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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.