperialist powers". This is a break from Permanent Revolution which Trotskyists argue that if Capitalism is restored in either Russia or China would be dismembered as semi-Colonies.
I have just read Andy Pollack submission to Marxmail. He is completely wrong to say Imperialism played no role in Tripoli fighting. According to Russia Today NATO has not relented bombing Tripoli over the last 48 hours for even two seconds. Pollack does not see the pro-Imperialist character of rebels. This concillationist and capitulatioin to now pro-Imperialist forces by American Socialist Action leadership has its roots in them supporting the KLA in Kosovo when they were fighting with Imperialism to overthrow the workers’ states in what remained of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY – Serbia and Montenegro).and supporting pro-Imperialist Kurds when they fought with US/British Imperialism during the 2003 Iraq war.
Downing has spelled out correctly what will happen if Imperialism wins out in Libya in terms of massive privatization and women rights being dramatically worsened under Sharia law. Downing has kept the continuity of Trotskyism on most aspects of semi-Colonies. In 1994 he broke with Trotskyism by being opportunist when he supported calling for a vote to a Bourgeois party: - the ANC.
On the workers' states he has abandoned Trotskyism completely with him giving up battle within Russia before it is really beginning. Cannon said in "The struggle for a Proletarian Party" that it is the worse crime to give up defence of workers' states when the struggle against Capitalist restoration is in the balance. Downing argues Russia and China are "Imperialist powers". This is a break from Permanent Revolution which Trotskyists argue that if Capitalism is restored in either Russia or China would be dismembered as semi-Colonies.
I have just read Andy Pollack submission to Marxmail. He is completely wrong to say Imperialism played no role in Tripoli fighting. According to Russia Today NATO has not relented bombing Tripoli over the last 48 hours for even two seconds. Pollack does not see the pro-Imperialist character of rebels. This concillationist and capitulatioin to now pro-Imperialist forces by American Socialist Action leadership has its roots in them supporting the KLA in Kosovo when they were fighting with Imperialism to overthrow the workers’ states in what remained of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY – Serbia and Montenegro).and supporting pro-Imperialist Kurds when they fought with US/British Imperialism during the 2003 Iraq war.
Friday 5 August 2011
Letter to Rachel Horwitz on aspects of an article expressing skepcism towards working class radicaliztion!
(This letter deals with Hansen's theory of the long detour; how NATO overthrew workers' state in Kosovo; how the Serbian Bureaucracy are maintaining previous social gains of workers' state in Serb enclaves within Kosovo; and how end of long detour can lead to Trotskyisn play its historice role)!
Dear Rachel
There are certain problems with this article which echoes scepticism about how the working class will radicalize and how revolutionaries relate to them. This is expressed through jokes on what workers will be like when they radicalize! Rachel despite these weaknesses in how you approach politics you are looking to Trotskyism to fight the threat of Fascism. You should read Trotsky and the old American SWP pre-Barnes who argued to take politics seriously. At the same time they understood the objective laws of how different layers of workers; middle classes; and oppressed among those classes would radicalize; and how the revolutionary party would link them that up to speed these processes up towards Socialist revolutions.
Due to Barnes expelling the Trotskyists during the 1980s and degeneration of the 4th International after Mandel's death there is very little cadres and break down in continuity of Trotskyism. Another major error in this article Rachel is that it echoes that we what the FI majority argued before Mandel died that we are at year zero. What they meant by this is the workers' states; Social Democratic parties; and even unions had become Bourgeois. The CWI had a similar line except not agreeing to Ultra-Leftism on unions. Taffe has made a left turn on China in latest Socialism Today in seeing Capitalism has not been restored but fails to draw correct conclusion from this analysis by arguing that China is not a workers' state. As Trotsky said against Burnham in Defence of Marxism you cannot have a non-Workers' or non-Bourgeois state. Despite past setbacks and defeats a lot of gains still remain intact. This is why I disagreed with the return to Year Zero analysis.
The future of degenerated and degenerate workers’ states over whether inter-bureaucratic battles; Capitalists makes further inroads; and whether revolutionary upheavals will deepen struggles towards Political Revolution with social consequences is before us. Capitalism in my opinion has only been restored in ex-GDR through absorption through German re-unification with West Germany and Kosovo with the Serbian workers’ state being driven out by war and complete Imperialist occupation. In Eastern Europe the Bureaucratic castes rule through fragmented factions clashing. Similar conflicts are happening in Russia. There are major Capitalist inroads within Eastern Europe but they have not overthrown what remains of the Stalinist Bureaucrats who want the nationalized sectors/workplaces they control intact against Capitalist takeover. In Russia the Bureaucracy is stronger.
Due to the failure to make Political Revolution successfully the Eastern European workers’ states are in severe crisis. Even in Russia between 2000 and 2008 under Putin he prolonged the crisis of Bureaucratic rule to the medium-term. The conflict between the Medvedev and Putin wings of Stalinism could destabilize the Bureaucracy’s rule and let the working class to come through the middle independently moving in direction of Political Revolution due to workers’ having more confidence they can defeat any moves similar to Yeltsin. World Capitalism’s depression could strengthen the Putin wing by whole layers of the Russian Bureaucracy seeing their future tied up to maintaining nationalized industries. In those circumstances the dangers of Political Revolution lessen because Medvedev can be easily removed.
For the past four or five days I have been doing some preliminary background reading on Kosovo. This is part of a long series of documents to analyse why Kosovo is Capitalist; and analyse what the main contradictions within Serbian and Russian degenerate/degenerated workers’ states are today. I started by looking up at the BBC archive from February 2008 when independence was declared to the current day. The reason I started my search there was I found out that after independence Serbian troops were sent to Serb enclaves in Northern Kosovo. I am going to investigate whether Serbian troops have challenged the Capitalist property relations within those enclaves. Trotsky looked for similar tendencies when the Soviet Bureaucracy overthrew Capitalism in eastern Poland.
Serbian Stalinism carried out terrible crimes against the Kosovon Albanians in ethnic cleansing. The struggle against Stalinism became subordinate to stop Capitalist restoration through NATO’s 1999 war and internal Capitalist restorationist:-the KLA. Trotskyists would have a united front with Serb army against the KLA but refuse to ethnic cleanse due to its anti-working class policy of persecution. We had the same line on the Soviet Union when they fought German Imperialism during World War 2. Stalinism’s slogan “Great Patriotic War” Trotskyists opposed with calls for international working class solidarity with the Soviet Union. The crimes of Stalinism in Kosovo played into Imperialism’s hands of overthrowing that workers’ state.
There are still elements of gains for workers within the Serb enclaves such as Serb special needs teachers earning in 2008 had double their salaries in Kosovo than their Serbian counterpart. These salaries are there so the Serbian Bureaucracy has an independent base to bargain with Kosovon Capitalists and Imperialism. If Capitalism extends total control of the Serb enclaves they will have to destroy whatever remains of Serbia’s influence as workers’ states by reducing these salaries which are necessary to generate profits. Trotskyists would argue for the Serb workers to appeal to the Albanian workers to fight for similar conditions by overthrowing Kosovon Capitalism. There is hope that the combined struggle against Kosovon Capitalism and influence of Stalinism can lead to end of national oppressions and a healthy workers’ state as part of a voluntary Socialist confederation.
Capitalism is maintained in most of Kosovo by making deals with elements of the Serb and Russian Bureaucracy. This is why Imperialism restrains the Kosovo government being too provocative since 1999 because if the Serb Bureaucrats turned on them the Serb armed forces could re-invade Kosovo and destroy what remains of Kosovon Capitalism. The Russian Bureaucracy will only put up with Imperialist moves in Kosovo up to a point. Putin warned the Imperialists if they went too far Russia would military intervene within Kosovo. He made those threats during February/March 2008. Imperialism has gained ownership of very valuable natural resources within Kosovo which they do not want to lose by alienating the Serbian and Russian Bureaucracies!
Rachel have you heard or read anything by American Trotskyist Joseph Hansen. He developed a theory called the Long Detour which analyzed with the rise of Stalinism and the destruction of Bolshevik cadres within the USSR Trotskyism for a whole number of objective factors did not manage to build an alternative leadership to replace Stalinism. The victory of the Soviet workers' state had a dual character. It weakened Capitalism and destroyed Fascism in Europe; led to other workers' states in Eastern Europe; it contributed to the 1949-50 Chinese Socialist revolution and strengthened Colonial revolutions. At the same time Stalinism’s increased prestige led to the Italian; Greek; and French revolutions being betrayed. Hansen argued the Chinese revolution impact had a dual character. It further weakened Capitalism and laid foundations for it to be the second biggest industrial power in the world. Negatively Chinese Stalinism deepened the crisis of revolutionary leadership within the Imperialist countries with lots of middle class youth influenced by ultra-left Maoism.
Castroism Hansen argued correctly that the Cuban revolution was the first non-Stalinist led Socialist revolution since the Russian revolution. In their early years they adopted Permanent Revolution in the “Second declaration of Havana”. They also contributed to the global crisis of revolutionary leadership with ultra-left guerrilla warfare as a continental strategy within Latin America impacting again negatively on middle class youth within the Imperialist countries encouraging their Ultra-Leftism.
Hansen died in 1979. My analysis is that the crisis of Stalinism in 1989 within Eastern Europe and 1991 in Russia is the continuation of the long detour. Before the crisis of the workers’ states in 1989 the crisis hit the 3rd world. Central to Hansen’s theory of the long detour is that there are centrifugal forces carrying out struggles for their interests but are not conscious revolutionary leaderships. The masses challenging Bureaucratic rule within Eastern Europe during 1989 was the beginning of incipient Political Revolutions but when concillationist wings of these Bureaucracies started to allow Capitalist inroads strengthened reaction within some Western European countries. This was followed by the break-up of the Soviet Union during 1991. The centrifugal forces unleashed by this led to the rise of Fascism within Western Europe at the expense of declining Stalinist parties and led to Hindu Fundamentalist BJP party coming to power in India from 1998 to 2004. If the ex-Trotskyists had not collapsed Trotskyism could had a left shift within the ex-Soviet countries and Eastern Europe utilizing the anger against Capitalist inroads to begin a serious struggle for Political Revolution with social consequences. This is possible now due to the rise of world revolution. The long detour is finally coming to end with Trotskyism objectively having the possibility to complete world revolution.
One other thing I raise here with you Rachel is that I do not agree with the SP line that Social Democracy within Western Europe is Bourgeois. There has been some pulling back on this from the CWI when they say the Norway attacks were against the labour movement. In Holland and France millions of workers are looking to Social Democracy for solutions and represent a polarization against Fascism. There are no substitutes from the hard task of breaking millions of workers from Social Democracy.
Anthony Brain
Dear Rachel
There are certain problems with this article which echoes scepticism about how the working class will radicalize and how revolutionaries relate to them. This is expressed through jokes on what workers will be like when they radicalize! Rachel despite these weaknesses in how you approach politics you are looking to Trotskyism to fight the threat of Fascism. You should read Trotsky and the old American SWP pre-Barnes who argued to take politics seriously. At the same time they understood the objective laws of how different layers of workers; middle classes; and oppressed among those classes would radicalize; and how the revolutionary party would link them that up to speed these processes up towards Socialist revolutions.
