Thornett makes another major right-wing turn!
Thornett is capitulating to the right wing Social Democrats in not posing demands on not to implement the Tory-Lib Dem cuts. The pessimistic rationale that the workers are at a lower stage of struggle than the 1980s is a wrong assessemt and such conservatvism is always the hallmarks of Trade Union and Social Democratic Bureaucracies. Remember what Cannon said about the Cochanites!
In reality there are potentially millions of workers and layers of the middle class can be mobilized as the Conservative Bourgeois elements are not leaving them any way out. Trotsky said one of the conditions for revolution is that the masses have no way out. The Independent said on Sunday that there could be the same size demonstration during March 26th as the stop the Iraq war march on February 15th 2003. Trade Union Bureaucrats are being forced to organize it due to mass pressures building up.
Thornett is classicaly insular not seeing how the revolutioanry upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt could impact on Britain. You, Thornett are commiting political suicide with the radialising youth and millions of workers, combined with the middle class who want the labour movement to fight. The publication of your new book on the 1960s and 1970s with your line of not posing demands on labour councillers is a left cover for capitulating to the labour bureaucrats. Ralphie who I will have no relations becasue of his line on Sheridan makes correct criticisms of Thornett from the left on calling on Social Democrats to fight cuts because otherwise mass despair will set in. Due to a middle and working class radicalization I have been writing on my blog the Fascists have been marganlized over the past 12 months.
If Social Democray betrays this radicalization Fascism could become a greater threat with middle class despair effecting the Lumpenproletariat. Your ultra-leftism from 1995 played into the hands of the BNP due to not challenging Blairism effectively and not participating in millions of workers experiences with Social Democracy so a revolutioanry leadership is forged. Then you strengthened the FN in the medium-term with your opportunist turn on supporting right wing Bourgeois politician: Chirac. Two years ago I-read Trotsky’s “Whither France” and Daniel Guerin’s “Fascism and Big Business” where they correctly argued that voting for Bourgeois candidates is supporting Capital pauperizing the middle class.
Thornett’s new capitulatory turn on right wing Social Democratic or even Blairite Councilers will have the disastrous effects I have mentioned. The radicalization is so big they will not get away with it. The Social Democrats and Liberal Bourgeoisie will not sit around and allow the revolutionaries to gain a mass base. Trotsky made this point at the 3rd world congress of the Comintern against Ultra-Lefts who believed Social Democracy could be outmanouvred easily. Thornett is using formalistic arguments about the weakness of the Trade Union left compared to the 1980s and downplays possibility of even bigger mass struggles which could break out. In May 2007 on my blog I predicted the ruling class could be so crude having so many victories go so far it could reverse their sucesses by dialectically turning into its opposite of causing mass upheavals. Since the May 2010 general election there is a mass middle and working class youth radicaliazation; Social Democracy is strengthening their position within the Labour Party; and could be mass workers demonstrations and strikes.
In France the Bourgeois media are suggesting the FN could reach the 2nd round of the Presidental election during April 2012. This is premature as the rise of world revoluton could marginlize them again. The ex-LCR’s capitulation to Popular Front pressures on Chirac led to the middle class to lose confidence in them which led to the rise of Sarkozy. Now with him in crisis Fascism is re-emerging as a major danger due to the middle class having no confidece in ex-LCR!
Monday, 21 February 2011
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Document on historical factors which led to political situation after last general election?
I am publishing this document for readers' information as it is very unlikely to be added before March 26th becasue I am busy on 3 other written projects.
ANALYSIS OF BRITISH POLITICAL SITUATION SINCE THE MAY 2010 GENERAL ELECTION! BY ANTHONY BRAIN.
WHY LIBERAL AND CONSERVATVIE BOURGEOIS ELEMENTS CLOSED RANKS BEHIND THE COALITION GOVERNMENT INITIALLY!
The coalition government when it was formed in May 2010 was a compromise by two factions of the Tories and Lib Dems who do not want to upset the main ruling class over their EU project. Despite their neo-Liberal socio-economic policies they are opposed by right-wing Tory backbenchers who want to reverse reforms from the oppressed so they can build a right wing populist movement. They have not organized to remove Cameron as Tory leader because they are subordinating their sectional ruling class interests to stop the Social Democratic wing of the Labour Party coming into government through an early general election.
WHY THE PRO-TORY FACTION OUSTED CHARLES KENNEDY AS LIB DEM LEADER?
The Guardian on 23rd September 2003 reviewed major British Bourgeois papers; one leading Scottish Bourgeois paper; and one regional English Bourgeois paper which all criticized Kennedy’s leadership. Conservative Bourgeois elements were trying to oust Kennedy in revenge for him opposing the Iraq war. Liberal Bourgeois papers such as the Independent utilized that crisis over Kennedy’s leadership to extract concessions towards what has become Coalition policy of localism. This has come to mean attacking and privatizing public services. All the Bourgeois papers cited in that article called for Kennedy to move towards Localism. (Guardian 2002)
How far the Liberal Bourgeoisie goes in these policies is the balance of class forces and whether it deepens a radicalization. They have a dual tactical approach to the coalition government of hoping they can successfully implement some austerity measures and at the same time oppose their excesses if it causes mass unrest.
LIB DEMS UNTIL JOINING THE COALITION GOVERMENT AIMED TO CONTAIN ANY MIDDLE CLASS RADICALIZATION!
In a Guardian article on September 16th 2008 by author Helen Mullholland mentions a devious Lib Dem policy of containing any potential middle class revolt by promising to stop 45,000 expected repossessions. Julia Goldsworthy who was Lib Dem spokesperson for communities and local government is quoted moving a resolution at the 2008 Lib Dem conference calling for mortgage holders facing immediate repossessions to have a chance to sell their equities into council or other forms of social housing such as housing associations. This particular resolution passed at that conference called for more social housing by councils having the ability to buy unsold houses. Goldsworthy lost her seat the 2010 general election. A few days after the coalition government was formed I saw her defend its formation on Andrew Neil’s Thursday evening TV programme called “This Week”.
Vince Cable then Lib Dem Treasury spokesperson made a demagogic speech supporting the resolution by calling for an end of repossessions and for social housing to be re-available once again for millions of people. The Guardian was apprehensive of the Lib Dems entering the Tory Coalition because it could force the middle class more towards the working class towards Social Democracy and ever further left. There is a whole layer of middle class youth looking to the Trade Unions to resist the cuts and begin to transform society. It is an international phenomenon of whole sections of the middle classes looking to the workers to resolve the crisis within the semi-Colonies and Imperialist countries. This could create a potentially revolutionary dynamic as the Tunisian and Egyptian events have shown so clearly.
TORY-LIBDEM COALITION HAS UNDERMINED POPULAR FRONT POLTICS WITHIN THE ORGANISED WORKING CLASS!
The Guardian has been promoting a Labour-Lib Dem pact since the late 1980s. It is interesting to note that in the run up to the June 7th 2001 general election there appears an article by Anne Perkins, written on May 11th 2001 promoting ‘tactical voting’ for Lib Dem MP Norman Baker who was contesting the parliamentary seat of Lewes. Baker is now a minister in the coalition government.
Perkins was expressing arguments used by Liberal Bourgeois elements of an ‘anti-Tory alliance’ to re-elect Baker. Behind this manouvre was to strengthen Liberal Bourgeois elements against Social Democracy (Labour Party still remaining a Social Democratic party despite the rise of a Bourgeois New Labour faction) and against Conservative Bourgeois wing who hijacked the Tories who cut across their interests on the EU. Both of these analyses are confirmed in this Perkins article when she criticizes the Social Democrats in Lewes (East Sussex – AB – My Emphasis) during 1997 general election and threatened to do same in 2001 election expel anybody in the Labour Party who backed Baker in any way. During the article she quotes Billy Bragg backing ‘tactically voting’ Lib Dem. Nearly nine years later Bragg called for a Lib Dem vote in the 2010 general election. Finally a Lib Dem election news conference in May 2001 Perkins deals with a London Lib Dem news conference which launched their general election campaign attacked racist elements within the Tory Party.
The Revolutionary Marxist arguments for class independence against voting for the Bourgeois Lib Dem party have been proven correct in the practical class struggle. This makes it harder for Ed Miliband or the Stalinists to argue in the labour movement for a political; electoral; or governmental alliance with the Lib Dems after their true class character has been shown by their role in government. This is why the Liberal Bourgeoisie have been nervous about the coalition government potentially strengthening Social Democratic or even more further left forces such as Centrist or revolutionary groups.
Guardian 2002 – ‘Kennedy must sparkle or step aside’ - September 23rd 2003.
Perkins, Anne 2001 – Call for tactical voting to save Lewes MP – Guardian:11th May 2001.
ANALYSIS OF BRITISH POLITICAL SITUATION SINCE THE MAY 2010 GENERAL ELECTION! BY ANTHONY BRAIN.
WHY LIBERAL AND CONSERVATVIE BOURGEOIS ELEMENTS CLOSED RANKS BEHIND THE COALITION GOVERNMENT INITIALLY!
The coalition government when it was formed in May 2010 was a compromise by two factions of the Tories and Lib Dems who do not want to upset the main ruling class over their EU project. Despite their neo-Liberal socio-economic policies they are opposed by right-wing Tory backbenchers who want to reverse reforms from the oppressed so they can build a right wing populist movement. They have not organized to remove Cameron as Tory leader because they are subordinating their sectional ruling class interests to stop the Social Democratic wing of the Labour Party coming into government through an early general election.
WHY THE PRO-TORY FACTION OUSTED CHARLES KENNEDY AS LIB DEM LEADER?
