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.
Friday 27 May 2011
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.
Sunday 1 May 2011
An article I wrote on October 23rd 2010 analyzing what a London Feminist conference represented?
These brief comments update the line I argued in April 2010 in which I
outlined how to apply the old American SWP prior to Barnes of a
Leninist-Trotskyist strategy of what they called a combined revolution 3rd
American Socialist revolution (see appendix which has the original April
document) to the British situation before May 2010's general election.
>
>
> It would be useful if other women comrades could write other reports about the
London Feminist Network (LFN) conference in London held on October 23rd 2010.
From the limited reading (I have only read Julia Long's report) the main
discussion was how to organise to stop Sexist violence against women. Due to
British Capitalism's decay all the old oppressions are coming to the surface.
During the 1970s, Britain's ruling class were able to buy off a layer of middle
class women which weakened the social movements. It is very positive that there
is a beginning of a sizeable Feminist movement of middle and working class women
are emerging. The varied demands being raised by Feminists ranging from
opposing violence against women to fighting against cuts which is going to hit
working and middle class women hard are signs of a profound radicalisation
against a Capitalist society which is making their oppression worse.
>
>
> April's document dealt with how to apply the combined revolution strategy to
Britain. All I add here is there should be campaigns like the LFN which bring
together women fighting oppression in general and single issue campaigns which
unite women and their allies around one or two issues. Trotskyists have to
respect and argue why at this stage there should be women-only meetings because
it is only by developing confidence of how they fight their oppression, will
working/middle class women be able to unite with male workers and middle class
men eventually to overthrow Capitalism. If British Capitalism is going to be
overthrown male workers have to be broken from Sexism and won to fight for a
specific programme to liberate working and middle class women from their
oppression. One contradiction revealed in Long's report is that all the
panellists on the domestic violence workshop opposed campaigning for Sexist
hatred laws. We should campaign for Sexist violence to be criminalised. By
waging such a struggle you build a mass movement by the oppressed and their
allies in the working class which begins to challenge Capitalist rule. Even if
the ruling class makes concessions outlawing Sexist violence Trotskyists point
out it is mass action which achieved this.
>
>
> Since the general election working class and middle class women are facing a
massive onslaught through cuts. 70% of these women are going to suffer the most
from these attempted cutbacks. A lot of working class women are on low incomes
already. Social benefits (different categories of unemployed) on top of this
are being slashed. Middle class women are being attacked with child benefit
being reduced and with top-up University fees increasing.
>
> Trotskyists see other aspects of the middle class and women workers fighting
their oppression by campaigning against Sexist violence and withdrawing licenses
for lap dancing clubs which make super-profits by treating women as sexual
objects. Long correctly sees the need to link up with ethnic minority women who
suffer both Racism and Sexism. This started to happen at last Saturday's
conference. One major difference I have with Long is when she argues women from
all classes can unite against Women's oppression. It is class society which
causes women's oppression. Within this framework Trotskyists recognise specific
social oppressions, and by fighting around a specific programme of demands for
oppressed groups win them over to a workers struggle for power. Ruling class
women while being oppressed as women will very mostly put their class interests
first against an incipient Socialist revolution. Despite that difference of
opinion with Long she is correct to praise the Dagenham film. This shows the
potential of the oppressed and workers coming together to challenge Capitalism.
>
Here's a copy of Julia Long's report of Feminist conference:-
http://www.ukfeminista.org.uk/blog/80-reportonfilworkshop.html
outlined how to apply the old American SWP prior to Barnes of a
Leninist-Trotskyist strategy of what they called a combined revolution 3rd
American Socialist revolution (see appendix which has the original April
document) to the British situation before May 2010's general election.
>
>
> It would be useful if other women comrades could write other reports about the
London Feminist Network (LFN) conference in London held on October 23rd 2010.
From the limited reading (I have only read Julia Long's report) the main
discussion was how to organise to stop Sexist violence against women. Due to
British Capitalism's decay all the old oppressions are coming to the surface.
During the 1970s, Britain's ruling class were able to buy off a layer of middle
class women which weakened the social movements. It is very positive that there
is a beginning of a sizeable Feminist movement of middle and working class women
are emerging. The varied demands being raised by Feminists ranging from
opposing violence against women to fighting against cuts which is going to hit
working and middle class women hard are signs of a profound radicalisation
against a Capitalist society which is making their oppression worse.
>
>
> April's document dealt with how to apply the combined revolution strategy to
Britain. All I add here is there should be campaigns like the LFN which bring
together women fighting oppression in general and single issue campaigns which
unite women and their allies around one or two issues. Trotskyists have to
respect and argue why at this stage there should be women-only meetings because
it is only by developing confidence of how they fight their oppression, will
working/middle class women be able to unite with male workers and middle class
men eventually to overthrow Capitalism. If British Capitalism is going to be
overthrown male workers have to be broken from Sexism and won to fight for a
specific programme to liberate working and middle class women from their
oppression. One contradiction revealed in Long's report is that all the
panellists on the domestic violence workshop opposed campaigning for Sexist
hatred laws. We should campaign for Sexist violence to be criminalised. By
waging such a struggle you build a mass movement by the oppressed and their
allies in the working class which begins to challenge Capitalist rule. Even if
the ruling class makes concessions outlawing Sexist violence Trotskyists point
out it is mass action which achieved this.
>
>
> Since the general election working class and middle class women are facing a
massive onslaught through cuts. 70% of these women are going to suffer the most
from these attempted cutbacks. A lot of working class women are on low incomes
already. Social benefits (different categories of unemployed) on top of this
are being slashed. Middle class women are being attacked with child benefit
being reduced and with top-up University fees increasing.
>
> Trotskyists see other aspects of the middle class and women workers fighting
their oppression by campaigning against Sexist violence and withdrawing licenses
for lap dancing clubs which make super-profits by treating women as sexual
objects. Long correctly sees the need to link up with ethnic minority women who
suffer both Racism and Sexism. This started to happen at last Saturday's
conference. One major difference I have with Long is when she argues women from
all classes can unite against Women's oppression. It is class society which
causes women's oppression. Within this framework Trotskyists recognise specific
social oppressions, and by fighting around a specific programme of demands for
oppressed groups win them over to a workers struggle for power. Ruling class
women while being oppressed as women will very mostly put their class interests
first against an incipient Socialist revolution. Despite that difference of
opinion with Long she is correct to praise the Dagenham film. This shows the
potential of the oppressed and workers coming together to challenge Capitalism.
>
Here's a copy of Julia Long's report of Feminist conference:-
http://www.ukfeminista.org.uk/blog/80-reportonfilworkshop.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)