Due to Barnes expelling the Trotskyists during the 1980s and degeneration of the 4th International after Mandel's death there is very little cadres and break down in continuity of Trotskyism. Another major error in this article Rachel is that it echoes that we what the FI majority argued before Mandel died that we are at year zero. What they meant by this is the workers' states; Social Democratic parties; and even unions had become Bourgeois. The CWI had a similar line except not agreeing to Ultra-Leftism on unions. Taffe has made a left turn on China in latest Socialism Today in seeing Capitalism has not been restored but fails to draw correct conclusion from this analysis by arguing that China is not a workers' state. As Trotsky said against Burnham in Defence of Marxism you cannot have a non-Workers' or non-Bourgeois state. Despite past setbacks and defeats a lot of gains still remain intact. This is why I disagreed with the return to Year Zero analysis.
The future of degenerated and degenerate workers’ states over whether inter-bureaucratic battles; Capitalists makes further inroads; and whether revolutionary upheavals will deepen struggles towards Political Revolution with social consequences is before us. Capitalism in my opinion has only been restored in ex-GDR through absorption through German re-unification with West Germany and Kosovo with the Serbian workers’ state being driven out by war and complete Imperialist occupation. In Eastern Europe the Bureaucratic castes rule through fragmented factions clashing. Similar conflicts are happening in Russia. There are major Capitalist inroads within Eastern Europe but they have not overthrown what remains of the Stalinist Bureaucrats who want the nationalized sectors/workplaces they control intact against Capitalist takeover. In Russia the Bureaucracy is stronger.
Due to the failure to make Political Revolution successfully the Eastern European workers’ states are in severe crisis. Even in Russia between 2000 and 2008 under Putin he prolonged the crisis of Bureaucratic rule to the medium-term. The conflict between the Medvedev and Putin wings of Stalinism could destabilize the Bureaucracy’s rule and let the working class to come through the middle independently moving in direction of Political Revolution due to workers’ having more confidence they can defeat any moves similar to Yeltsin. World Capitalism’s depression could strengthen the Putin wing by whole layers of the Russian Bureaucracy seeing their future tied up to maintaining nationalized industries. In those circumstances the dangers of Political Revolution lessen because Medvedev can be easily removed.
For the past four or five days I have been doing some preliminary background reading on Kosovo. This is part of a long series of documents to analyse why Kosovo is Capitalist; and analyse what the main contradictions within Serbian and Russian degenerate/degenerated workers’ states are today. I started by looking up at the BBC archive from February 2008 when independence was declared to the current day. The reason I started my search there was I found out that after independence Serbian troops were sent to Serb enclaves in Northern Kosovo. I am going to investigate whether Serbian troops have challenged the Capitalist property relations within those enclaves. Trotsky looked for similar tendencies when the Soviet Bureaucracy overthrew Capitalism in eastern Poland.
Serbian Stalinism carried out terrible crimes against the Kosovon Albanians in ethnic cleansing. The struggle against Stalinism became subordinate to stop Capitalist restoration through NATO’s 1999 war and internal Capitalist restorationist:-the KLA. Trotskyists would have a united front with Serb army against the KLA but refuse to ethnic cleanse due to its anti-working class policy of persecution. We had the same line on the Soviet Union when they fought German Imperialism during World War 2. Stalinism’s slogan “Great Patriotic War” Trotskyists opposed with calls for international working class solidarity with the Soviet Union. The crimes of Stalinism in Kosovo played into Imperialism’s hands of overthrowing that workers’ state.
There are still elements of gains for workers within the Serb enclaves such as Serb special needs teachers earning in 2008 had double their salaries in Kosovo than their Serbian counterpart. These salaries are there so the Serbian Bureaucracy has an independent base to bargain with Kosovon Capitalists and Imperialism. If Capitalism extends total control of the Serb enclaves they will have to destroy whatever remains of Serbia’s influence as workers’ states by reducing these salaries which are necessary to generate profits. Trotskyists would argue for the Serb workers to appeal to the Albanian workers to fight for similar conditions by overthrowing Kosovon Capitalism. There is hope that the combined struggle against Kosovon Capitalism and influence of Stalinism can lead to end of national oppressions and a healthy workers’ state as part of a voluntary Socialist confederation.
Capitalism is maintained in most of Kosovo by making deals with elements of the Serb and Russian Bureaucracy. This is why Imperialism restrains the Kosovo government being too provocative since 1999 because if the Serb Bureaucrats turned on them the Serb armed forces could re-invade Kosovo and destroy what remains of Kosovon Capitalism. The Russian Bureaucracy will only put up with Imperialist moves in Kosovo up to a point. Putin warned the Imperialists if they went too far Russia would military intervene within Kosovo. He made those threats during February/March 2008. Imperialism has gained ownership of very valuable natural resources within Kosovo which they do not want to lose by alienating the Serbian and Russian Bureaucracies!
Rachel have you heard or read anything by American Trotskyist Joseph Hansen. He developed a theory called the Long Detour which analyzed with the rise of Stalinism and the destruction of Bolshevik cadres within the USSR Trotskyism for a whole number of objective factors did not manage to build an alternative leadership to replace Stalinism. The victory of the Soviet workers' state had a dual character. It weakened Capitalism and destroyed Fascism in Europe; led to other workers' states in Eastern Europe; it contributed to the 1949-50 Chinese Socialist revolution and strengthened Colonial revolutions. At the same time Stalinism’s increased prestige led to the Italian; Greek; and French revolutions being betrayed. Hansen argued the Chinese revolution impact had a dual character. It further weakened Capitalism and laid foundations for it to be the second biggest industrial power in the world. Negatively Chinese Stalinism deepened the crisis of revolutionary leadership within the Imperialist countries with lots of middle class youth influenced by ultra-left Maoism.
Castroism Hansen argued correctly that the Cuban revolution was the first non-Stalinist led Socialist revolution since the Russian revolution. In their early years they adopted Permanent Revolution in the “Second declaration of Havana”. They also contributed to the global crisis of revolutionary leadership with ultra-left guerrilla warfare as a continental strategy within Latin America impacting again negatively on middle class youth within the Imperialist countries encouraging their Ultra-Leftism.
Hansen died in 1979. My analysis is that the crisis of Stalinism in 1989 within Eastern Europe and 1991 in Russia is the continuation of the long detour. Before the crisis of the workers’ states in 1989 the crisis hit the 3rd world. Central to Hansen’s theory of the long detour is that there are centrifugal forces carrying out struggles for their interests but are not conscious revolutionary leaderships. The masses challenging Bureaucratic rule within Eastern Europe during 1989 was the beginning of incipient Political Revolutions but when concillationist wings of these Bureaucracies started to allow Capitalist inroads strengthened reaction within some Western European countries. This was followed by the break-up of the Soviet Union during 1991. The centrifugal forces unleashed by this led to the rise of Fascism within Western Europe at the expense of declining Stalinist parties and led to Hindu Fundamentalist BJP party coming to power in India from 1998 to 2004. If the ex-Trotskyists had not collapsed Trotskyism could had a left shift within the ex-Soviet countries and Eastern Europe utilizing the anger against Capitalist inroads to begin a serious struggle for Political Revolution with social consequences. This is possible now due to the rise of world revolution. The long detour is finally coming to end with Trotskyism objectively having the possibility to complete world revolution.
One other thing I raise here with you Rachel is that I do not agree with the SP line that Social Democracy within Western Europe is Bourgeois. There has been some pulling back on this from the CWI when they say the Norway attacks were against the labour movement. In Holland and France millions of workers are looking to Social Democracy for solutions and represent a polarization against Fascism. There are no substitutes from the hard task of breaking millions of workers from Social Democracy.
Anthony Brain
Sunday 24 July 2011
How a reconstructed Trotskyist movement can end long detour and gain leadership for struggle to achieve world Socialism in 3 sectors of world revolution?
PLAN OF BOOK ENTITLED: “DECAY OF CAPITALISM AS A WORLD SYSTEM; HOW CONFLICTS ARE BREAKING OUT BETWEEN IMPERIALISM WITH SEMI-COLONIAL BOURGEOISIES AND STALINIST BUREAUCRACIES WITHIN WORKERS’ STATES ARE SHAPING CLASS BATTLES; AND THE ROLE OF A RECONSTRUCTED TROTSKYIST INTERNATIONAL (REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES AND INTERNATIONAL) TO GIVE THE STRUGGLE FOR WORLD SOCIALISM A CONSCIOUS CHARACTER” BY ANTHONY BRAIN.
1) How Revolutionary Marxism developed before rise of counter- revolutionary Social Democratic and Stalinist Bureaucracies.
2) The peculiar circumstances in Russia which led to Bolshevism: - a militant working class from the 1880s which in that decade led Plekhanov to move leftwards towards at least aspects of class independence; every tactic had to be utilized within general revolutionary strategies (Lenin “Left Wing Communism and Infantile Disorder)”; and how they became the conscious expression of Permanent Revolution three or four months before October 1917 Socialist revolution.
3) Why 1905 revolution in Russia delayed World War 1 and revolutionary wave it caused from Austria; to Turkish part of Ottoman Empire; to Persia; and culminating with 1911 revolution within China.
4) Attempt by Comintern at its four world congresses to develop principles; programme; revolutionary strategy; and tactics. Permanent Revolution as a programme was only extended to all colonies/semi-colonies after defeat of China’s 1925-27 revolution.
5) Failure to extend Socialist revolutions due to mistakes made by Communist Parties established after 1917 due to their inability to build cadres like the Bolsheviks did (Trotsky: “Lessons of October”) along with the devastation of civil war with best working class elements decimated led to a bureaucratic caste to emerge. That Bureaucracy carried out a political counter-revolution through civil war methods to destroy Bolshevik revolutionary leadership which was necessary to consolidate their caste rule.
.
6) Trotskyist cadres forged in fight against Stalinism; Centrism; and Ultra-Leftism due to defeats of world revolution:- Hitler coming to power; Franco winning the Spanish civil war; and World War 2 were isolated and most of them outside of America and Britain were murdered. Those cadres had the capacities to have a massive impact and lead revolutions but not had the opportunities due to bad objective conditions.
7) When the tide of counter-revolution and reaction began to be reversed by Soviet victories from 1943 onwards meant with the decimation of Trotskyist cadres that the Socialist revolutions outside of Cuba and Nicaragua were carried out for interest of Bureaucratic castes with their crimes playing into Imperialism’s hands within the Imperialist countries in blunting the workers consciousness and their privileges constituting an obstacle on the road to Socialism requiring Political Revolutions to remove them.
8) Outside of the Socialist revolutions led by Stalinists or non-Stalinist leaderships such as Castroists and Sandinistas Bourgeois Nationalists have won political power defeating Imperialism in many wars. Opportunist alliances with those Bourgeois Nationalists by Soviet and Chinese Bureaucracy alongside Stalinist parties demoralised the masses playing into the hands of reaction.
9) For Trotskyists to finish off what remains of the Bureaucratic castes within Eastern Europe; ex-Soviet states and Cambodia and overthrow Bourgeois Nationalists requires understanding centrifugal forces released after 1943; and the dual nature of both Stalinism and Bourgeois Nationalists in their complex and contradictory relationship to Imperialism and fear of workers overthrowing them to the left. Due to Trotskyism not filling the vacuum post-1943 it was the Stalinists and Bourgeois Nationalists who led most battles against Imperialism. Imperialism is attempting to regain what they lost within the workers’ states and re-colonise the semi-Colonies. Except for ex-GDR and Kosovo they have failed. Imperialism is losing several Colonial wars.