The Guardian on 23rd September 2003 reviewed major British Bourgeois papers; one leading Scottish Bourgeois paper; and one regional English Bourgeois paper which all criticized Kennedy’s leadership. Conservative Bourgeois elements were trying to oust Kennedy in revenge for him opposing the Iraq war. Liberal Bourgeois papers such as the Independent utilized that crisis over Kennedy’s leadership to extract concessions towards what has become Coalition policy of localism. This has come to mean attacking and privatizing public services. All the Bourgeois papers cited in that article called for Kennedy to move towards Localism. (Guardian 2002)
How far the Liberal Bourgeoisie goes in these policies is the balance of class forces and whether it deepens a radicalization. They have a dual tactical approach to the coalition government of hoping they can successfully implement some austerity measures and at the same time oppose their excesses if it causes mass unrest.
LIB DEMS UNTIL JOINING THE COALITION GOVERMENT AIMED TO CONTAIN ANY MIDDLE CLASS RADICALIZATION!
In a Guardian article on September 16th 2008 by author Helen Mullholland mentions a devious Lib Dem policy of containing any potential middle class revolt by promising to stop 45,000 expected repossessions. Julia Goldsworthy who was Lib Dem spokesperson for communities and local government is quoted moving a resolution at the 2008 Lib Dem conference calling for mortgage holders facing immediate repossessions to have a chance to sell their equities into council or other forms of social housing such as housing associations. This particular resolution passed at that conference called for more social housing by councils having the ability to buy unsold houses. Goldsworthy lost her seat the 2010 general election. A few days after the coalition government was formed I saw her defend its formation on Andrew Neil’s Thursday evening TV programme called “This Week”.
Vince Cable then Lib Dem Treasury spokesperson made a demagogic speech supporting the resolution by calling for an end of repossessions and for social housing to be re-available once again for millions of people. The Guardian was apprehensive of the Lib Dems entering the Tory Coalition because it could force the middle class more towards the working class towards Social Democracy and ever further left. There is a whole layer of middle class youth looking to the Trade Unions to resist the cuts and begin to transform society. It is an international phenomenon of whole sections of the middle classes looking to the workers to resolve the crisis within the semi-Colonies and Imperialist countries. This could create a potentially revolutionary dynamic as the Tunisian and Egyptian events have shown so clearly.
TORY-LIBDEM COALITION HAS UNDERMINED POPULAR FRONT POLTICS WITHIN THE ORGANISED WORKING CLASS!
The Guardian has been promoting a Labour-Lib Dem pact since the late 1980s. It is interesting to note that in the run up to the June 7th 2001 general election there appears an article by Anne Perkins, written on May 11th 2001 promoting ‘tactical voting’ for Lib Dem MP Norman Baker who was contesting the parliamentary seat of Lewes. Baker is now a minister in the coalition government.
Perkins was expressing arguments used by Liberal Bourgeois elements of an ‘anti-Tory alliance’ to re-elect Baker. Behind this manouvre was to strengthen Liberal Bourgeois elements against Social Democracy (Labour Party still remaining a Social Democratic party despite the rise of a Bourgeois New Labour faction) and against Conservative Bourgeois wing who hijacked the Tories who cut across their interests on the EU. Both of these analyses are confirmed in this Perkins article when she criticizes the Social Democrats in Lewes (East Sussex – AB – My Emphasis) during 1997 general election and threatened to do same in 2001 election expel anybody in the Labour Party who backed Baker in any way. During the article she quotes Billy Bragg backing ‘tactically voting’ Lib Dem. Nearly nine years later Bragg called for a Lib Dem vote in the 2010 general election. Finally a Lib Dem election news conference in May 2001 Perkins deals with a London Lib Dem news conference which launched their general election campaign attacked racist elements within the Tory Party.
The Revolutionary Marxist arguments for class independence against voting for the Bourgeois Lib Dem party have been proven correct in the practical class struggle. This makes it harder for Ed Miliband or the Stalinists to argue in the labour movement for a political; electoral; or governmental alliance with the Lib Dems after their true class character has been shown by their role in government. This is why the Liberal Bourgeoisie have been nervous about the coalition government potentially strengthening Social Democratic or even more further left forces such as Centrist or revolutionary groups.
Guardian 2002 – ‘Kennedy must sparkle or step aside’ - September 23rd 2003.
Perkins, Anne 2001 – Call for tactical voting to save Lewes MP – Guardian:11th May 2001.
Plans for documents/books which I publish at whatever stage I at am one/two days prior to British TUC demonstration!
DOCUMENTS/BOOKS I AM WORKING ON WHICH I PUBLISH A DAY OR TWO BEFORE THE TUC DEMONSTRATION ON MARCH 26TH I BE ON!
1. In defence of class independence.
This document will look at how class independence principles; methods; strategies; and politics developed through Marx and Engels; the fight by Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg against Social Democratic opportunism; Trotsky’s fight against Stalinist Popular Frontism.
The document will deal with how the programme of class independence is applied today:-
1) Why Trotskyists do not vote for Liberal Bourgeois parties such as the Lib Dems and Liberal Bourgeois Liberal candidates such as Obama. United Fronts Trotskyists can have with Social Democrats to drive out remainder of Bourgeois New Labour faction out of the Labour Party. American SWP line when they wrote a Transitional Programme for Afro American liberation for correct slogan “Black control of the black community!”
2) Why it is in the interest of workers to unconditionally defend the Colonial revolution against Imperialism; and defend workers’ states against Capitalist restorationist forces, and threat of Imperialist military attack. Why Chinese workers’ state despite ruled by Stalinist Bureaucratic caste and limited Capitalist inroads is an alternative to Capitalism. At the same time Trotskyists fight for our programme of Permanent Revolution within the semi-Colonies and Political Revolution against what remains of the Stalinist Bureaucratic Castes.
3) An analysis of the contradictory class forces in the Egyptian revolutionary upheaval. Middle class revolt which Tunisian and Egyptian workers took advantage of. Manoeuvres of Liberal Bourgeois elements such as ElBardi and Conservative Bourgeois Muslim Brotherhood. If Mubarak resigns workers strikes and mobilization decisive over the last three or four days.
2. Analysis of Egyptian revolution will cover similar themes as Class independence document but in more extensive detail.
3. Historic tendencies which led to eruption of World War 1. How these tendencies evolved to the current day?
1) How the revolutionary wave starting from Russia in 1905-09 delayed World War 1.
2) Roots of Italian and French Fascism before World War 1. Role of Sorrel.
3) Despite Stalinism workers’ states show superiority over Capitalism.
4) Lessons of Trotsky’s fight against Stalinism within the Soviet Union. Battle in Cuba against Stalinist pressures which revolutionary Castroists have fought such as the execution of Escalante during 1968 and Rectification beginning in the late 1980s. A programme for revolutionary tendency within Cuban CP which Trotskyists would support against Capitalist pressures which the economic reforms shifting a million workers out of the public sector and moves by Stalinists to crystallize a more hardened caste. Themidor (political counter-revolution necessary for Stalinists to win) would require massacre of layers of the revolutionary Castroists.
5) The upturn in world revolution since Yeltsinites were kicked out of power in Russia during 2000; the semi-Colonial masses rising up against poverty imposed by Imperialism which has carried on despite Imperialism taking advantage of crisis within Eastern European workers’ states after 1989; Imperialism losing Afghanistan and Iraqi war; and why the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions signify a new upturn which will deepen the process of radicalization within the Imperialist countries.
1. In defence of class independence.
This document will look at how class independence principles; methods; strategies; and politics developed through Marx and Engels; the fight by Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg against Social Democratic opportunism; Trotsky’s fight against Stalinist Popular Frontism.
The document will deal with how the programme of class independence is applied today:-
1) Why Trotskyists do not vote for Liberal Bourgeois parties such as the Lib Dems and Liberal Bourgeois Liberal candidates such as Obama. United Fronts Trotskyists can have with Social Democrats to drive out remainder of Bourgeois New Labour faction out of the Labour Party. American SWP line when they wrote a Transitional Programme for Afro American liberation for correct slogan “Black control of the black community!”
2) Why it is in the interest of workers to unconditionally defend the Colonial revolution against Imperialism; and defend workers’ states against Capitalist restorationist forces, and threat of Imperialist military attack. Why Chinese workers’ state despite ruled by Stalinist Bureaucratic caste and limited Capitalist inroads is an alternative to Capitalism. At the same time Trotskyists fight for our programme of Permanent Revolution within the semi-Colonies and Political Revolution against what remains of the Stalinist Bureaucratic Castes.
3) An analysis of the contradictory class forces in the Egyptian revolutionary upheaval. Middle class revolt which Tunisian and Egyptian workers took advantage of. Manoeuvres of Liberal Bourgeois elements such as ElBardi and Conservative Bourgeois Muslim Brotherhood. If Mubarak resigns workers strikes and mobilization decisive over the last three or four days.
2. Analysis of Egyptian revolution will cover similar themes as Class independence document but in more extensive detail.
3. Historic tendencies which led to eruption of World War 1. How these tendencies evolved to the current day?
1) How the revolutionary wave starting from Russia in 1905-09 delayed World War 1.
2) Roots of Italian and French Fascism before World War 1. Role of Sorrel.
3) Despite Stalinism workers’ states show superiority over Capitalism.
4) Lessons of Trotsky’s fight against Stalinism within the Soviet Union. Battle in Cuba against Stalinist pressures which revolutionary Castroists have fought such as the execution of Escalante during 1968 and Rectification beginning in the late 1980s. A programme for revolutionary tendency within Cuban CP which Trotskyists would support against Capitalist pressures which the economic reforms shifting a million workers out of the public sector and moves by Stalinists to crystallize a more hardened caste. Themidor (political counter-revolution necessary for Stalinists to win) would require massacre of layers of the revolutionary Castroists.
