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.
Sunday 24 July 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)