10) The world crisis first reflected itself within semi-Colonies first. Eastern European and Soviet Stalinism started to implode from 1985 because the Bureaucratic castes’ pillage was/is causing maximum damage. They began to pillage some of the workers’ social gains such as childcare and other social services by cutting back on them. This helped cause revolutionary upheavals of 1989 beginning as incipient Political Revolutions. Concillationist elements to Imperialism within these Bureaucracies utilized the 1989 upheavals to come to power to pillage even more and started to allow major Capitalist inroads. Workers become disorientated but as Mandel predicted in “Power and Money” they would wage defensive struggles to defend their material conditions against extreme Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads.
11) There is only a small minority on the left who understand the complexity of workers’ states as transitional societies in severe crisis within Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet Union countries due crisis of Bureaucratic rule brought about by pillage undermining these workers’ states. Capitalist inroads deepened their economic crisis as they trying to weaken and eventually destroy productive forces set in motion by the Soviet Bureaucracy overthrowing Capitalism within Eastern Europe during 1948. Even a lot of pseudo-Trotskyists have broken from the Trotskyist method of analysing transitional societies with their massive complexities. If the ex-Trotskyists do not understand the post-1989 complexities the non-Trotskyists are equally incapable of analysing these contradictions scientifically.
12) As Mandel said in 1990 against British Socialist Action supporters workers won important democratic rights within Eastern Europe which could be used to defend their material gains in these workers’ states against those forces who want to restore Capitalism. In their adaptation to Stalinism Socialist Action played up dangers of Capitalist restoration through democratic concessions to the masses being granted. Capitalism has not been restored in that area except for ex-GDR through economic absorption into a reunified Germany; and Kosovo through a major 78-day war and having 50,000 Imperialist troops to destroy the workers’ state in that province.
13) The Soviet Union dissolved during December 1991 due to inter-bureaucratic conflicts. There were battles throughout the 1990s within the Bureaucracy to how far to allow Capitalist inroads. Putin’s change of direction from 2000 to 2008 did not reverse the bureaucracy’s medium-term crisis of rule but did claw back some of the productive forces lost by extreme bureaucratic pillage under Yeltsin. This again confirms Trotsky’s argument that the workers’ state due to its economic foundation can make strides forward even in severe crisis. There is a renewed battle going on within the Russian Bureaucracy over pillaging between different wings and again over how far to allow Capitalist inroads. Mandel argued again in 1990 that Imperialism would throw all its Capital to destroy the workers’ states and finance Capitalist layers. The Imperialists are going to find it very difficult to do this in Russia with Western Europe and American Capitalism in such severe crisis. Imperialism will certainly not tolerate the bureaucrats pillaging their loans in Russia which happened under Yeltsin. Some Eastern European bureaucrats did exactly the same by pillaging the Imperialist loans after 1989.
14) Eastern Europe has not recovered economically from the dual crisis of Bureaucratic rule and Capitalist inroads starting in 1989. Due to the world capitalist crisis and with what remains of these Bureaucratic castes being so fragmented there are mass struggles against the dual crisis which is giving an anti-Capitalist character to the struggles for Political Revolutions with social consequences. In Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states the Stalinist Bureaucracies still have political power but in a weakened state. Cambodia is similar to Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet Union countries in that due to a 10-year inter-bureaucratic war there was a multi-party system established in 1991. Bureaucracy in Cambodia rules through Cambodian People’s Party which combines the CP which replaced Pol Pot and former Pol Potists. This party has won every general election.
15) China has been in revolutionary ferment since the overthrow of semi-Feudal regime during 1911. Bureaucracy fears this revolutionary tradition. Threat of Political Revolution around 1989 Tiananmen Square rapidly slowed down millions of redundancies in state-owned enterprises. Chinese Bureaucrats trying to control working class by promising them concessions. Their demagogic clams to “Marxism” prove the working class are the ruling class refracted through the political dictatorship of a Bureaucratic caste. Trotskyists should have no illusions that they will peacefully evolve into workers democracy. As Cannon said in 1953 against Pablo no social layers with privileges gives them up without a fight. The Political Revolution in China will be a titanic fight to overthrow Stalinism one of the biggest bureaucratic layer in history.
16) There have been considerable middle and working class radicalizations within the Imperialist countries for some time. It reflected itself with Social Democratic parties coming to power in Britain; France; and Germany between 1997-8. In America a radicalization had a distorted character with Liberal Bourgeois candidate Obama winning over sixty nine million votes within America during the 2008 Presidential election. Considering the historic racism it shows dialectically that things turn into their opposite with the Liberal Bourgeoisie using an Afro American to contain a massive radicalization. Trotskyists correctly do not vote for any Bourgeois candidate including Obama. Social Democratic parties Trotskyists vote for in order to break their base towards revolutionary politics. Disillusionment with Social Democracy; Bourgeois New Labour faction; and Obama led to right wing moves among the middle class and lumpenproletariat towards Conservative Bourgeois; Populist; and Fascist parties. Since 2010 the middle class generally moving leftwards with student protests and joining mass movements against cuts. If these opportunities are missed danger of reaction and counter-revolution as Norway massacre is a warning for those dangers in another period if reaction starts winning out.
17) Arab Spring has come about by Imperialism and semi-Colonial Bourgeois pauperizing the middle classes and making it harder for workers survive by removing even basic subsistence. Middle class revolt in Tunisia and Egypt led to workers coming on the scene with millions demonstrating; striking; and occupying factories. American Imperialism is on record to make deal with Muslim Brotherhood to fight workers and Arab Nationalism which threatens Imperialism’s dominance of North Africa and Middle East. The Arab Spring has deepened radicalizations within Imperialist countries.
18) American Trotskyist Joseph Hansen called the post-World War 2 stabilization of Capitalism within the Imperialist countries made possible only by Social Democratic and Stalinist betrayals; and the working class except only in exceptional situations such as the 1960s and 1970s threaten revolution led to the centrifugal forces outlined here of Stalinism and Bourgeois Nationalists hegemozing the struggle against Imperialism the long detour. He believed the long detour was beginning to end with the May-June 1968 events in France. In reality it was prolonged with the crisis of the semi-Colonies and workers’ states during and post-1989. It was only in 2008 when the Capitalist crisis finally hit the Imperialist epicentres in full force. The crisis of Stalinism after 1989 deepened the long detour even more with authentic Trotskyism being reduced to small numbers. Objective conditions for rapid changes where a reconstructed Trotskyist movement could play its historic role in completing the struggle for world Socialism as it has only the answers to the problems within the Imperialist countries; semi-Colonies; and workers’ states. Its original cadres could come from middle class intellectuals won over to Trotskyism which then links up with the working class vanguard and oppressed through working out key strategies and tactics.
1) How Revolutionary Marxism developed before rise of counter- revolutionary Social Democratic and Stalinist Bureaucracies.
2) The peculiar circumstances in Russia which led to Bolshevism: - a militant working class from the 1880s which in that decade led Plekhanov to move leftwards towards at least aspects of class independence; every tactic had to be utilized within general revolutionary strategies (Lenin “Left Wing Communism and Infantile Disorder)”; and how they became the conscious expression of Permanent Revolution three or four months before October 1917 Socialist revolution.
3) Why 1905 revolution in Russia delayed World War 1 and revolutionary wave it caused from Austria; to Turkish part of Ottoman Empire; to Persia; and culminating with 1911 revolution within China.
4) Attempt by Comintern at its four world congresses to develop principles; programme; revolutionary strategy; and tactics. Permanent Revolution as a programme was only extended to all colonies/semi-colonies after defeat of China’s 1925-27 revolution.
5) Failure to extend Socialist revolutions due to mistakes made by Communist Parties established after 1917 due to their inability to build cadres like the Bolsheviks did (Trotsky: “Lessons of October”) along with the devastation of civil war with best working class elements decimated led to a bureaucratic caste to emerge. That Bureaucracy carried out a political counter-revolution through civil war methods to destroy Bolshevik revolutionary leadership which was necessary to consolidate their caste rule.
.
6) Trotskyist cadres forged in fight against Stalinism; Centrism; and Ultra-Leftism due to defeats of world revolution:- Hitler coming to power; Franco winning the Spanish civil war; and World War 2 were isolated and most of them outside of America and Britain were murdered. Those cadres had the capacities to have a massive impact and lead revolutions but not had the opportunities due to bad objective conditions.
7) When the tide of counter-revolution and reaction began to be reversed by Soviet victories from 1943 onwards meant with the decimation of Trotskyist cadres that the Socialist revolutions outside of Cuba and Nicaragua were carried out for interest of Bureaucratic castes with their crimes playing into Imperialism’s hands within the Imperialist countries in blunting the workers consciousness and their privileges constituting an obstacle on the road to Socialism requiring Political Revolutions to remove them.
8) Outside of the Socialist revolutions led by Stalinists or non-Stalinist leaderships such as Castroists and Sandinistas Bourgeois Nationalists have won political power defeating Imperialism in many wars. Opportunist alliances with those Bourgeois Nationalists by Soviet and Chinese Bureaucracy alongside Stalinist parties demoralised the masses playing into the hands of reaction.
9) For Trotskyists to finish off what remains of the Bureaucratic castes within Eastern Europe; ex-Soviet states and Cambodia and overthrow Bourgeois Nationalists requires understanding centrifugal forces released after 1943; and the dual nature of both Stalinism and Bourgeois Nationalists in their complex and contradictory relationship to Imperialism and fear of workers overthrowing them to the left. Due to Trotskyism not filling the vacuum post-1943 it was the Stalinists and Bourgeois Nationalists who led most battles against Imperialism. Imperialism is attempting to regain what they lost within the workers’ states and re-colonise the semi-Colonies. Except for ex-GDR and Kosovo they have failed. Imperialism is losing several Colonial wars.
10) The world crisis first reflected itself within semi-Colonies first. Eastern European and Soviet Stalinism started to implode from 1985 because the Bureaucratic castes’ pillage was/is causing maximum damage. They began to pillage some of the workers’ social gains such as childcare and other social services by cutting back on them. This helped cause revolutionary upheavals of 1989 beginning as incipient Political Revolutions. Concillationist elements to Imperialism within these Bureaucracies utilized the 1989 upheavals to come to power to pillage even more and started to allow major Capitalist inroads. Workers become disorientated but as Mandel predicted in “Power and Money” they would wage defensive struggles to defend their material conditions against extreme Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads.
11) There is only a small minority on the left who understand the complexity of workers’ states as transitional societies in severe crisis within Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet Union countries due crisis of Bureaucratic rule brought about by pillage undermining these workers’ states. Capitalist inroads deepened their economic crisis as they trying to weaken and eventually destroy productive forces set in motion by the Soviet Bureaucracy overthrowing Capitalism within Eastern Europe during 1948. Even a lot of pseudo-Trotskyists have broken from the Trotskyist method of analysing transitional societies with their massive complexities. If the ex-Trotskyists do not understand the post-1989 complexities the non-Trotskyists are equally incapable of analysing these contradictions scientifically.
12) As Mandel said in 1990 against British Socialist Action supporters workers won important democratic rights within Eastern Europe which could be used to defend their material gains in these workers’ states against those forces who want to restore Capitalism. In their adaptation to Stalinism Socialist Action played up dangers of Capitalist restoration through democratic concessions to the masses being granted. Capitalism has not been restored in that area except for ex-GDR through economic absorption into a reunified Germany; and Kosovo through a major 78-day war and having 50,000 Imperialist troops to destroy the workers’ state in that province.