5) The upturn in world revolution since Yeltsinites were kicked out of power in Russia during 2000; the semi-Colonial masses rising up against poverty imposed by Imperialism which has carried on despite Imperialism taking advantage of crisis within Eastern European workers’ states after 1989; Imperialism losing Afghanistan and Iraqi war; and why the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions signify a new upturn which will deepen the process of radicalization within the Imperialist countries.
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
Parts of a book I wrote in the Summer of 2006 on Russia which I am publishing for its analysis of 1998 Russian Financial crisis
PUTIN IS CONSOLIDATING THE POWER OF BUREAUCRACY AGAINST CAPITALIST ELEMENTS AND THE PROSPECTS OF POLITICAL REVOLUTION: A TROTSKYIST ANALYSIS BY ANTHONY BRAIN.
YELTSINISM INCREASED SOCIAL INEQUALITIES IN RUSSIA.
Martin Wollocatt in the September 5th edition of the Guardian wrote an article entitled:”Private grief”. He pointed out that social inequalities massively increased under Yeltsin. Before Yeltsin came to power in 1991 there were inequalities due to a Bureaucratic caste ruling. There were inequalities in food; transport; accommodation; and education. At the heart of this caste was the Soviet Communist Party who ruled in their interests. Special Communist Party shops existed for these Bureaucrats. (Wollocatt 1998)
As analysed in this book Yeltsin increased social inequalities due to the Bureaucratic pillage which cut back dramatically on resources to nationalised industries and other public services, with examples of health and education spending being cut. There were also concessions to Capitalists who became billionaires. Rich Bureaucrats also gained massive fortunes. There has been a massive redistribution of wealth under Putin back to the Bureaucrats who lost out under Yeltsin. Finally there were concessions to workers due to the fears of revolutionary upheavals turning into potentially full blown Political Revolution. Only a revolutionary party can complete a process of Political Revolution.
RUSSIAN BUREAUCRACY OPPOSES U.S. IMPERIALIST MILTIARY ATTACK ON IRAQ IN 1998.
The Russian Bureaucracy felt threatened by U.S. Imperialist threats of military attacking Iraq during 1998. They realised U.S. Imperialism was attempting to dominate the world (taking advantage of Russia’s decline) which would put more pressure on the Bureaucrats to restore Capitalism. Everytime U.S. Imperialism succeeds in dominating more areas globally this emboldens them to intervene in supporting Capitalist restorationst forces within all workers’ states, with one of their key aims is to overthrow the Russian Bureaucracy. In order to limit these kinds of threats the Russian Bureaucracy uses its influence in other workers’ states and Third World countries to bargain with Imperialism. If Imperialism threatens them they can aid their struggles but will betray these struggles if Imperialism gives them room to manoeuvre.
In my opinion Russia is still ruled by the same Bureaucratic caste as in Soviet times. The difference is that the Russian Bureaucracy has imploded. There are however different layers within this Bureaucracy. This is why the Yeltsin and Putin’s administrations are different. Yeltsin represented a concillationist wing of the Bureaucracy towards Imperialism. Sections of the Yeltsinites were intermediaries between their section of the Bureaucracy and the emerging Bourgeoisie. They were a transitory layer.
It would be a mistake however to characterise Yeltsin as a Capitalist restorationst. In order to survive in power he had to defend sections of the Bureaucracy threatened by Imperialism during such situations when American bombed Iraq for three days in December 1998 and NATO’s Yugoslav war of 1999. Additionally in 1998 he had to defend middle-ranking Bureaucrats from pauperisation when Imperialism tried to bankrupt Russia during 1998. One can speculate whether if the Capitalists were in a stronger position if Yeltsin would have become a Bourgeois rather than a Bureaucrat. As this book has shown Yeltsin had to concede to the Bureaucrats threatened by Imperialism. This ultimately led to a political coup which replaced Yeltsin with Putin.
The February 18th 1998 Guardian article shows that the Russian Bureaucracy’s opposition to U.S. Imperialist military action was restraining them. U.S. Imperialism had to take them into account due to Yeltsin’s threat a few days earlier that if they went too far on Iraq it could provoke a Third World War. Bourgeois propagandists tried to create the persona of him being a buffoon. Marxism in contrast analyses that individuals’ action does not represent their eccentric characteristics but have a social base. Yeltsin’s threat came from sections of the Bureaucracy who feared U.S. Imperialist global domination
U.S. Imperialism’s aim (at the least from the late 1990s) was to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime and replace it with one more compliment to U.S. Imperialism’s oil interests. They did this by killing millions through sanctions and humiliating Hussein’s regime through UNSCOM inspecting the Bath Party H.Q. Under Clinton in 1998 U.S. Imperialism wanted to bomb Iraq in order to force an internal counter-revolution. The international opposition delayed any attack until December 1998. American Imperialism tried to find a formula which would save face from immediate bombing during February 1998. This was important in keeping their global hegemony. This is why they used Kofi Annan’s visit to Iraq to make a deal.
French Imperialism opposed U.S. bombing of Iraq fearing a pro-US regime would mean ending their ownership of large parts of that economy and losing billions of Francs in commerce. The Chinese Bureaucracy opposed any American Imperialist attack on Iraq for identical reasons as the Russian Bureaucracy did. Their motives were the same.
There were differences however on demands between French Imperialism on the one side, and the Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies on the other were putting forward in February 1998. French Imperialism called for quick compliance with UNSCOM. Both the Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies called for diplomats from 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council to accompany UNSCOM in their inspections within Iraq. (Tran; Black; and White 1998) This would have given those Bureaucrats more power in determining how those inspections were carried out. U.S. Imperialism would not accept this because it would weaken their regime game strategy. Trotskyists would have opposed the Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies participating in Imperialist-run operations in Iraq. We however don’t make the mistakes of certain Ultra-Lefts who cannot distinguish these Bureaucrats from Imperialism.
AUGUST 1998 FINANCIAL CRISIS CAUSED BY ATTEMPTS OF IMPERIALISM TO PAUPERISE RUSSIA. OTHER CAUSES WERE THE SHOWDOWN BETWEEN DIFFERENT WINGS OF THE BUREAUCRACY.
In a 29th August 1998 article in the Guardian James Meek wrote an article entitled:”A week that shook the world”. This particular article describes well how the financial crisis was exacerbated by inter-Bureaucratic conflicts. Banks refused to hand out deposits. Shops closed on the pretext of not knowing how much money to charge customers. Workplaces stopped paying suppliers and paying tax.
Bankers advantageously used the crisis to get more payments by the central Bureaucrats. Shopkeepers wanted to charge more money so they could profiteer. They were either retail Bureaucrats; or petty and big Capitalists. Bureaucrats in the workplaces were utilising the crisis to get more resources. (Meek 1998 A)
There were dangers that if compromises weren’t made between various Bureaucrats the masses could rise up and threaten them with destruction by Political Revolution. Another reason this was a danger to the Russian Bureaucracy that the workers were very angry at their pauperisation. This danger was echoed by General Lebed who Meek quotes as saying:
““I get the impression that the executive and the legislature are trying to sweep each other away," said Gen Lebed.”But if they fail to understand the situation in the country, both of them will be swept away." (Meek 1998 A)
IZVESTIYA ADMITS YELTSIN LOST POLITICAL POWER DUE TO AUGUST 1998 FINANCIAL CRISIS.
In late August 1998 the Russian paper Izvestiya wrote in its front page: ”Yeltsin surrenders power”. (Meek 1998) This showed there had been a decisive shift among Russian Bureaucrats against Yeltsin. The financial crisis engineered by Imperialism was aimed at bankrupting large layers of Bureaucrats and workers in order to make maximum profits for speculative Capitalists.
Meek in a 26th August 1998 Guardian article entitled: “Russia: a nation drifting into chaos”, showed that if the onslaught continued that within seven weeks Russia would have lost all its gold and hard currency reserves. Before the Bureaucrats moved on them the Russian Central Bank had to spend 430 million dollars in issuing emergency supplies of dollars caused by decline of the Rouble. The Bureaucrats were also forced to suspend the Russian stock market due to a 10% drop in the value of Roubles compared to Dollars. (Meek 1998)
Due to this onslaught by speculative Capitalists it even hit upper and middle echelons of the Bureaucracy who had gained under Yeltsin previously. This played into the hands of the Military-Industrial complex. It is the intermediary layers of the Bureaucracy who determines which wing of them rules in Russia. The Military-Industrial complex moved decisively to force a candidate for Prime Minister which would carry out more of their interests. Primakov was the candidate they pushed.
The Russian Communist Party was in a stronger position to bargain due to the changed balanced of forces within the Bureaucracy. They pushed for a turnaround in economic policy; constitutional changes; and a major say in the next post-Kiriyenko government. (Meek 1998) Yeltsin manoeuvred by trying to re-appoint Chernomyrdin as Prime Minister. In order to pull this off he was prepared to grant Chernomyrdin as Prime Minister Major powers by offering him control of the KGB; army; and police. (Meek 1998) This manoeuvre failed due to Yeltsin’s weakened power.
The Military-Industrial complex wanted a transitional period before they removed Yeltsin. Yeltsin could be used by them as a bargainship with Imperialism. They could use the threat of removing him if Imperialism went too far. Another factor influencing their decision for a transitional period was they needed time to consolidate their power. There was a danger that layers of the Bureaucracy who just broken from Yeltsin could still block them fearing they would take revenge on them for the humiliation and pauperisation those Bureaucrats suffered under Yeltsin. In August 1998 they wanted a Prime Minister who would give them resources and consolidate their power sufficiently that Yeltsin could be eventually kicked out.