13) The Soviet Union dissolved during December 1991 due to inter-bureaucratic conflicts. There were battles throughout the 1990s within the Bureaucracy to how far to allow Capitalist inroads. Putin’s change of direction from 2000 to 2008 did not reverse the bureaucracy’s medium-term crisis of rule but did claw back some of the productive forces lost by extreme bureaucratic pillage under Yeltsin. This again confirms Trotsky’s argument that the workers’ state due to its economic foundation can make strides forward even in severe crisis. There is a renewed battle going on within the Russian Bureaucracy over pillaging between different wings and again over how far to allow Capitalist inroads. Mandel argued again in 1990 that Imperialism would throw all its Capital to destroy the workers’ states and finance Capitalist layers. The Imperialists are going to find it very difficult to do this in Russia with Western Europe and American Capitalism in such severe crisis. Imperialism will certainly not tolerate the bureaucrats pillaging their loans in Russia which happened under Yeltsin. Some Eastern European bureaucrats did exactly the same by pillaging the Imperialist loans after 1989.
14) Eastern Europe has not recovered economically from the dual crisis of Bureaucratic rule and Capitalist inroads starting in 1989. Due to the world capitalist crisis and with what remains of these Bureaucratic castes being so fragmented there are mass struggles against the dual crisis which is giving an anti-Capitalist character to the struggles for Political Revolutions with social consequences. In Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states the Stalinist Bureaucracies still have political power but in a weakened state. Cambodia is similar to Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet Union countries in that due to a 10-year inter-bureaucratic war there was a multi-party system established in 1991. Bureaucracy in Cambodia rules through Cambodian People’s Party which combines the CP which replaced Pol Pot and former Pol Potists. This party has won every general election.
15) China has been in revolutionary ferment since the overthrow of semi-Feudal regime during 1911. Bureaucracy fears this revolutionary tradition. Threat of Political Revolution around 1989 Tiananmen Square rapidly slowed down millions of redundancies in state-owned enterprises. Chinese Bureaucrats trying to control working class by promising them concessions. Their demagogic clams to “Marxism” prove the working class are the ruling class refracted through the political dictatorship of a Bureaucratic caste. Trotskyists should have no illusions that they will peacefully evolve into workers democracy. As Cannon said in 1953 against Pablo no social layers with privileges gives them up without a fight. The Political Revolution in China will be a titanic fight to overthrow Stalinism one of the biggest bureaucratic layer in history.
16) There have been considerable middle and working class radicalizations within the Imperialist countries for some time. It reflected itself with Social Democratic parties coming to power in Britain; France; and Germany between 1997-8. In America a radicalization had a distorted character with Liberal Bourgeois candidate Obama winning over sixty nine million votes within America during the 2008 Presidential election. Considering the historic racism it shows dialectically that things turn into their opposite with the Liberal Bourgeoisie using an Afro American to contain a massive radicalization. Trotskyists correctly do not vote for any Bourgeois candidate including Obama. Social Democratic parties Trotskyists vote for in order to break their base towards revolutionary politics. Disillusionment with Social Democracy; Bourgeois New Labour faction; and Obama led to right wing moves among the middle class and lumpenproletariat towards Conservative Bourgeois; Populist; and Fascist parties. Since 2010 the middle class generally moving leftwards with student protests and joining mass movements against cuts. If these opportunities are missed danger of reaction and counter-revolution as Norway massacre is a warning for those dangers in another period if reaction starts winning out.
17) Arab Spring has come about by Imperialism and semi-Colonial Bourgeois pauperizing the middle classes and making it harder for workers survive by removing even basic subsistence. Middle class revolt in Tunisia and Egypt led to workers coming on the scene with millions demonstrating; striking; and occupying factories. American Imperialism is on record to make deal with Muslim Brotherhood to fight workers and Arab Nationalism which threatens Imperialism’s dominance of North Africa and Middle East. The Arab Spring has deepened radicalizations within Imperialist countries.
18) American Trotskyist Joseph Hansen called the post-World War 2 stabilization of Capitalism within the Imperialist countries made possible only by Social Democratic and Stalinist betrayals; and the working class except only in exceptional situations such as the 1960s and 1970s threaten revolution led to the centrifugal forces outlined here of Stalinism and Bourgeois Nationalists hegemozing the struggle against Imperialism the long detour. He believed the long detour was beginning to end with the May-June 1968 events in France. In reality it was prolonged with the crisis of the semi-Colonies and workers’ states during and post-1989. It was only in 2008 when the Capitalist crisis finally hit the Imperialist epicentres in full force. The crisis of Stalinism after 1989 deepened the long detour even more with authentic Trotskyism being reduced to small numbers. Objective conditions for rapid changes where a reconstructed Trotskyist movement could play its historic role in completing the struggle for world Socialism as it has only the answers to the problems within the Imperialist countries; semi-Colonies; and workers’ states. Its original cadres could come from middle class intellectuals won over to Trotskyism which then links up with the working class vanguard and oppressed through working out key strategies and tactics.
Tuesday 12 July 2011
A reply to Sian Ruddick on Syria in this week's Socialist Worker
SIAN RUDDICK’S ARTICLE SHOWS BY NOT FOLLOWING A TROTSKYIST METHOD MEANS SHE CANNOT SEE THE FULL ROLE OF IMPERIALISM WITHIN SYRIA! BY ANTHONY BRAIN
It is hard to know from afar all the complexities of Syria. What I read on Wikipedia two months ago which had a daily timeline (with all the reservations about reliability) was that it seemed to me that counter-revolutionary elements were prevailing indicated by their support for counter-revolutionaries within Libya and some of them calling for Imperialist intervention to overthrow the Assad regime. I do not know if there are protests to the left of Assad.
Ruddick is repeating the same methodological errors on Libya as Syria in not seeing the role of Imperialism. These mistakes flow from not applying the Leninist-Trotskyist analysis of why Imperialism partly intervenes within the semi-Colonies to overthrow autumous Bourgeois Nationalist regimes in order to make even bigger super-profits by acquiring greater ownerships of precious natural resources and other sectors of their economies.
On the workers’ states the British SWP which Ruddick is a leader are in conflict with the Trotskyist scientific analysis of contradictions within transitional societies. The logic of “State Capitalism” is to take an abstentionist position on conflicts between workers’ states and pro-Capitalist/Imperialist forces. Due to not recognising the workers’ states and attempts by pro-Capitalist forces to overthrow them can lead to opportunist positions which lead to class lines being crossed. It is not the science of Marxism which determines the SWP’s ziz-zags on these questions but social pressures. Due to the historic lack of internationalism which Stalinist crimes have assisted the main pressures on the SWP leadership are from its middle class composition.
As the Trotskyists around Cannon argued the workers who do not have clear politics of their own carry out someone else’s politics which represent alien class pressures. This is most clearly seen by Dave Crouch supporting the Orange counter-revolutionaries during 2004 in Ukraine. There were some extremely counter-revolutionary elements even of a semi-Fascist anti-Semitic character. Bob Wood in Marxmail documented the role of these elements at the time. It is the only question in knowing Wood since 1993 I have agreed with him. Chris Harman opposed Crouch in supporting the Orange counter-revolutionaries but had a classic “State Capitalist” line of abstentionist neutrality between pro-Capitalist forces trying to deepen Capitalist restoration by supporting concillationist elements within the Ukrainian Bureaucracy to Imperialism and those Bureaucrats who want to maintain the workers’ state due to their privileges being rooted there. The Miners from Eastern Ukraine were in the heart of a fight against the Orange counter-revolutionaries.
As Mandel pointed out since the 1960s “State Capitalist” politics is totally inconsistent which ranges from abstentionist to those who become pro-Imperialist to others who defend workers’ states in practice against Imperialism with examples of supporting NLF/North Vietnam in their war with Imperialism or defending Serbia against NATO bombing during 1999.
There are three other examples of the British IS/SWP leadership having contradictory positions on the workers’ states. Peter Sedgewick on 5th August 1966 wrote a letter to Labour Weekly (Socialist Worker’s predecessor – available under Sedgewick on Marxist Internet Archive) entitled “Victory for the Vietcong: Is it the right slogan” trying to undermine Ian Birchall’s left turn of supporting the NLF against Imperialism. This letter was so Stalinphobic that he raised objections to carrying Red Flags in case it was confused with Stalinism. The title of the letter showed an adaptation to Imperialist language in calling NLF V.C.!
On the question of how to build a united front for unconditional withdraw of Imperialist troops from Vietnam it was sectarian to base the VSC campaign as its main slogan; victory for the NLF! Before the American SWP supporters set up the tendency within the International Marxist Group in 1970 I am told by comrades who went through this experience that John Steele convinced them that it was Ultra-Left for the VSC to make victory to the NLF the basis of that campaign. He convinced them that they should base the anti-War campaign like the American anti-war movement by calling for immediate American withdraw of its armed forces from Vietnam! and end British complicity with America’s war with Vietnam!
The British SWP leadership had two contradictory lines on the Capitalist inroads into Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states. From 1992 to 1999 they argued it was an abstentionist line of saying it was just one form of Capitalism replacing another. Then under pressure of the anti-Globalization movement they did a left turn of opposing the inroads for setting back those economies. There were differences between Alex Callinicos and Lindsay German on the Russian-Georgian war of 2008. German had an abstentionist line of seeing it as “Inter-Imperialist”! Callinicos saw the decisive military victory of Russia over Georgia as a major blow to Imperialist attempts at world dominance. Pragmatically he moved to the correct analysis due to the pro-Russian sentiment even among Muslims the SWP were working in a united front within Stop the War Coalition due to them standing up in particular to American Imperialist attempts to dominate the world. That line by Callinicos contradicts “State Capitalist” theory and Russia is “just another Imperialist power!” which he normally argues.
The British SWP and their predecessors have this range of positions with considerable vacillations depending on social pressures. Since 1971/2 there has been a bureaucratic centralist leadership except when there is a falling out among their central leadership clique for example when John Ress lost the leadership there was some democratic debate as several cliques had to win the maximum numbers to several organisations in embryo. This is what happened when the Healyite leadership of the WRP imploded during 1985. Outside of that situation dissent is not tolerated within the SWP.
Trotskyism analyses through applying the law of Uneven and Combined Development all the contradictions within semi-Colonial countries the contradictions of Imperialist super-exploitation; Bourgeoisie and semi-Feudal elements while maintaining Imperialist dominance competing sectional interests between those coming into conflict with Imperialism or comprador Bourgeois elements fighting them on behalf of Imperialism; oppressed nationalities/religions/tribes; and the urban middle/rural middle classes; and the working class potentially fighting for our programme of Permanent Revolution. Ruddick’s methodology of seeing every upheaval in North Africa and Middle East as the same is in conflict with the Marxist method of Dialectical and Historical Materialism which sees contradictory forces fighting it out for different class or fractions of classes’ interests.
Most of the Middle East upheavals are anti-Imperialist as the working and middle class are going into struggle against Imperialist super-exploitation which is rapidly pauperizing them. In Libya and Syria Imperialism are trying to overthrow autumous Bourgeois Nationalist regimes which stop Imperialism totally dominating these countries. Trotskyists distinguish between pro-Imperialist attempts to attempt political counter-revolutions overthrowing autumous Bourgeois Nationalist regimes and movements challenging them from the left which opens space for the workers to fight for Socialist revolutions. If there was a serious threat of Socialist revolution in Syria Imperialism would pull back and close ranks behind the Assad regime to crush it.
Ruddick is still under the Petty-Bourgeois Democrats pressure when she makes an implied criticism that Clinton did not call for the removal of Assad. The reason Clinton did not do this is Imperialism is losing the Libyan war and cannot afford to upset an even more powerful Bourgeoisie in Syria. I read in the Chinese news agency called Xinhua that the pro-Imperialists are talking about a shadow government. In Ruddick’s article she mentions outbreak of strikes but admits it is not massive numbers. She is wrong to argue that if the opposition in Syria wins it automatically weakens the Israeli Ruling Class. It depends on whether the pro-Imperialists or autumous Bourgeois elements or workers can begin to fight for power win out. Imperialism threatening the Assad regime has forced the Bourgeois Nationalists to go further against Imperialism by attacking Israel from the Syrian border and protesting outside the American and French embassies.
At the end of her article Ruddick correctly argues for Imperialism to keep out of Syria. This reflects the anti-war pressures which are deepening with Imperialism so far losing the Libyan war. There has been 50%+ opposed in Britain to the Libyan war. This is because the workers are being attacked at home and not being offered a considerable less of the Imperialist loot. It is an indication of a mass radicalization which began to take on anti-Imperialist character in opposing the war on Iraq. It is Imperialism which threatens world peace. The more Imperialism is weakened by the workers’ states and Colonial revolution strengthens tendencies towards Socialist revolutions within Imperialist countries.
It is hard to know from afar all the complexities of Syria. What I read on Wikipedia two months ago which had a daily timeline (with all the reservations about reliability) was that it seemed to me that counter-revolutionary elements were prevailing indicated by their support for counter-revolutionaries within Libya and some of them calling for Imperialist intervention to overthrow the Assad regime. I do not know if there are protests to the left of Assad.
Ruddick is repeating the same methodological errors on Libya as Syria in not seeing the role of Imperialism. These mistakes flow from not applying the Leninist-Trotskyist analysis of why Imperialism partly intervenes within the semi-Colonies to overthrow autumous Bourgeois Nationalist regimes in order to make even bigger super-profits by acquiring greater ownerships of precious natural resources and other sectors of their economies.
On the workers’ states the British SWP which Ruddick is a leader are in conflict with the Trotskyist scientific analysis of contradictions within transitional societies. The logic of “State Capitalism” is to take an abstentionist position on conflicts between workers’ states and pro-Capitalist/Imperialist forces. Due to not recognising the workers’ states and attempts by pro-Capitalist forces to overthrow them can lead to opportunist positions which lead to class lines being crossed. It is not the science of Marxism which determines the SWP’s ziz-zags on these questions but social pressures. Due to the historic lack of internationalism which Stalinist crimes have assisted the main pressures on the SWP leadership are from its middle class composition.
As the Trotskyists around Cannon argued the workers who do not have clear politics of their own carry out someone else’s politics which represent alien class pressures. This is most clearly seen by Dave Crouch supporting the Orange counter-revolutionaries during 2004 in Ukraine. There were some extremely counter-revolutionary elements even of a semi-Fascist anti-Semitic character. Bob Wood in Marxmail documented the role of these elements at the time. It is the only question in knowing Wood since 1993 I have agreed with him. Chris Harman opposed Crouch in supporting the Orange counter-revolutionaries but had a classic “State Capitalist” line of abstentionist neutrality between pro-Capitalist forces trying to deepen Capitalist restoration by supporting concillationist elements within the Ukrainian Bureaucracy to Imperialism and those Bureaucrats who want to maintain the workers’ state due to their privileges being rooted there. The Miners from Eastern Ukraine were in the heart of a fight against the Orange counter-revolutionaries.
As Mandel pointed out since the 1960s “State Capitalist” politics is totally inconsistent which ranges from abstentionist to those who become pro-Imperialist to others who defend workers’ states in practice against Imperialism with examples of supporting NLF/North Vietnam in their war with Imperialism or defending Serbia against NATO bombing during 1999.
There are three other examples of the British IS/SWP leadership having contradictory positions on the workers’ states. Peter Sedgewick on 5th August 1966 wrote a letter to Labour Weekly (Socialist Worker’s predecessor – available under Sedgewick on Marxist Internet Archive) entitled “Victory for the Vietcong: Is it the right slogan” trying to undermine Ian Birchall’s left turn of supporting the NLF against Imperialism. This letter was so Stalinphobic that he raised objections to carrying Red Flags in case it was confused with Stalinism. The title of the letter showed an adaptation to Imperialist language in calling NLF V.C.!
On the question of how to build a united front for unconditional withdraw of Imperialist troops from Vietnam it was sectarian to base the VSC campaign as its main slogan; victory for the NLF! Before the American SWP supporters set up the tendency within the International Marxist Group in 1970 I am told by comrades who went through this experience that John Steele convinced them that it was Ultra-Left for the VSC to make victory to the NLF the basis of that campaign. He convinced them that they should base the anti-War campaign like the American anti-war movement by calling for immediate American withdraw of its armed forces from Vietnam! and end British complicity with America’s war with Vietnam!
The British SWP leadership had two contradictory lines on the Capitalist inroads into Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states. From 1992 to 1999 they argued it was an abstentionist line of saying it was just one form of Capitalism replacing another. Then under pressure of the anti-Globalization movement they did a left turn of opposing the inroads for setting back those economies. There were differences between Alex Callinicos and Lindsay German on the Russian-Georgian war of 2008. German had an abstentionist line of seeing it as “Inter-Imperialist”! Callinicos saw the decisive military victory of Russia over Georgia as a major blow to Imperialist attempts at world dominance. Pragmatically he moved to the correct analysis due to the pro-Russian sentiment even among Muslims the SWP were working in a united front within Stop the War Coalition due to them standing up in particular to American Imperialist attempts to dominate the world. That line by Callinicos contradicts “State Capitalist” theory and Russia is “just another Imperialist power!” which he normally argues.
The British SWP and their predecessors have this range of positions with considerable vacillations depending on social pressures. Since 1971/2 there has been a bureaucratic centralist leadership except when there is a falling out among their central leadership clique for example when John Ress lost the leadership there was some democratic debate as several cliques had to win the maximum numbers to several organisations in embryo. This is what happened when the Healyite leadership of the WRP imploded during 1985. Outside of that situation dissent is not tolerated within the SWP.
Trotskyism analyses through applying the law of Uneven and Combined Development all the contradictions within semi-Colonial countries the contradictions of Imperialist super-exploitation; Bourgeoisie and semi-Feudal elements while maintaining Imperialist dominance competing sectional interests between those coming into conflict with Imperialism or comprador Bourgeois elements fighting them on behalf of Imperialism; oppressed nationalities/religions/tribes; and the urban middle/rural middle classes; and the working class potentially fighting for our programme of Permanent Revolution. Ruddick’s methodology of seeing every upheaval in North Africa and Middle East as the same is in conflict with the Marxist method of Dialectical and Historical Materialism which sees contradictory forces fighting it out for different class or fractions of classes’ interests.
Most of the Middle East upheavals are anti-Imperialist as the working and middle class are going into struggle against Imperialist super-exploitation which is rapidly pauperizing them. In Libya and Syria Imperialism are trying to overthrow autumous Bourgeois Nationalist regimes which stop Imperialism totally dominating these countries. Trotskyists distinguish between pro-Imperialist attempts to attempt political counter-revolutions overthrowing autumous Bourgeois Nationalist regimes and movements challenging them from the left which opens space for the workers to fight for Socialist revolutions. If there was a serious threat of Socialist revolution in Syria Imperialism would pull back and close ranks behind the Assad regime to crush it.
Ruddick is still under the Petty-Bourgeois Democrats pressure when she makes an implied criticism that Clinton did not call for the removal of Assad. The reason Clinton did not do this is Imperialism is losing the Libyan war and cannot afford to upset an even more powerful Bourgeoisie in Syria. I read in the Chinese news agency called Xinhua that the pro-Imperialists are talking about a shadow government. In Ruddick’s article she mentions outbreak of strikes but admits it is not massive numbers. She is wrong to argue that if the opposition in Syria wins it automatically weakens the Israeli Ruling Class. It depends on whether the pro-Imperialists or autumous Bourgeois elements or workers can begin to fight for power win out. Imperialism threatening the Assad regime has forced the Bourgeois Nationalists to go further against Imperialism by attacking Israel from the Syrian border and protesting outside the American and French embassies.
At the end of her article Ruddick correctly argues for Imperialism to keep out of Syria. This reflects the anti-war pressures which are deepening with Imperialism so far losing the Libyan war. There has been 50%+ opposed in Britain to the Libyan war. This is because the workers are being attacked at home and not being offered a considerable less of the Imperialist loot. It is an indication of a mass radicalization which began to take on anti-Imperialist character in opposing the war on Iraq. It is Imperialism which threatens world peace. The more Imperialism is weakened by the workers’ states and Colonial revolution strengthens tendencies towards Socialist revolutions within Imperialist countries.
Thursday 9 June 2011
Anthony Brain's letter to American Socialist Viewpoint on Libya and China!
TWO GREAT STRIDES FORWARD IN LATEST SOCIALIST VIEWPOINT! BY ANTHONY BRAIN
I have just looked at the latest issue of the American Trotskyist magazine Socialist Viewpoint. There are two good groups of articles which show a good positive evolution. On Libya you have come out clearly unlike most ex-Trotskyists who are Centrist or even reformist SV comes out against the counter-revolutionary rebel leadership.
There is a slight omission in SV not coming out clearly like I do for a military united front with pro-Gaddafi forces to defeat Imperialism. Fred Western within the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) has a better line than Alan Woods who only opposed the counter-revolutionaries one or two days before the Imperialists military intervened.
SV should criticize Western for not seeing Imperialism as the main enemy. It is Imperialism who are the main force stopping the development of productive forces within semi-Colonial countries. Trotsky argued that certain Bourgeois Nationalists have a dual character. They are exploited by Imperialism which is why they are at times in conflict with them. At the same time they fear the working class being mobilized even more because if workers become stronger they threaten all exploiting classes. Within the military united front with pro-Gaddafi forces against Imperialism Trotskyists keep our political class independence from those Bourgeois Nationalists to strengthen workers to combine the struggle against Imperialism with them to fight for a Socialist revolution. This is how Permanent Revolution is concretely fought for in Libya.
On China I welcome Glen Ford’s article. It is good that it suggests China is a workers’ state when he writes about an economy essentially based on socially useful production not profit. One of the reasons I supported SV from 2001 to 2007 was that it argued the battle in the workers’ states of Eastern Europe and Russia over whether Capitalism is restored is yet to be determined. On Kosovo I supported the SA majority led by Weinstein-Seligman, but were defeated by Foley-Mackler at the 2000 SA Convention. That minority formed SV in April 2001.
A few weeks ago I glanced at SV’s articles on the workers’ states between 2001 and 2004/5 which I did not read fully at the time. After re-glancing them I posted them on Facebook because I was impressed in how particular Nat Weinstein saw the Capitalist inroads in Eastern Europe and Russia as an example of uneven and combined development within transitional societies; how he understood the workers’ state developed within China due to the Permanent Revolution being carried out in a distorted way the bureaucratic caste; and how China’s success defeated for a period the Yeltsin wing of the Russian Bureaucracy.
As I have argued elsewhere there were/are always competing cliques within the bureaucratic caste which rules Russia. The re-emergence of the Medvedev wing of Stalinism shows this. In the beginning of 2009 I wrote in Marxmail that Medvedev wing reflected pressures of Imperialism on the Russian Bureaucracy and hoping to enhance the caste’s privileges through collaborating with Imperialism. During the next period we shall see the weakening of this wing because as the Asian Times wrote last Monday that after Imperialism was able to intervene in Libya is now going after the Russian Bureaucracy on at least five issues.