Meek quotes Capitalist representatives such as Olga Beklamishcheva who wanted to make a deal with the Military-Industrial complex in order to salvage what they could of the Capitalists. This was out of sheer weakness because these Bureaucrats determined their future. They were not sure what Chernomyrdin would do as Prime Minister. The Capitalists saw how he selected his cabinet would indicate quite a lot about his intentions.
LUZHKOV CRACKS DOWN ON TRADERS IN MOSCOW IN AUGUST 1998 CHARGING HIGH PRICES. WEAKENING OF THE MONOPOLY OF FOREIGN OF TRADE LIMITS HIS ABILITY TO STOP HIGH PRICES ON IMPORTED FOOSTUFFS.
Meek’s August 26th 1998 article shows that the Moscow mayor Luzhkov stopped high prices being charged. This was to stop petty and big Capitalists; and other retail Bureaucrats enriching them at the expense of most Bureaucrats. He also feared a revolutionary upheaval of the Masses. Under Yeltsin the Monopoly of Foreign Trade was weakened due to the concessions with foreign capital. The Monopoly on Foreign Trade was however not completely destroyed because key sections of industries controlled by Bureaucrats were protected from foreign capital. If the Monopoly of Foreign Trade had been completely overturned Russia would have become a Semi-Colonial Capitalist country. Meek wrote:
“ Ordinary Muscovites were shielded from a steep rise in prices only by roving bands of tax police, enforcing Mr Luzhkov's attempts to halt inflation by decree. But the tax police are unable to shield the shopkeepers from the steep price increases of the imported foodstuffs on which the capital depends” . (Meek 1998)
FINANCIAL CAPITALIST FIRMS COLLAPSE IN RUSSIA DURING AUGUST 1998 FINANCIAL CRISIS.
Most of the Capitalist banks in Russia went bankrupt in 1998. Meek in the August 29th article mentions in passing that SBS Agro went into receivership. I remember reading Russia today in the autumn of 1998 that the main functioning bank was the state owned central one called Sherbank. This is one piece of evidence that Russia is a workers’ state and not a Capitalist state. In a Capitalist state, sections of Financial Capitalists would have been bailed out. Under Capitalism the role of the government/state is to prop up key Capitalist firms.
LIBERAL BOURGEOISE TRIES TO MUDDLE CONTRADICTIONS WITHIN THE RUSSIAN DEGENERATED WORKERS’ STATE. ONLY TROTSKYISM CAN COUNTER THEM WITH OUR UNDERSTANDING OF TRANSTIONAL SOCIETIES; LAW OF UNEVEN AND COMBINED DEVELOPMENT; AND BUREAUCRACY.
Meek tried to create confusion on the nature of the struggle which was taken place (when he wrote) during 1998. He falsely claimed that Chernomyrdin represented the Capitalists. (Meek 1998) In reality Chernomyrdin was a Bureaucrat who as Prime Minister for six years resisted Capitalist inroads. This is why Yeltsin sacked him in March 1998. It is possible that the Communist Party could make deals with Capitalists under terms where the Bureaucracy predominated. That is why they are Bureaucrats and not revolutionaries. At the same time the main section of the Russian Bureaucratic caste does not want and actually fight Capitalist restorationist dangers because their future would be most of their privileges being withdrawn by a semi-Colonial Bourgeoisie totally subordinate to Imperialism. Meek deliberately misrepresented the Bureaucrats as Capitalists in order to influence the middle class intellectuals that the Capitalists were not seriously threatened in Russia.
Russia since 1917 is a transitional society between Capitalism and Socialism. It has and is a workers’ state because it prevents Capitalists gaining ownership over sectors of this economy. The state defends the property relations coming from that revolution against a complete Capitalist takeover. Even before the rise of Yeltsin there were features of the previous Capitalist society with the Bourgeois norms of distribution such as money; trade and accounting. Ernest Mandel defined it correctly in 1951 the contradiction within the Soviet Union was between the non-Capitalist mode of production and the Bourgeois norms of distribution.
Under Yeltsin the contradiction in Russia was between the essentially non-Capitalist nature of the economy and Capitalist elements trying to complete the transition to Capitalism. The Capitalists in that period made considerable inroads but they were destroyed by resistance of Bureaucrats and workers. Yeltsin’s weakening in 1998 and departure in 2000 led to Bureaucrats putting more resources in nationalised industries/sectors of the economy; and certain Capitalists were expropriated. Bureaucrats also today are having more control of the economy. I read in “Russia Today” that the Russian cabinet meetings were like the heads of the different economic sectors meeting.
In the Law of Uneven and Combined Development there can be features of previous societies within a predominant mode of production. The Bureaucrats (including its Military-Industrial wing) can make deals with Capitalists due to pressure of world trade by Imperialism and to enrich themselves. Despite the manoeuvres of Bureaucrats the workers’ state where most of their privileges rest upon are irreconcilable with the Capitalists. At a certain stage one has to predominate over the other. This means either the Capitalists are defeated by the Bureaucrats or the Bureaucrats will be overthrown by Capital through a Social Counter-Revolution.
RUSSIAN BUREUCRAY FELT THREATENED BY EXPANSION OF TALIBAN RULE IN AFGHANISTAN DURING THE SUMMER OF 1998.
Richard Galpin in a September 1st 1998 Guardian article entitled: “Taliban army menaces Central Asia”, describes how the Russian Bureaucrats handled the Taliban’s expansion of rule. (Galpin 1998) The Russian Bureaucrats felt threatened that as the Taliban expanded northwards near the Uzbek border, that they would intervene with Islamic Fundamentalist forces to overthrow ex-USSR Central Asian workers’ States. If Capitalism was restored there Imperialism would threaten Russia more.
Taliban forces were 12 to 25 miles from the Tajik border by September 1998. (Galpin 1998) The Russian army strengthened the borders of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. They had 25,000 troops in Tajikistan in case the Tajik Bureaucracy was attacked by the Taliban. Russian Bureaucrats were nervous due to the Tajik civil war from 1992 to 1997 which threatened the Tajik’s Bureaucratic rule.
YELTSINISM INCREASED SOCIAL INEQUALITIES IN RUSSIA.
Martin Wollocatt in the September 5th edition of the Guardian wrote an article entitled:”Private grief”. He pointed out that social inequalities massively increased under Yeltsin. Before Yeltsin came to power in 1991 there were inequalities due to a Bureaucratic caste ruling. There were inequalities in food; transport; accommodation; and education. At the heart of this caste was the Soviet Communist Party who ruled in their interests. Special Communist Party shops existed for these Bureaucrats. (Wollocatt 1998)
As analysed in this book Yeltsin increased social inequalities due to the Bureaucratic pillage which cut back dramatically on resources to nationalised industries and other public services, with examples of health and education spending being cut. There were also concessions to Capitalists who became billionaires. Rich Bureaucrats also gained massive fortunes. There has been a massive redistribution of wealth under Putin back to the Bureaucrats who lost out under Yeltsin. Finally there were concessions to workers due to the fears of revolutionary upheavals turning into potentially full blown Political Revolution. Only a revolutionary party can complete a process of Political Revolution.
RUSSIAN BUREAUCRACY OPPOSES U.S. IMPERIALIST MILTIARY ATTACK ON IRAQ IN 1998.
The Russian Bureaucracy felt threatened by U.S. Imperialist threats of military attacking Iraq during 1998. They realised U.S. Imperialism was attempting to dominate the world (taking advantage of Russia’s decline) which would put more pressure on the Bureaucrats to restore Capitalism. Everytime U.S. Imperialism succeeds in dominating more areas globally this emboldens them to intervene in supporting Capitalist restorationst forces within all workers’ states, with one of their key aims is to overthrow the Russian Bureaucracy. In order to limit these kinds of threats the Russian Bureaucracy uses its influence in other workers’ states and Third World countries to bargain with Imperialism. If Imperialism threatens them they can aid their struggles but will betray these struggles if Imperialism gives them room to manoeuvre.
In my opinion Russia is still ruled by the same Bureaucratic caste as in Soviet times. The difference is that the Russian Bureaucracy has imploded. There are however different layers within this Bureaucracy. This is why the Yeltsin and Putin’s administrations are different. Yeltsin represented a concillationist wing of the Bureaucracy towards Imperialism. Sections of the Yeltsinites were intermediaries between their section of the Bureaucracy and the emerging Bourgeoisie. They were a transitory layer.
It would be a mistake however to characterise Yeltsin as a Capitalist restorationst. In order to survive in power he had to defend sections of the Bureaucracy threatened by Imperialism during such situations when American bombed Iraq for three days in December 1998 and NATO’s Yugoslav war of 1999. Additionally in 1998 he had to defend middle-ranking Bureaucrats from pauperisation when Imperialism tried to bankrupt Russia during 1998. One can speculate whether if the Capitalists were in a stronger position if Yeltsin would have become a Bourgeois rather than a Bureaucrat. As this book has shown Yeltsin had to concede to the Bureaucrats threatened by Imperialism. This ultimately led to a political coup which replaced Yeltsin with Putin.
The February 18th 1998 Guardian article shows that the Russian Bureaucracy’s opposition to U.S. Imperialist military action was restraining them. U.S. Imperialism had to take them into account due to Yeltsin’s threat a few days earlier that if they went too far on Iraq it could provoke a Third World War. Bourgeois propagandists tried to create the persona of him being a buffoon. Marxism in contrast analyses that individuals’ action does not represent their eccentric characteristics but have a social base. Yeltsin’s threat came from sections of the Bureaucracy who feared U.S. Imperialist global domination
U.S. Imperialism’s aim (at the least from the late 1990s) was to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime and replace it with one more compliment to U.S. Imperialism’s oil interests. They did this by killing millions through sanctions and humiliating Hussein’s regime through UNSCOM inspecting the Bath Party H.Q. Under Clinton in 1998 U.S. Imperialism wanted to bomb Iraq in order to force an internal counter-revolution. The international opposition delayed any attack until December 1998. American Imperialism tried to find a formula which would save face from immediate bombing during February 1998. This was important in keeping their global hegemony. This is why they used Kofi Annan’s visit to Iraq to make a deal.