Putin’s wing of Stalinism while wanting to maintain global Capitalism because if world Capitalism is overthrown it would lead to Political Revolution within Russia wants to resist Imperialism encroaching on their privileges which is rooted in a workers’ state. Another point I made in that Marxmail submission was that Putinites would not tolerate due to the balance of forces within the Bureaucracy what they tolerated under Yeltsin.
Those a-aforementioned Weinstein articles will be remembered alongside my documents as trying to maintain Trotskyist continuity when the American SWP dumped Trotskyism during the 1980s; the ex-FIT majority degenerated after 1992; and after Foley/Mackler totally collapsed into Stalinphobia. The worse ideological effects of Liberal Bourgeois ideological offensive is finally beginning to wear off on middle class intellectuals. It is this middle class layer who cannot survive decaying Capitalism is when the new initial Trotskyist cadres will be forged. Once this cadre made up of intellectuals, and those who how to work among the workers and oppressed organised in revolutionary parties nothing will be able to prevent Socialist revolutions within the Imperialist countries as Capitalism becomes more and more unbearable!
Anthony Brain – June 9th 2011.
Birmingham, England
I have just looked at the latest issue of the American Trotskyist magazine Socialist Viewpoint. There are two good groups of articles which show a good positive evolution. On Libya you have come out clearly unlike most ex-Trotskyists who are Centrist or even reformist SV comes out against the counter-revolutionary rebel leadership.
There is a slight omission in SV not coming out clearly like I do for a military united front with pro-Gaddafi forces to defeat Imperialism. Fred Western within the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) has a better line than Alan Woods who only opposed the counter-revolutionaries one or two days before the Imperialists military intervened.
SV should criticize Western for not seeing Imperialism as the main enemy. It is Imperialism who are the main force stopping the development of productive forces within semi-Colonial countries. Trotsky argued that certain Bourgeois Nationalists have a dual character. They are exploited by Imperialism which is why they are at times in conflict with them. At the same time they fear the working class being mobilized even more because if workers become stronger they threaten all exploiting classes. Within the military united front with pro-Gaddafi forces against Imperialism Trotskyists keep our political class independence from those Bourgeois Nationalists to strengthen workers to combine the struggle against Imperialism with them to fight for a Socialist revolution. This is how Permanent Revolution is concretely fought for in Libya.
On China I welcome Glen Ford’s article. It is good that it suggests China is a workers’ state when he writes about an economy essentially based on socially useful production not profit. One of the reasons I supported SV from 2001 to 2007 was that it argued the battle in the workers’ states of Eastern Europe and Russia over whether Capitalism is restored is yet to be determined. On Kosovo I supported the SA majority led by Weinstein-Seligman, but were defeated by Foley-Mackler at the 2000 SA Convention. That minority formed SV in April 2001.
A few weeks ago I glanced at SV’s articles on the workers’ states between 2001 and 2004/5 which I did not read fully at the time. After re-glancing them I posted them on Facebook because I was impressed in how particular Nat Weinstein saw the Capitalist inroads in Eastern Europe and Russia as an example of uneven and combined development within transitional societies; how he understood the workers’ state developed within China due to the Permanent Revolution being carried out in a distorted way the bureaucratic caste; and how China’s success defeated for a period the Yeltsin wing of the Russian Bureaucracy.
As I have argued elsewhere there were/are always competing cliques within the bureaucratic caste which rules Russia. The re-emergence of the Medvedev wing of Stalinism shows this. In the beginning of 2009 I wrote in Marxmail that Medvedev wing reflected pressures of Imperialism on the Russian Bureaucracy and hoping to enhance the caste’s privileges through collaborating with Imperialism. During the next period we shall see the weakening of this wing because as the Asian Times wrote last Monday that after Imperialism was able to intervene in Libya is now going after the Russian Bureaucracy on at least five issues.
Putin’s wing of Stalinism while wanting to maintain global Capitalism because if world Capitalism is overthrown it would lead to Political Revolution within Russia wants to resist Imperialism encroaching on their privileges which is rooted in a workers’ state. Another point I made in that Marxmail submission was that Putinites would not tolerate due to the balance of forces within the Bureaucracy what they tolerated under Yeltsin.
Those a-aforementioned Weinstein articles will be remembered alongside my documents as trying to maintain Trotskyist continuity when the American SWP dumped Trotskyism during the 1980s; the ex-FIT majority degenerated after 1992; and after Foley/Mackler totally collapsed into Stalinphobia. The worse ideological effects of Liberal Bourgeois ideological offensive is finally beginning to wear off on middle class intellectuals. It is this middle class layer who cannot survive decaying Capitalism is when the new initial Trotskyist cadres will be forged. Once this cadre made up of intellectuals, and those who how to work among the workers and oppressed organised in revolutionary parties nothing will be able to prevent Socialist revolutions within the Imperialist countries as Capitalism becomes more and more unbearable!
Anthony Brain – June 9th 2011.
Birmingham, England
Friday 27 May 2011
A brief assessment of ex-American SWPer joining IMT speaking at RSU event!
A BRIEF STATEMENT ON EX-AMERICAN SWPER WHO HAS JOINED IMT SPEECH AT RSU! BY ANTHONY BRAIN
There is a lot of what I agreed with what the RSU speaker said. He has broken from the Barnesites being convinced of the superiority of Trotskyism particularly on questions such as Permanent Revolution and Transitional method. His analysis of Mandela is spot on. The American SWP is no longer a revolutionary party but a rightward moving Centrist force. This is why Barnes had to expel the Trotskyists for this qualitative change from a revolutionary party to Centrist to occur.
The main difference I have with this speaker is his adaptation to IMT politics. This is most clearly expressed when he confuses the relationship between revolutionary parties and Social Democratic parties. He makes a distinction between a revolutionary tendency and a revolutionary party. A Trotskyist force doing entry work within a mass reformist party is still in reality a party because it is winning more forces to a nucleus which will make the revolution.
There is a schema the speaker is that the revolutionary party will only be built in the mass workers parties. This has its roots in Pablo’s Strategic Entryism of a special type policy carried out by the ISFI and carried on after re-unification by the FI majority before they ziz-zaged into adapting to Ultra-Leftism. You are confusing tactics with strategy. The independent revolutionary party exists intervening in all aspects of class struggles. Entryism is one tactic to strengthen the revolutionary party by breaking sizeable layers from reformism. Trotskyists have to become mass revolutionary parties have to win the majority of workers over to the necessity of carrying out Socialist revolutions.
The speaker raises a number of very good Transitional demands. I fundamentally disagree with you that British Militant correctly applied Transitional Demands within the Labour Party. They adapted to Social Democracy by accommodating to a peaceful road of workers coming to power rather than winning millions of workers to the necessity of a revolutionary struggle for power.
Additionally you confuse what Transitional demands are raised by a revolutionary party with demands we pose to reformist leaders to win their base over and advance struggles by workers and oppressed. This mistake flows from not seeing the necessity of independent role for the revolutionary party. This mistake comes from how you formulate the revolutionary tendency in mass workers parties rather than the revolutionary party.
It does not mean that we keep organizational separation from millions of reformist worker who Trotskyists want to win over towards revolutionary politics. This would be a sectarian reaction. That is why Trotskyists defeated the Musteites in 1935-37 who made a fetish of the organizational form of a revolutionary party. The American Trotskyists made one of their biggest gains by breaking thousands of revolutionary youth from reformism and Centrism by entering the Socialist Party. That was only possible through the defeat of Ultra-Lefts who opposed entryism,
The Comintern experiences of building a revolutionary international have a lot of useful lessons. At the first two world congresses they kept its revolutionary integrity by weeding out Opportunist reformists and Centrists. Once the revolutionary cadres were assembled then they orientated to Centrist forces and mass Social Democratic parties to win a majority for the necessity of revolution by breaking with their mis-leaders.
There is a lot of what I agreed with what the RSU speaker said. He has broken from the Barnesites being convinced of the superiority of Trotskyism particularly on questions such as Permanent Revolution and Transitional method. His analysis of Mandela is spot on. The American SWP is no longer a revolutionary party but a rightward moving Centrist force. This is why Barnes had to expel the Trotskyists for this qualitative change from a revolutionary party to Centrist to occur.
The main difference I have with this speaker is his adaptation to IMT politics. This is most clearly expressed when he confuses the relationship between revolutionary parties and Social Democratic parties. He makes a distinction between a revolutionary tendency and a revolutionary party. A Trotskyist force doing entry work within a mass reformist party is still in reality a party because it is winning more forces to a nucleus which will make the revolution.
There is a schema the speaker is that the revolutionary party will only be built in the mass workers parties. This has its roots in Pablo’s Strategic Entryism of a special type policy carried out by the ISFI and carried on after re-unification by the FI majority before they ziz-zaged into adapting to Ultra-Leftism. You are confusing tactics with strategy. The independent revolutionary party exists intervening in all aspects of class struggles. Entryism is one tactic to strengthen the revolutionary party by breaking sizeable layers from reformism. Trotskyists have to become mass revolutionary parties have to win the majority of workers over to the necessity of carrying out Socialist revolutions.
The speaker raises a number of very good Transitional demands. I fundamentally disagree with you that British Militant correctly applied Transitional Demands within the Labour Party. They adapted to Social Democracy by accommodating to a peaceful road of workers coming to power rather than winning millions of workers to the necessity of a revolutionary struggle for power.
Additionally you confuse what Transitional demands are raised by a revolutionary party with demands we pose to reformist leaders to win their base over and advance struggles by workers and oppressed. This mistake flows from not seeing the necessity of independent role for the revolutionary party. This mistake comes from how you formulate the revolutionary tendency in mass workers parties rather than the revolutionary party.
It does not mean that we keep organizational separation from millions of reformist worker who Trotskyists want to win over towards revolutionary politics. This would be a sectarian reaction. That is why Trotskyists defeated the Musteites in 1935-37 who made a fetish of the organizational form of a revolutionary party. The American Trotskyists made one of their biggest gains by breaking thousands of revolutionary youth from reformism and Centrism by entering the Socialist Party. That was only possible through the defeat of Ultra-Lefts who opposed entryism,
The Comintern experiences of building a revolutionary international have a lot of useful lessons. At the first two world congresses they kept its revolutionary integrity by weeding out Opportunist reformists and Centrists. Once the revolutionary cadres were assembled then they orientated to Centrist forces and mass Social Democratic parties to win a majority for the necessity of revolution by breaking with their mis-leaders.
Friday 20 May 2011
A reply to David P.A.'s sectarian line on Spanish Youth protests against unempoyment! (sent to Marxmail)
David P.A. misunderstands the main dynamic of radicalization of middle class layers breaking from the Popular Party in Spain and linking up with working class youth in occupying Madrid and other major Spanish cities. David’s reaction is one of the most sectarian attitudes I have seen for a long time and fatal for any revolutionary to implement.
There maybe a tiny element of Conservative Bourgeois manoeuvring to undermine Social Democracy by calling them voting for other parties. No Bourgeois layer would support the beginning of what could be the beginning of a challenge to Bourgeois rule which could potentially deepen with the unemployed already setting up committees to distribute food; administer their own communications; and meeting every evening to decide how to run the occupation of public spaces.
As Trotsky said in the early 1920s in the particular phrase of the epoch revolutionaries have to be ready to move in rapid changes. What’s unfolding now is the greatest ferment in history. The middle class are moving to the left in a whole number of semi-Colonies and Imperialist countries. Tunisia and Egypt has influenced the radicalization within the Imperialist countries. It has shown the possibility of revolutionary change if millions of workers and their allies come onto the streets.
There are whole layers of Spanish middle class youth breaking from the Conservative Bourgeois Popular Party and Social Democracy. They are following working class youth who are not organized by the labour movement who started protesting last Sunday. The street protests last Sunday changed mass psychology of both classes who felt powerless now feel several hours later they can effect major changes to their circumstances. This is a very important development. Trotskyists have to support and deepen a possible revolutionary process. At the same time we have to argue within the movement for them to win over millions of workers organized in Trade Unions and breaking them politically from Social Democracy and Stalinism.
There maybe a tiny element of Conservative Bourgeois manoeuvring to undermine Social Democracy by calling them voting for other parties. No Bourgeois layer would support the beginning of what could be the beginning of a challenge to Bourgeois rule which could potentially deepen with the unemployed already setting up committees to distribute food; administer their own communications; and meeting every evening to decide how to run the occupation of public spaces.
As Trotsky said in the early 1920s in the particular phrase of the epoch revolutionaries have to be ready to move in rapid changes. What’s unfolding now is the greatest ferment in history. The middle class are moving to the left in a whole number of semi-Colonies and Imperialist countries. Tunisia and Egypt has influenced the radicalization within the Imperialist countries. It has shown the possibility of revolutionary change if millions of workers and their allies come onto the streets.
There are whole layers of Spanish middle class youth breaking from the Conservative Bourgeois Popular Party and Social Democracy. They are following working class youth who are not organized by the labour movement who started protesting last Sunday. The street protests last Sunday changed mass psychology of both classes who felt powerless now feel several hours later they can effect major changes to their circumstances. This is a very important development. Trotskyists have to support and deepen a possible revolutionary process. At the same time we have to argue within the movement for them to win over millions of workers organized in Trade Unions and breaking them politically from Social Democracy and Stalinism.
Wednesday 11 May 2011
2 typo corrections on Riddell critique
Two typo errors- I meant keep political independence from Gbabgo than Ouattaira. I would never support pro-Imperialist Ouattaria.
Second typo error:- I missed out solidarity demonstrations in solidarity with Canadian women.
Second typo error:- I missed out solidarity demonstrations in solidarity with Canadian women.
A reply to John Riddell on Morales regime within Bolivia
WHY TROTSKYISTS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF HAVING A UNITED FRONT WITH MORALES AGAINST COUNTER-REVOUTIONARIES AND IMPERIALISM FIGHT FOR A REVOLUTIONARY LEADERSHIP WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY REPLACE HIM: - A REPLY TO JOHN RIDDELL BY ANTHONY BRAIN
Riddell does not fully understand the dual nature of Social Democracy in general and the role of Morales; and the dual nature of Bourgeois Nationalism within the semi-colonies. His lack of understanding of the role of Social Democracy is how you counter-pose in a schematic and un-dialectical manner significant reforms for the masses as the only possible option within Bolivia or the Morales regime blocks chance of major social change.
Trotskyists have gone through Social Democratic governments for nearly 110 years of making concessions to the masses in order to block Socialist revolutions. We defend any gains and utilize them as a springboard to carry out a Socialist revolution.
There was talk by certain Conservative Bourgeois elements and Aristocrats who wanted to overthrow Harold Wilson’s government through a military coup in Britain during the 1960s and 1970s because they did not like concessions to millions of workers which Social Democracy had to make in order to control their base. British Trotskyists would have had a united front with the Social Democrats against any coup but at the same time criticized their policies for laying the basis for reaction. Social Democratic betrayals laid the basis for the Heath and Thatcher governments. In the end a coup was not needed because Thatcher weakened the organized working class.
There is hardly any criticism by Riddell of Morales. You do not mention that several months ago Morales raised gas and oil prices astronomically. This caused a revolutionary upheaval which forced his government to back down within days. Additionally you do not mention the miners who marched on La Paz attacking Morales for not going far enough. In certain parts of Bolivia during 2007 or 2008 the indigenous masses and miners kicked out the government officials and started running the administration. This is Morales being challenged from the left. What line does Riddell have on these struggles?
There is one area which I agree with Riddell is seeing there has been some gains for the workers under Morales and the necessity of having a united front with him against the counter-revolutionaries and Imperialism. The reaction of Imperialism and counter-revolutionaries to Morales’s limited reforms again confirms Permanent Revolution. Imperialism and most of the semi-Colonial ruling classes cannot afford even minor reforms because of it undermining their super-profits.
Liberal Bourgeois elements might allow minor reforms to stop the revolution going Socialist but will take back those reforms at the first opportunity. They will also organize the counter-revolution to teach the masses a lesson very quickly once despair sets in. If American Imperialism ever regains the upper hand within Latin America they will massacre on a bigger scale than in Chile between 1973 and 1976. The balance of class forces would have to be assessed by them. One important factor which weakens their ability to massacre is the millions of Chicanos within America who would oppose it. Chavez over many years has armed the masses with rifles against dangers of counter-revolution.
Riddell admits the land reform of Morales is less radical than the Bourgeois Nationalist attempt of 1952. Trotsky argued correctly the Bourgeois Nationalists within semi-Colonial countries have a dual character. They are exploited by Imperialism but also exploit workers. By having this understanding Trotskyists can have a united front in the Ivory Coast civil war and in mass mobilizations with Gbagbo who campaigned against the IMF against Ouattaria who worked for the IMF. At the same time Trotskyists keep their political class independence from Ouattaria who is a Bourgeois Nationalist. This means we would not vote for him. Trotskyists utilize such conflicts particularly now French Imperialism is involved to defeat Imperialism and those comprador Bourgeois elements around Ouattaria through a united front with pro-Gbagbo forces to mobilize the masses independently. That is the best of mobilizing the workers in such crises and for them to lead the anti-Imperialist struggle into a combined revolution which starts carrying out Socialist tasks.
Only Trotskyism prevents one-sided opportunism or ultra-leftism towards Bourgeois Nationalists. Riddell makes fundamental mistakes in seeing alliances with Bourgeois forces undermining Capitalism. You are continuing your adaptation to Stalinism which began by rejecting Permanent Revolution.
Your definition of semi-Colonial Bourgeois regimes as “Progressive or semi-progressive” is Stalinist language. Bourgeois Nationalists in the last analysis capitulate to Imperialism because they fear workers the most because if they are strengthened their whole exploitation is threatened. This is why the Chinese Stalinist opportunist strategy of propping up Bourgeois Nationalists in Africa; Asia; and Latin America will end up in ultimate disaster.
Riddell’s position on China is the worst of all worlds. You no longer recognise it as a workers’ state but at the same echo some of the opportunist positions of the Chinese Bureaucracy on Bourgeois Nationalists in semi-Colonial countries. It is only by the Chinese Bureaucracy carrying out the Permanent Revolution in a distorted manner during 1950 that the Chinese economy is rapidly developing and able to assist infrastructural project within the semi-Colonies. This is giving some space to Bourgeois Nationalists for them to bargain with Imperialism.
The ALBA except for Cuba which is different as a workers’ state is an alliance of Bourgeois Nationalists trying to gain concessions from Imperialism. Bolivian Social Democracy is not Bourgeois but forced to carry out their ruling class interests. Chavez when he set up PSUV made a partial break from the Bourgeoisie. This is sufficient enough to vote for him and his party. There are certain indications that Chavez will work with Obama at the first opportunity. Venezuela’s handing over of FARC leader Perez Becerra to Colombia is a bad sign. Does Riddell criticize Chavez for doing this? Riddell makes some strange comments about ALBA replacing the market with solidarity. George Plekhanov argued in his 1883 “Socialism and the Political struggle” how Marx had developed a scientific approach in the fight for Socialism:
“Socialist propaganda has enormously influenced the whole course of intellectual development in the civilised countries. There is hardly a single branch of sociology that has not felt its impact in one sense or another. It has in part destroyed old scientific prejudices and in part transformed them from a naive delusion into a sophism. It is understandable that the influence of socialist propaganda must have affected the supporters of the new teaching still more powerfully. All the traditions of previous “political” revolutionaries have been ruthlessly criticised, all methods of social activity have been analysed from the standpoint of the “new Gospel”. But as the scientific substantiation of socialism was complete only with the appearance of Capital, it is easy to understand that the results of this criticism have by no means always been satisfactory. And as, on the other hand, there were several schools in utopian socialism which had almost equal influence, little by little a kind of medium socialism, as it were, has been worked out, and this has been adhered to by people who did not claim to found a new school and were not among the particularly zealous supporters of previously existing schools. This eclectic socialism, as Frederick Engels says, is “a mish-mash of such critical statements, economic theories, pictures of future society by the founders of different sects, as excite a minimum of opposition; a mish-mash which is the more easily brewed the more the definite sharp edges of the individual constituents are rubbed down in the stream of debate, like rounded pebbles in a brook”. [2] This medium socialism, the same author notes, still reigns in the heads of most of the worker socialists in England and in France”.
Riddell is echoing Utopian Socialism if you believe you can have anti-Capitalist attitudes predominating in Capitalist ALBA. In another section Riddell then contradicts himself by recognizing the Capitalist nature of ALBA. He justifies Morales’s strategy with the opportunist formulas on “progressives”, including Bourgeois Nationalists.
The overwhelming majority of forces in Latin America Riddell looks too have condemned as counter-revolutionary the rebels you supported in Libya prior to Imperialism intervened. Have you changed your mind on this? Riddell’s position on Libya prior to the Imperialist intervention was to the right of Morales; Castro; Chavez; and Ortega. They have condemned Imperialism because if they win in Libya it will embolden American Imperialism to go further in trying to overthrow their regimes.
Riddell is schematic in playing down the possibilities of Socialist revolutions overcoming backwardness in semi-Colonial countries. I am currently reading a 1971 book by Anthony Giddens on Marx; Durkheim; and Weber which shows that it was Marx who argued in 1844 that the German working class had the potential to leap over backward Feudalism by coming to power thereby skipping a major Capitalist development. Marx saw this as a possibility because he was a dialectician which could see backwardness turned into its opposite of rapidly going forward in developing the productive forces.
This did not happen as the rising German Capitalist class with enormous profits could buy a section of the workers off. Due to fear of a rising working class the Bourgeoisie and Aristocracy were able to reach an historic compromise until 1918. The Aristocracy gained through some of them becoming industrial Capitalists, and by allowing Capitalists gain massive profits would compromise with them in keeping a large part of their political power. After Germany’s defeat in World War 1 all the contradictions within German society and its ruling class expressed themselves dramatically.
The world situation is characterized by Capitalist decay. In the next period we are going to see the greatest revolutionary upsurges in history. This can be seen by the revolutionary upheavals in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia; general strikes in Greece and Italy in the last few days; and a general strike in Botswana. Another indication of this is thousands of women in several countries in support of Canadian women against Sexist comments of a leading police officer. All the past struggles by workers; semi-Colonial masses struggle against Imperialism; women autumous struggle against Sexism; and the fight against Racism is coming to the surface because they can only be solved through combined revolutions as developed by American SWP prior to Barnes’s 1981 revisionism.
Despite considerable inroads into Eastern Europe of Capitalist elements Capitalism has not been restored. Imperialism’s failure to restore Capitalism in Eastern Europe shows that Capitalism’s decay as a world economic system is greater than Stalinism’s decay. This is why there is a dual crisis of Bureaucratic pillage made worse by Capitalist inroads. Impressionistically this seemed wrong with Imperialism’s triumphalism after 1989. The objective reality has broken through clever Liberal Bourgeois propaganda.