French Imperialism opposed U.S. bombing of Iraq fearing a pro-US regime would mean ending their ownership of large parts of that economy and losing billions of Francs in commerce. The Chinese Bureaucracy opposed any American Imperialist attack on Iraq for identical reasons as the Russian Bureaucracy did. Their motives were the same.
There were differences however on demands between French Imperialism on the one side, and the Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies on the other were putting forward in February 1998. French Imperialism called for quick compliance with UNSCOM. Both the Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies called for diplomats from 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council to accompany UNSCOM in their inspections within Iraq. (Tran; Black; and White 1998) This would have given those Bureaucrats more power in determining how those inspections were carried out. U.S. Imperialism would not accept this because it would weaken their regime game strategy. Trotskyists would have opposed the Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies participating in Imperialist-run operations in Iraq. We however don’t make the mistakes of certain Ultra-Lefts who cannot distinguish these Bureaucrats from Imperialism.
AUGUST 1998 FINANCIAL CRISIS CAUSED BY ATTEMPTS OF IMPERIALISM TO PAUPERISE RUSSIA. OTHER CAUSES WERE THE SHOWDOWN BETWEEN DIFFERENT WINGS OF THE BUREAUCRACY.
In a 29th August 1998 article in the Guardian James Meek wrote an article entitled:”A week that shook the world”. This particular article describes well how the financial crisis was exacerbated by inter-Bureaucratic conflicts. Banks refused to hand out deposits. Shops closed on the pretext of not knowing how much money to charge customers. Workplaces stopped paying suppliers and paying tax.
Bankers advantageously used the crisis to get more payments by the central Bureaucrats. Shopkeepers wanted to charge more money so they could profiteer. They were either retail Bureaucrats; or petty and big Capitalists. Bureaucrats in the workplaces were utilising the crisis to get more resources. (Meek 1998 A)
There were dangers that if compromises weren’t made between various Bureaucrats the masses could rise up and threaten them with destruction by Political Revolution. Another reason this was a danger to the Russian Bureaucracy that the workers were very angry at their pauperisation. This danger was echoed by General Lebed who Meek quotes as saying:
““I get the impression that the executive and the legislature are trying to sweep each other away," said Gen Lebed.”But if they fail to understand the situation in the country, both of them will be swept away." (Meek 1998 A)
IZVESTIYA ADMITS YELTSIN LOST POLITICAL POWER DUE TO AUGUST 1998 FINANCIAL CRISIS.
In late August 1998 the Russian paper Izvestiya wrote in its front page: ”Yeltsin surrenders power”. (Meek 1998) This showed there had been a decisive shift among Russian Bureaucrats against Yeltsin. The financial crisis engineered by Imperialism was aimed at bankrupting large layers of Bureaucrats and workers in order to make maximum profits for speculative Capitalists.
Meek in a 26th August 1998 Guardian article entitled: “Russia: a nation drifting into chaos”, showed that if the onslaught continued that within seven weeks Russia would have lost all its gold and hard currency reserves. Before the Bureaucrats moved on them the Russian Central Bank had to spend 430 million dollars in issuing emergency supplies of dollars caused by decline of the Rouble. The Bureaucrats were also forced to suspend the Russian stock market due to a 10% drop in the value of Roubles compared to Dollars. (Meek 1998)
Due to this onslaught by speculative Capitalists it even hit upper and middle echelons of the Bureaucracy who had gained under Yeltsin previously. This played into the hands of the Military-Industrial complex. It is the intermediary layers of the Bureaucracy who determines which wing of them rules in Russia. The Military-Industrial complex moved decisively to force a candidate for Prime Minister which would carry out more of their interests. Primakov was the candidate they pushed.
The Russian Communist Party was in a stronger position to bargain due to the changed balanced of forces within the Bureaucracy. They pushed for a turnaround in economic policy; constitutional changes; and a major say in the next post-Kiriyenko government. (Meek 1998) Yeltsin manoeuvred by trying to re-appoint Chernomyrdin as Prime Minister. In order to pull this off he was prepared to grant Chernomyrdin as Prime Minister Major powers by offering him control of the KGB; army; and police. (Meek 1998) This manoeuvre failed due to Yeltsin’s weakened power.
The Military-Industrial complex wanted a transitional period before they removed Yeltsin. Yeltsin could be used by them as a bargainship with Imperialism. They could use the threat of removing him if Imperialism went too far. Another factor influencing their decision for a transitional period was they needed time to consolidate their power. There was a danger that layers of the Bureaucracy who just broken from Yeltsin could still block them fearing they would take revenge on them for the humiliation and pauperisation those Bureaucrats suffered under Yeltsin. In August 1998 they wanted a Prime Minister who would give them resources and consolidate their power sufficiently that Yeltsin could be eventually kicked out.
Meek quotes Capitalist representatives such as Olga Beklamishcheva who wanted to make a deal with the Military-Industrial complex in order to salvage what they could of the Capitalists. This was out of sheer weakness because these Bureaucrats determined their future. They were not sure what Chernomyrdin would do as Prime Minister. The Capitalists saw how he selected his cabinet would indicate quite a lot about his intentions.
LUZHKOV CRACKS DOWN ON TRADERS IN MOSCOW IN AUGUST 1998 CHARGING HIGH PRICES. WEAKENING OF THE MONOPOLY OF FOREIGN OF TRADE LIMITS HIS ABILITY TO STOP HIGH PRICES ON IMPORTED FOOSTUFFS.
Meek’s August 26th 1998 article shows that the Moscow mayor Luzhkov stopped high prices being charged. This was to stop petty and big Capitalists; and other retail Bureaucrats enriching them at the expense of most Bureaucrats. He also feared a revolutionary upheaval of the Masses. Under Yeltsin the Monopoly of Foreign Trade was weakened due to the concessions with foreign capital. The Monopoly on Foreign Trade was however not completely destroyed because key sections of industries controlled by Bureaucrats were protected from foreign capital. If the Monopoly of Foreign Trade had been completely overturned Russia would have become a Semi-Colonial Capitalist country. Meek wrote:
“ Ordinary Muscovites were shielded from a steep rise in prices only by roving bands of tax police, enforcing Mr Luzhkov's attempts to halt inflation by decree. But the tax police are unable to shield the shopkeepers from the steep price increases of the imported foodstuffs on which the capital depends” . (Meek 1998)
FINANCIAL CAPITALIST FIRMS COLLAPSE IN RUSSIA DURING AUGUST 1998 FINANCIAL CRISIS.
Most of the Capitalist banks in Russia went bankrupt in 1998. Meek in the August 29th article mentions in passing that SBS Agro went into receivership. I remember reading Russia today in the autumn of 1998 that the main functioning bank was the state owned central one called Sherbank. This is one piece of evidence that Russia is a workers’ state and not a Capitalist state. In a Capitalist state, sections of Financial Capitalists would have been bailed out. Under Capitalism the role of the government/state is to prop up key Capitalist firms.
LIBERAL BOURGEOISE TRIES TO MUDDLE CONTRADICTIONS WITHIN THE RUSSIAN DEGENERATED WORKERS’ STATE. ONLY TROTSKYISM CAN COUNTER THEM WITH OUR UNDERSTANDING OF TRANSTIONAL SOCIETIES; LAW OF UNEVEN AND COMBINED DEVELOPMENT; AND BUREAUCRACY.
Meek tried to create confusion on the nature of the struggle which was taken place (when he wrote) during 1998. He falsely claimed that Chernomyrdin represented the Capitalists. (Meek 1998) In reality Chernomyrdin was a Bureaucrat who as Prime Minister for six years resisted Capitalist inroads. This is why Yeltsin sacked him in March 1998. It is possible that the Communist Party could make deals with Capitalists under terms where the Bureaucracy predominated. That is why they are Bureaucrats and not revolutionaries. At the same time the main section of the Russian Bureaucratic caste does not want and actually fight Capitalist restorationist dangers because their future would be most of their privileges being withdrawn by a semi-Colonial Bourgeoisie totally subordinate to Imperialism. Meek deliberately misrepresented the Bureaucrats as Capitalists in order to influence the middle class intellectuals that the Capitalists were not seriously threatened in Russia.
Russia since 1917 is a transitional society between Capitalism and Socialism. It has and is a workers’ state because it prevents Capitalists gaining ownership over sectors of this economy. The state defends the property relations coming from that revolution against a complete Capitalist takeover. Even before the rise of Yeltsin there were features of the previous Capitalist society with the Bourgeois norms of distribution such as money; trade and accounting. Ernest Mandel defined it correctly in 1951 the contradiction within the Soviet Union was between the non-Capitalist mode of production and the Bourgeois norms of distribution.
Under Yeltsin the contradiction in Russia was between the essentially non-Capitalist nature of the economy and Capitalist elements trying to complete the transition to Capitalism. The Capitalists in that period made considerable inroads but they were destroyed by resistance of Bureaucrats and workers. Yeltsin’s weakening in 1998 and departure in 2000 led to Bureaucrats putting more resources in nationalised industries/sectors of the economy; and certain Capitalists were expropriated. Bureaucrats also today are having more control of the economy. I read in “Russia Today” that the Russian cabinet meetings were like the heads of the different economic sectors meeting.
In the Law of Uneven and Combined Development there can be features of previous societies within a predominant mode of production. The Bureaucrats (including its Military-Industrial wing) can make deals with Capitalists due to pressure of world trade by Imperialism and to enrich themselves. Despite the manoeuvres of Bureaucrats the workers’ state where most of their privileges rest upon are irreconcilable with the Capitalists. At a certain stage one has to predominate over the other. This means either the Capitalists are defeated by the Bureaucrats or the Bureaucrats will be overthrown by Capital through a Social Counter-Revolution.