There are enormous struggles breaking out in Serbia and Albania against Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads. Objectively this is the first steps which will culminate in the Political Revolution with social consequences. In Russia there are still inter-Bureaucratic conflicts but the Capitalist layers have been considerably weakened. The rise in world revolution will deepen processes towards Political Revolution within Russia and China.
It all these objective changes which can lead to a rebirth of Trotskyism. I am going to write a book explaining how I see this process unfolding. I will compare it with the objective factors that led to the rise of Bolshevism within Russia. This will involve considerable research.
When Riddell downplays the possibility of Socialist revolution within Bolivia he forgets the role of a workers’ state through co-ordinated nationalized industries and Monopoly of Foreign Trade regulating trade with Capitalist states is that a lot of socio-economic development is possible.
Another major revision of Marxism is when Riddell calls the right wing militias in Bolivia Fascist. Trotsky’s analysis of Fascism is that it a product of the necessity of Imperialist expansionism. In semi-Colonies there is an objective struggle for self-determination against Imperialist super-exploitation. There are Fascist individuals and groups sympathetic in semi-Colonies to Fascism within the Imperialist countries. These forces subordinate the semi-Colonies even more to Imperialism. A qualitative difference exists between reactionary nationalism of Imperialist countries and nationalism of the oppressed in Colonies/semi-Colonies in fighting Imperialism.
Riddell does not fully understand the dual nature of Social Democracy in general and the role of Morales; and the dual nature of Bourgeois Nationalism within the semi-colonies. His lack of understanding of the role of Social Democracy is how you counter-pose in a schematic and un-dialectical manner significant reforms for the masses as the only possible option within Bolivia or the Morales regime blocks chance of major social change.
Trotskyists have gone through Social Democratic governments for nearly 110 years of making concessions to the masses in order to block Socialist revolutions. We defend any gains and utilize them as a springboard to carry out a Socialist revolution.
There was talk by certain Conservative Bourgeois elements and Aristocrats who wanted to overthrow Harold Wilson’s government through a military coup in Britain during the 1960s and 1970s because they did not like concessions to millions of workers which Social Democracy had to make in order to control their base. British Trotskyists would have had a united front with the Social Democrats against any coup but at the same time criticized their policies for laying the basis for reaction. Social Democratic betrayals laid the basis for the Heath and Thatcher governments. In the end a coup was not needed because Thatcher weakened the organized working class.
There is hardly any criticism by Riddell of Morales. You do not mention that several months ago Morales raised gas and oil prices astronomically. This caused a revolutionary upheaval which forced his government to back down within days. Additionally you do not mention the miners who marched on La Paz attacking Morales for not going far enough. In certain parts of Bolivia during 2007 or 2008 the indigenous masses and miners kicked out the government officials and started running the administration. This is Morales being challenged from the left. What line does Riddell have on these struggles?
There is one area which I agree with Riddell is seeing there has been some gains for the workers under Morales and the necessity of having a united front with him against the counter-revolutionaries and Imperialism. The reaction of Imperialism and counter-revolutionaries to Morales’s limited reforms again confirms Permanent Revolution. Imperialism and most of the semi-Colonial ruling classes cannot afford even minor reforms because of it undermining their super-profits.
Liberal Bourgeois elements might allow minor reforms to stop the revolution going Socialist but will take back those reforms at the first opportunity. They will also organize the counter-revolution to teach the masses a lesson very quickly once despair sets in. If American Imperialism ever regains the upper hand within Latin America they will massacre on a bigger scale than in Chile between 1973 and 1976. The balance of class forces would have to be assessed by them. One important factor which weakens their ability to massacre is the millions of Chicanos within America who would oppose it. Chavez over many years has armed the masses with rifles against dangers of counter-revolution.
Riddell admits the land reform of Morales is less radical than the Bourgeois Nationalist attempt of 1952. Trotsky argued correctly the Bourgeois Nationalists within semi-Colonial countries have a dual character. They are exploited by Imperialism but also exploit workers. By having this understanding Trotskyists can have a united front in the Ivory Coast civil war and in mass mobilizations with Gbagbo who campaigned against the IMF against Ouattaria who worked for the IMF. At the same time Trotskyists keep their political class independence from Ouattaria who is a Bourgeois Nationalist. This means we would not vote for him. Trotskyists utilize such conflicts particularly now French Imperialism is involved to defeat Imperialism and those comprador Bourgeois elements around Ouattaria through a united front with pro-Gbagbo forces to mobilize the masses independently. That is the best of mobilizing the workers in such crises and for them to lead the anti-Imperialist struggle into a combined revolution which starts carrying out Socialist tasks.
Only Trotskyism prevents one-sided opportunism or ultra-leftism towards Bourgeois Nationalists. Riddell makes fundamental mistakes in seeing alliances with Bourgeois forces undermining Capitalism. You are continuing your adaptation to Stalinism which began by rejecting Permanent Revolution.
Your definition of semi-Colonial Bourgeois regimes as “Progressive or semi-progressive” is Stalinist language. Bourgeois Nationalists in the last analysis capitulate to Imperialism because they fear workers the most because if they are strengthened their whole exploitation is threatened. This is why the Chinese Stalinist opportunist strategy of propping up Bourgeois Nationalists in Africa; Asia; and Latin America will end up in ultimate disaster.
Riddell’s position on China is the worst of all worlds. You no longer recognise it as a workers’ state but at the same echo some of the opportunist positions of the Chinese Bureaucracy on Bourgeois Nationalists in semi-Colonial countries. It is only by the Chinese Bureaucracy carrying out the Permanent Revolution in a distorted manner during 1950 that the Chinese economy is rapidly developing and able to assist infrastructural project within the semi-Colonies. This is giving some space to Bourgeois Nationalists for them to bargain with Imperialism.
The ALBA except for Cuba which is different as a workers’ state is an alliance of Bourgeois Nationalists trying to gain concessions from Imperialism. Bolivian Social Democracy is not Bourgeois but forced to carry out their ruling class interests. Chavez when he set up PSUV made a partial break from the Bourgeoisie. This is sufficient enough to vote for him and his party. There are certain indications that Chavez will work with Obama at the first opportunity. Venezuela’s handing over of FARC leader Perez Becerra to Colombia is a bad sign. Does Riddell criticize Chavez for doing this? Riddell makes some strange comments about ALBA replacing the market with solidarity. George Plekhanov argued in his 1883 “Socialism and the Political struggle” how Marx had developed a scientific approach in the fight for Socialism:
“Socialist propaganda has enormously influenced the whole course of intellectual development in the civilised countries. There is hardly a single branch of sociology that has not felt its impact in one sense or another. It has in part destroyed old scientific prejudices and in part transformed them from a naive delusion into a sophism. It is understandable that the influence of socialist propaganda must have affected the supporters of the new teaching still more powerfully. All the traditions of previous “political” revolutionaries have been ruthlessly criticised, all methods of social activity have been analysed from the standpoint of the “new Gospel”. But as the scientific substantiation of socialism was complete only with the appearance of Capital, it is easy to understand that the results of this criticism have by no means always been satisfactory. And as, on the other hand, there were several schools in utopian socialism which had almost equal influence, little by little a kind of medium socialism, as it were, has been worked out, and this has been adhered to by people who did not claim to found a new school and were not among the particularly zealous supporters of previously existing schools. This eclectic socialism, as Frederick Engels says, is “a mish-mash of such critical statements, economic theories, pictures of future society by the founders of different sects, as excite a minimum of opposition; a mish-mash which is the more easily brewed the more the definite sharp edges of the individual constituents are rubbed down in the stream of debate, like rounded pebbles in a brook”. [2] This medium socialism, the same author notes, still reigns in the heads of most of the worker socialists in England and in France”.
Riddell is echoing Utopian Socialism if you believe you can have anti-Capitalist attitudes predominating in Capitalist ALBA. In another section Riddell then contradicts himself by recognizing the Capitalist nature of ALBA. He justifies Morales’s strategy with the opportunist formulas on “progressives”, including Bourgeois Nationalists.
The overwhelming majority of forces in Latin America Riddell looks too have condemned as counter-revolutionary the rebels you supported in Libya prior to Imperialism intervened. Have you changed your mind on this? Riddell’s position on Libya prior to the Imperialist intervention was to the right of Morales; Castro; Chavez; and Ortega. They have condemned Imperialism because if they win in Libya it will embolden American Imperialism to go further in trying to overthrow their regimes.
Riddell is schematic in playing down the possibilities of Socialist revolutions overcoming backwardness in semi-Colonial countries. I am currently reading a 1971 book by Anthony Giddens on Marx; Durkheim; and Weber which shows that it was Marx who argued in 1844 that the German working class had the potential to leap over backward Feudalism by coming to power thereby skipping a major Capitalist development. Marx saw this as a possibility because he was a dialectician which could see backwardness turned into its opposite of rapidly going forward in developing the productive forces.
This did not happen as the rising German Capitalist class with enormous profits could buy a section of the workers off. Due to fear of a rising working class the Bourgeoisie and Aristocracy were able to reach an historic compromise until 1918. The Aristocracy gained through some of them becoming industrial Capitalists, and by allowing Capitalists gain massive profits would compromise with them in keeping a large part of their political power. After Germany’s defeat in World War 1 all the contradictions within German society and its ruling class expressed themselves dramatically.
The world situation is characterized by Capitalist decay. In the next period we are going to see the greatest revolutionary upsurges in history. This can be seen by the revolutionary upheavals in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia; general strikes in Greece and Italy in the last few days; and a general strike in Botswana. Another indication of this is thousands of women in several countries in support of Canadian women against Sexist comments of a leading police officer. All the past struggles by workers; semi-Colonial masses struggle against Imperialism; women autumous struggle against Sexism; and the fight against Racism is coming to the surface because they can only be solved through combined revolutions as developed by American SWP prior to Barnes’s 1981 revisionism.
Despite considerable inroads into Eastern Europe of Capitalist elements Capitalism has not been restored. Imperialism’s failure to restore Capitalism in Eastern Europe shows that Capitalism’s decay as a world economic system is greater than Stalinism’s decay. This is why there is a dual crisis of Bureaucratic pillage made worse by Capitalist inroads. Impressionistically this seemed wrong with Imperialism’s triumphalism after 1989. The objective reality has broken through clever Liberal Bourgeois propaganda.
There are enormous struggles breaking out in Serbia and Albania against Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads. Objectively this is the first steps which will culminate in the Political Revolution with social consequences. In Russia there are still inter-Bureaucratic conflicts but the Capitalist layers have been considerably weakened. The rise in world revolution will deepen processes towards Political Revolution within Russia and China.
It all these objective changes which can lead to a rebirth of Trotskyism. I am going to write a book explaining how I see this process unfolding. I will compare it with the objective factors that led to the rise of Bolshevism within Russia. This will involve considerable research.
When Riddell downplays the possibility of Socialist revolution within Bolivia he forgets the role of a workers’ state through co-ordinated nationalized industries and Monopoly of Foreign Trade regulating trade with Capitalist states is that a lot of socio-economic development is possible.
Another major revision of Marxism is when Riddell calls the right wing militias in Bolivia Fascist. Trotsky’s analysis of Fascism is that it a product of the necessity of Imperialist expansionism. In semi-Colonies there is an objective struggle for self-determination against Imperialist super-exploitation. There are Fascist individuals and groups sympathetic in semi-Colonies to Fascism within the Imperialist countries. These forces subordinate the semi-Colonies even more to Imperialism. A qualitative difference exists between reactionary nationalism of Imperialist countries and nationalism of the oppressed in Colonies/semi-Colonies in fighting Imperialism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)