RUSSIAN BUREUCRAY FELT THREATENED BY EXPANSION OF TALIBAN RULE IN AFGHANISTAN DURING THE SUMMER OF 1998.
Richard Galpin in a September 1st 1998 Guardian article entitled: “Taliban army menaces Central Asia”, describes how the Russian Bureaucrats handled the Taliban’s expansion of rule. (Galpin 1998) The Russian Bureaucrats felt threatened that as the Taliban expanded northwards near the Uzbek border, that they would intervene with Islamic Fundamentalist forces to overthrow ex-USSR Central Asian workers’ States. If Capitalism was restored there Imperialism would threaten Russia more.
Taliban forces were 12 to 25 miles from the Tajik border by September 1998. (Galpin 1998) The Russian army strengthened the borders of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. They had 25,000 troops in Tajikistan in case the Tajik Bureaucracy was attacked by the Taliban. Russian Bureaucrats were nervous due to the Tajik civil war from 1992 to 1997 which threatened the Tajik’s Bureaucratic rule.
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Why Ed Milliband's election as leader of the Labour Party represents a radicalisation of workers; and working/middle class youth?
Ed Milliband's election as leader of Labour represents a massive radicalisation of the working class and a whole layer of middle class youth! It is only by understanding the Dialectical Materialist method of seeing contradictions which in this case saw Milliband went from being part of the Bourgeois New Labour faction to turning into his opposite of becoming a Social Democratic Populist demagogue! His election means the end of the New Labour project. This is why the ruling class are hysterical.
Milliband for opportunist reasons which he has utilised to defeat his brother knows there is a profound radicalisation of the working class and layers of the middle class. The middle class youth are the forefront of this process. Since the general election there has been a move away from ultra-leftism towards a serious orienatation to the Labour Party from Counterfire and Workers Power. In order to understand why the radicalisation is deepening now you have to trace it back to where it originated with the massive landslide for Labour in 1997. It is very important for Trotskyists to understand how these processes go back and then to see their complex evolution in order to comprehend what is unfolding now! The rise of Blarism was by-product of a number of historical factors such as the Capitalist crisis which necessiated a turn to neo-Liberalism; utilising the Liberal Bourgeois ideological offensive against Socialism by claiming the crisis of Eastern European and Russian Stalinism meant the end of Socialism; and the defeats of a number of key 1980s strikes within Britain. There has been resistance within Western Europe to neo-Liberalism after 1989 reprsente by the election of Social Democratic governments! Important strikes and mass mobilisations against this Bourgeois offensives have also occured in these countries. The most exploited and oppressed have also rebelled in such upheavals as Autumn 2005 riots in France.
Landslides for Social Democratic parties such as for example the Britsh Labour Party represented the beginning of a fightback against neo-Liberalism by the working class and layers of the middle class. Mandel argued that one of the factors which led to the mass radicalisation of middle class students during the late 1960 was that a lot of the middle classes within public services were becoming Proleterianised! This is why layers of the middle class threatened with public sector cuts can be easily won over to the workers. One of the factors which could have influnced Miliband's break from New Labour towards Social Democracy could be a reflection of the mass psychology of this middle class layer looking to the working class to fight for an alternative society. It is basic Marxism that you have a mass following among the social layer you represent! Milliband also knows how to speak to the working class even if it is demagogic. His acceptance speech showed this when he spoke of how Labour did not champion the poverty wages of long hours and low wages; and the need to challenge xenophobia effectively by a campign for social housing and fight for an increase in available jobs! He could potentially and Trotskyists should demand that he and Labour lead mass protests against possible evictions of 82,000 Londoners in potential high rent arrears which will not be covered due to housing benefit cuts.
There is a cross-fertilisation of an inter-linked working and middle class radicalisation which is being fused together by the massive coalition government's cuts! Trotsky always stressed how important radicalisations of middle class layers are and how it can influence the working class. The British Ruling Class have traditionally adapted to previous radicalisations and survived by dividing and ruling. British Capitalism's crisis is so great that it has to attempt to attack all gains by workers, and most of the middle class. They could be making a major strategic error of attacking all the workers and most of the middle class due to deluding themselves it can be accomplished due to to sucesses of Thatcherism and Blairism. I wrote as early as May 2007 that the ruling class's over-confidence could dialectically turn its oppostite if they carried on with their neo-Liberal attacks creating mass radicalisations which could potentially dangerously for for the ruling class explode into tendencies towards pre-revolutionary crisis. The Trade Union Bureaucrats went in behind Milliband in order to contain the mass workers radicalisation beginning among their rank-and-file. During his four month election campaign he went around the country organising for his Populist Social Democratic programme. I know he addressed mass youth meetings. Amongst Trade Unionists I do not know how many meetings he addressed as I have not followed his campaign. Sections of the Liberal Bourgeoise represented by the Guardian were worried about their universial attacks on workers and middle class layers by the coalition government could unleash all kind of radical forces which Miliband's election is a distorted reflection of. They are also worried about the Lib Dems destroying themselves among the middle class and confused workers who wrongly voted for a Bourgeois party!.
The ruling class has had a shock with Miliband's election as leader. They are going to have to decide what they do next. In the last few hours there are three initial reactions by differnt ruling class factions. Poly Toynbee representing the devious Liberal Bourgeos wing of muddying the waters and poison the wells by saying there was no major difference in social base between the Miliband brothers. Cameron has congratulated his election as leader. This could represent two different tactics. New Labour has been decomposing for three years, but the Bourgeoisie could put pressure on them to keep aspects of New Labour policies and personnel in the shadow cabinet. If there arises dangers of a pre-revolutioanry development the ruling class may dump the coalition government and let Miliband run a Social Democratic government to salvage Capitalism from a Socialist revolution.
The main response of the ruling class even by some Liberal Bourgeois elements is for the Bourgeois wing to declare war on Miliband and orgasnise an SDP-type split. Micheal Crick's intervention on News 24 tonight reflected this development. In this context it seems the majority of ruling class elements are going to launch a witchunt against the unions influence within the Labour Party. This seems to be counter-productive in deepening the dual working class/layers of a middle class radicalistion and destroying what remains of New Labour faster. Due to the ruling class's strategic and tactical errors the more devious elements such as the Toynbees will be marganlised in trying to salvage even a small element of New Labour. The main danger which Trotskyists have to fight against is a Labour and Lib Dem coalition government which would attempt to isolate the radicalising forces within the organised working class. Miliband has indicated in the last few weeks he might join a coaltion government with the Lib Dems. Trotskyists should utilise any move by Miliband towards a coaltion government with the Lib Dems to win his base over as the forces that led to his rise among the working and some middle class elements who could likely oppose any move in that direction. If there is another general election the Lib Dems will probally be electorally wiped out which will make it considerably more difficult for the Trade Union Bureaucrats and Stalinists to justify such a coalition government.
The main thrust of this article has been to argue why it is important for Trotskyists to understand what the election of Miliband represents. In this framework it is important Trotskyists challenge the Miliband leadership to deepen the radicalisation towards Trotskyism by breaking millions of workers from Social Democracy but until this happens having a united front approach with this leadership against the Capitalist witchunters and their New Labour agents. There are enormous opportunities for Trotskyists as this dual radicalisation but if we do not fill the vacumn there are dangers in two or three years of renewed reaction and even possible attempted counter-revolution especially if a revolutionary situation is betrayed. If we do not change the balance of forces against Miliband the hopes of the middle classs could turn into its dialectical opposite of despair which could then influence the Lumpenproletariat to carrying out Capital's agenda. This is where the danger of Fascism arises. As Trotsky said Fascism only becomes a mass movement after the Labour Bureaucrats (Trade Union; Social Democratic; and Stalinist) smash an attempted Socialist revolution.
In the beginning of this document I noted the positive move towards the mass movement of Counterfire and Workers Power particulary towards the Coalition of Resistance and the Labour Party. Trotskyists can work in a united front in the Coalition of Resistance and possibly building a left wing within the Labour Party but they have to be defeated on major programmatic mistakes. The Reesites have followed others from the IS/SWP tradition of breaking from sectariansim towards the mass movement but move in a movementist and opportunist direction. They lost the SWP leadership becaue of their Popular Frontism with Islamic Bourgeois forces. Martin Smith's leadership is a sign of a serious internal crisis within the SWP that somebody like that comes to the top. Smith has went from an opportunist line on Respect to the opposite side of the coin:- adventurist tendencies. Workers Power may have been interviewed on Russia Today because of their possible turn towards the mass movement. On the workers' states Workers Power have moved rightwards. They had an extreme Stalinphobic approach to the 2008 Chinese olympic games comparing it to the Berlin 1936 games! During the Russian-Georgian war they were to the right of Alex Callinicos who saw Russia's victory as a major blow to Imperialism.
Milliband for opportunist reasons which he has utilised to defeat his brother knows there is a profound radicalisation of the working class and layers of the middle class. The middle class youth are the forefront of this process. Since the general election there has been a move away from ultra-leftism towards a serious orienatation to the Labour Party from Counterfire and Workers Power. In order to understand why the radicalisation is deepening now you have to trace it back to where it originated with the massive landslide for Labour in 1997. It is very important for Trotskyists to understand how these processes go back and then to see their complex evolution in order to comprehend what is unfolding now! The rise of Blarism was by-product of a number of historical factors such as the Capitalist crisis which necessiated a turn to neo-Liberalism; utilising the Liberal Bourgeois ideological offensive against Socialism by claiming the crisis of Eastern European and Russian Stalinism meant the end of Socialism; and the defeats of a number of key 1980s strikes within Britain. There has been resistance within Western Europe to neo-Liberalism after 1989 reprsente by the election of Social Democratic governments! Important strikes and mass mobilisations against this Bourgeois offensives have also occured in these countries. The most exploited and oppressed have also rebelled in such upheavals as Autumn 2005 riots in France.
Landslides for Social Democratic parties such as for example the Britsh Labour Party represented the beginning of a fightback against neo-Liberalism by the working class and layers of the middle class. Mandel argued that one of the factors which led to the mass radicalisation of middle class students during the late 1960 was that a lot of the middle classes within public services were becoming Proleterianised! This is why layers of the middle class threatened with public sector cuts can be easily won over to the workers. One of the factors which could have influnced Miliband's break from New Labour towards Social Democracy could be a reflection of the mass psychology of this middle class layer looking to the working class to fight for an alternative society. It is basic Marxism that you have a mass following among the social layer you represent! Milliband also knows how to speak to the working class even if it is demagogic. His acceptance speech showed this when he spoke of how Labour did not champion the poverty wages of long hours and low wages; and the need to challenge xenophobia effectively by a campign for social housing and fight for an increase in available jobs! He could potentially and Trotskyists should demand that he and Labour lead mass protests against possible evictions of 82,000 Londoners in potential high rent arrears which will not be covered due to housing benefit cuts.
There is a cross-fertilisation of an inter-linked working and middle class radicalisation which is being fused together by the massive coalition government's cuts! Trotsky always stressed how important radicalisations of middle class layers are and how it can influence the working class. The British Ruling Class have traditionally adapted to previous radicalisations and survived by dividing and ruling. British Capitalism's crisis is so great that it has to attempt to attack all gains by workers, and most of the middle class. They could be making a major strategic error of attacking all the workers and most of the middle class due to deluding themselves it can be accomplished due to to sucesses of Thatcherism and Blairism. I wrote as early as May 2007 that the ruling class's over-confidence could dialectically turn its oppostite if they carried on with their neo-Liberal attacks creating mass radicalisations which could potentially dangerously for for the ruling class explode into tendencies towards pre-revolutionary crisis. The Trade Union Bureaucrats went in behind Milliband in order to contain the mass workers radicalisation beginning among their rank-and-file. During his four month election campaign he went around the country organising for his Populist Social Democratic programme. I know he addressed mass youth meetings. Amongst Trade Unionists I do not know how many meetings he addressed as I have not followed his campaign. Sections of the Liberal Bourgeoise represented by the Guardian were worried about their universial attacks on workers and middle class layers by the coalition government could unleash all kind of radical forces which Miliband's election is a distorted reflection of. They are also worried about the Lib Dems destroying themselves among the middle class and confused workers who wrongly voted for a Bourgeois party!.
The ruling class has had a shock with Miliband's election as leader. They are going to have to decide what they do next. In the last few hours there are three initial reactions by differnt ruling class factions. Poly Toynbee representing the devious Liberal Bourgeos wing of muddying the waters and poison the wells by saying there was no major difference in social base between the Miliband brothers. Cameron has congratulated his election as leader. This could represent two different tactics. New Labour has been decomposing for three years, but the Bourgeoisie could put pressure on them to keep aspects of New Labour policies and personnel in the shadow cabinet. If there arises dangers of a pre-revolutioanry development the ruling class may dump the coalition government and let Miliband run a Social Democratic government to salvage Capitalism from a Socialist revolution.
The main response of the ruling class even by some Liberal Bourgeois elements is for the Bourgeois wing to declare war on Miliband and orgasnise an SDP-type split. Micheal Crick's intervention on News 24 tonight reflected this development. In this context it seems the majority of ruling class elements are going to launch a witchunt against the unions influence within the Labour Party. This seems to be counter-productive in deepening the dual working class/layers of a middle class radicalistion and destroying what remains of New Labour faster. Due to the ruling class's strategic and tactical errors the more devious elements such as the Toynbees will be marganlised in trying to salvage even a small element of New Labour. The main danger which Trotskyists have to fight against is a Labour and Lib Dem coalition government which would attempt to isolate the radicalising forces within the organised working class. Miliband has indicated in the last few weeks he might join a coaltion government with the Lib Dems. Trotskyists should utilise any move by Miliband towards a coaltion government with the Lib Dems to win his base over as the forces that led to his rise among the working and some middle class elements who could likely oppose any move in that direction. If there is another general election the Lib Dems will probally be electorally wiped out which will make it considerably more difficult for the Trade Union Bureaucrats and Stalinists to justify such a coalition government.
The main thrust of this article has been to argue why it is important for Trotskyists to understand what the election of Miliband represents. In this framework it is important Trotskyists challenge the Miliband leadership to deepen the radicalisation towards Trotskyism by breaking millions of workers from Social Democracy but until this happens having a united front approach with this leadership against the Capitalist witchunters and their New Labour agents. There are enormous opportunities for Trotskyists as this dual radicalisation but if we do not fill the vacumn there are dangers in two or three years of renewed reaction and even possible attempted counter-revolution especially if a revolutionary situation is betrayed. If we do not change the balance of forces against Miliband the hopes of the middle classs could turn into its dialectical opposite of despair which could then influence the Lumpenproletariat to carrying out Capital's agenda. This is where the danger of Fascism arises. As Trotsky said Fascism only becomes a mass movement after the Labour Bureaucrats (Trade Union; Social Democratic; and Stalinist) smash an attempted Socialist revolution.
In the beginning of this document I noted the positive move towards the mass movement of Counterfire and Workers Power particulary towards the Coalition of Resistance and the Labour Party. Trotskyists can work in a united front in the Coalition of Resistance and possibly building a left wing within the Labour Party but they have to be defeated on major programmatic mistakes. The Reesites have followed others from the IS/SWP tradition of breaking from sectariansim towards the mass movement but move in a movementist and opportunist direction. They lost the SWP leadership becaue of their Popular Frontism with Islamic Bourgeois forces. Martin Smith's leadership is a sign of a serious internal crisis within the SWP that somebody like that comes to the top. Smith has went from an opportunist line on Respect to the opposite side of the coin:- adventurist tendencies. Workers Power may have been interviewed on Russia Today because of their possible turn towards the mass movement. On the workers' states Workers Power have moved rightwards. They had an extreme Stalinphobic approach to the 2008 Chinese olympic games comparing it to the Berlin 1936 games! During the Russian-Georgian war they were to the right of Alex Callinicos who saw Russia's victory as a major blow to Imperialism.
Friday, 25 June 2010
What the Chinese strikes signify about its class character and Political Revolution?
The deepening of workers struggles against Foreign Capital in China; domestic Capitalists; and Stalinist Bureaucrats confirm is a degenerate workers' state and requires a Political Revolution which will have social consequences. If Capitalism had been restored in China the workers social weight would have rapidly declined with tens of millions being driven into lumpen conditions as it would have destroyed the productive forces which predominance of central planning has brought about.
Capitalist restoration would require a historic defeat for Chinese workers because to close down the majority of Chinese industries is necessary to run them on a profitable basis. When sections of the Bureuacracy made concessions to foreign capital during the mid-to-late 1980s millions of workers were laid off. This is why millions supported the 1989 student struggle for democratic rights at Tiananmen Square. Once the Bureaucracy had crushed the students and workers they slowed down redundancies in nationalised industries and moved more resources away from Capitalist firms. This was done to reduce revolutionary threats to their rule and reinforce those Bureaucrats who wanted more resources to nationalised industries/sectors. During 1994 sections of the Bureaucracy pulled back when workers stopped simlar redundancies attempted by state banks cutting back funds to nationalised industries. Imperialism for years has called for Chinese state owned banks to pull the plug on what they saw as unprofiitable industries.
The massive expansion of China's economy has created hundreds of millions of workers which will ultinately threaten Stalinism's contiuned rule by their revolutionary moves in direction of Political Revolution. Due to the Chinese workers' state going forward workers are feeling confident to challenge foreign capital. Workers want the same wages and conditions that exist in nationalised industries. Trotskyists support workers struggles against foreign capital. We raise our Transitional demands for these foreign owned enterprises to be nationalised under workers control.
Despite promising possibilities of Political Revolution beginning to break out in struggles against Stalinism within Eastern Europe during 1989 the concillationist Bureaucratic elements to Imperialism who utilised those upheavals to gain power demoralised the masses by increasing their pillage over them and began to allow Capitalist inroads. In East Germany the beginning of a move into the direction of Political Revolution was turned into a social counter-revolution destroying that workers' state through German reunification in 1990. According to Mandel there was more unemployment in ex-East Germany due to Capitalist restoration than there was in the early 1930s within Germany.
As Mandel argued that the key gains for workers in Eastern Europe was winning democratic rights which are essential to resis Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads. Trotsky has been vindicated when he wrote "The Revolution Betrayed" and "In Defence of Marxism" that the Stalinist Bureaucracies would during their implosion and decay lead to absolute chaos in Russia. This is what is still happening in Eastern Europe. Bureaucratic pillage and chaos is one thing, Capitalist restoration is a separate process. It is true there have been massive Capitalist inroads into Eastern Europe. That only exists due to being accepted by certain Stalinist Bureaucrats. Capitalist inroads have made Eastern Europe's crisis worse. Under the law of Uneven and Combined Developmen there can be elements of previous modes of production subordinate to Bureaucratic pillage. Only the Political Revolution can halt the decay of Eastern Europe. Russia has been slightly different from Eastern Europe during 2000 to 2008 because with moves back to investing more into nationalised industries/public services that economy started to recover. Even in Russia the Bureaucracy is torn apart by several warring factions who lead to chaos.
Trotskyists call for the Chinese factory committees to be extended across all industries and services. This begins a process of Political Revolution with social consequences because it deepens the struggles against foreign capital; domestic Capitalists; and Stalinist Bureaucrats. To deepen the struggle against Stalinism Trotskyists call for the factory committees to run the nationalised workplaces by kicking out the Bureaucrats. The next stage oof struggle is to fight for the workers and users of public services to set up committees to wage a struggle on every aspect of social life. These struggles by Chinese workers are part of a rise in world revolution.
June 9th 2010.
Capitalist restoration would require a historic defeat for Chinese workers because to close down the majority of Chinese industries is necessary to run them on a profitable basis. When sections of the Bureuacracy made concessions to foreign capital during the mid-to-late 1980s millions of workers were laid off. This is why millions supported the 1989 student struggle for democratic rights at Tiananmen Square. Once the Bureaucracy had crushed the students and workers they slowed down redundancies in nationalised industries and moved more resources away from Capitalist firms. This was done to reduce revolutionary threats to their rule and reinforce those Bureaucrats who wanted more resources to nationalised industries/sectors. During 1994 sections of the Bureaucracy pulled back when workers stopped simlar redundancies attempted by state banks cutting back funds to nationalised industries. Imperialism for years has called for Chinese state owned banks to pull the plug on what they saw as unprofiitable industries.
The massive expansion of China's economy has created hundreds of millions of workers which will ultinately threaten Stalinism's contiuned rule by their revolutionary moves in direction of Political Revolution. Due to the Chinese workers' state going forward workers are feeling confident to challenge foreign capital. Workers want the same wages and conditions that exist in nationalised industries. Trotskyists support workers struggles against foreign capital. We raise our Transitional demands for these foreign owned enterprises to be nationalised under workers control.
Despite promising possibilities of Political Revolution beginning to break out in struggles against Stalinism within Eastern Europe during 1989 the concillationist Bureaucratic elements to Imperialism who utilised those upheavals to gain power demoralised the masses by increasing their pillage over them and began to allow Capitalist inroads. In East Germany the beginning of a move into the direction of Political Revolution was turned into a social counter-revolution destroying that workers' state through German reunification in 1990. According to Mandel there was more unemployment in ex-East Germany due to Capitalist restoration than there was in the early 1930s within Germany.
As Mandel argued that the key gains for workers in Eastern Europe was winning democratic rights which are essential to resis Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads. Trotsky has been vindicated when he wrote "The Revolution Betrayed" and "In Defence of Marxism" that the Stalinist Bureaucracies would during their implosion and decay lead to absolute chaos in Russia. This is what is still happening in Eastern Europe. Bureaucratic pillage and chaos is one thing, Capitalist restoration is a separate process. It is true there have been massive Capitalist inroads into Eastern Europe. That only exists due to being accepted by certain Stalinist Bureaucrats. Capitalist inroads have made Eastern Europe's crisis worse. Under the law of Uneven and Combined Developmen there can be elements of previous modes of production subordinate to Bureaucratic pillage. Only the Political Revolution can halt the decay of Eastern Europe. Russia has been slightly different from Eastern Europe during 2000 to 2008 because with moves back to investing more into nationalised industries/public services that economy started to recover. Even in Russia the Bureaucracy is torn apart by several warring factions who lead to chaos.
Trotskyists call for the Chinese factory committees to be extended across all industries and services. This begins a process of Political Revolution with social consequences because it deepens the struggles against foreign capital; domestic Capitalists; and Stalinist Bureaucrats. To deepen the struggle against Stalinism Trotskyists call for the factory committees to run the nationalised workplaces by kicking out the Bureaucrats. The next stage oof struggle is to fight for the workers and users of public services to set up committees to wage a struggle on every aspect of social life. These struggles by Chinese workers are part of a rise in world revolution.
June 9th 2010.
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
What Yeltsin represented and why did the Russian Bureaucracy remove him?
Campists who mostly turned into their opposite as Third Campists only predomiantly saw the Soviet Union as the only force preventing Imperialism from dominating the world. It is true the Soviet workers' state and Russsian workers' state since 1991 under Stalinism have assisted struggles by semi-Colonies and other workers' staes against Imperialism. One major mistake of the Campists is that they under-estimate struggles waged by semi-Colonial masses fighting against Imperialist exploitation or other workers' states against Imperialist attempts to restore Capitalism are autonmous struggles which are not totally determined by direct intervention by the Russian workers' state (positive or negative depending on Russian Bureaucracy's interests). Secondly the Campists play down the counter-revolutionary character of the Stalinist Bureaucraic Castes, and logically reject possibilities of fighting for Political Revoluion. Troskyists have no schema of world revolution has to come in any order within the Imperialist countries; semi-Colonies; and degenerated workers' states. We look to every possibiliy to deepen any revoluionary process in these three sectors of world revolution. Now the long detour of worlc revolution is coming to an end with world Capitalism combined with Stalinism being weakened will deepen radicalisations and revolutionary upheavels in all these three sectors of world revolution.
Once the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 Third Campism became the main problem for the left than Campism. Due to certain fears sections of the Russian Bureaucrats of mobilising millions (fearing they be overthrown at the same time by Political Revoluion) who opposed cubacks to their privileges, made worse by Capitalist inroads manourved by having a war of atrrition with the Yeltsinites for years. Yeltsin was a Stalinist in transiton. He reflected pressures to restore Capitalism but it would be wrong to call him an outright Capitalist restorationist because those Bureaucrats opposed to this course utilised their remaining power to threatern a coup or civil war if he went too far. There were Prime Ministers such as Yeger Gaidar (15th June 1992-14th December 1992) and Sergei Kinyenko (23rd March 1998-23rd August 1998) who were cerainly Capitalist restorationist lasted only five and six months each because they were removed for faster Privitisations which threatened certain Bureaucrats privileges. Those Bureaucrats opposed to Capitalist restoration did not remove Gaidar when he lifed state controls on prices which quickly led to hyper-inflation during 1992 but when he directly tried to remove certain Bureaucratic elements which was the only profitable way the predomiance of the Law of Value could be re-established.
Yeltsin sacked Viktor Chernmodrin on March 23rd 1998 after being Prime Minister for five years which reflected pressures to go further towards restoring Capitalism. Before he became Prime Minister Chernmodrin was chair of Gasprom (state owned oil and gas organisation) which is why those Bureaucrats opposed to Capitalist restoration kept him in that posiion in order to put more state investments in thir industries/organisations. Yeltsin was feeling the pressure of Capitalist elements who were attempting to gain the maxinum concessions knowing support was necessary by them to stay as President with opponent Bureaucrats trying to remove him. The Yeltsinites achieved a Pyrrhic Victory by sucessfully forcing Kinyenko's appoinment as Prime Minister through the duma (lower house of the Russian parliament) with those Bureaucrats opposed to this may have engineered a financial crisis which forced Yeltsin to suspend payment of IMF loan debts. This financial crisis forced intermediate Bureaucratic layers to break from the IMF influence and for more state resources to keep their privilges within the Stalinist caste. Once major Bureaucrats become pauperised because of that financial crisis they turned quickly against Imperialist agencies such as the IMF and backed those Stalinists who wanted more state-centred investments and resources. It was only to enrich themselves through pillage that certain Bureuacrats accepted IMF loans. Imperialism knew this but tolerated it because they utilised every opportunity to advance Capialist restoration in Russia. This is why after Yeltsin had to surrendor power to Bureaucrats who wanted to mainain the workers' state did Imperialism menion Yeltsin's corruption in October 1999. After Kiryenko was dismissed as Prime Minister Chermondrin and then Primikaov replaced him.
After the three day bombing of Iraq in 1998 and especially after NATO bombed Serbia during 1999 the Russian Bureaucracy started organsing more against Imperialism. Those Russian Bureaucrats who felt threatend by Imperialism's growing aggression forced Yeltsin to make an alliance with the Chinese workers' state in October-November 1999; smashed the Dagstanti separtists who attacked Russia; and re-established Russian rule over Chechnya. Primakov was forced on Yeltsin due to rise of one Stalinist faction wanting more socio-ecoomic resources for them in the workers' state, which is the materal base for their privilges. Primakov was fired on 12th May 2010 and replaced by Sergei Stepashin. He was fired due to allowing CP ministers draw up impeachment charges against President Yeltsin. It is said after the Russian Army seized Pristina Airport in June 1999 Yeltsin was not in office but had lost real power. The Russian Bureaucracy made that move at that airport because they were promised by Imperialist representives during secret negotitations at Dachas just outside Moscow they would have a say in Kosovo's future. Imperialism double crossed them by attempted exclusion. This process of Yeltsin losing power may have began with the August 1998 financial crisis. Putin replaced Stepashin on August 12th 1999 as Prime Minister becuase the Russian Bureaucracy felt that Stepashin was not fighting the Dagastani separtists sufficently. Putin moved to crush the Dagastani seperatists and re-establish Russian Bureaucratic control of Chechnya. The miltiary-industrial complex carried out a coup by forcing Yeltsin out as President on the last day of the second Millennium. It was timed to catch Imperialism by surprise. In the last few months it has been revealed that Yeltsin was under house arrest only allowed to leave there with the Kremlin's permission after he left as President on December 31st 1999 to he died during 2007. This is proof of the political coup with Putin becoming acting President after Yeltsin relinquished office.
There is undoubtedly national oppression by Russian Stalinism against the Chechnyan masses which Trotskyists oppose as part of our programme and strategy of Political Revolution. At the same time you cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater with defence of Russia as a workers' state. When the extreme Bureaucratic pillagers of Chcchyna's Bureaucracy and Islamic Fundamentalists deepened that society's crisis with increased ruins on all levels. From 1996 to the second Chechyan war which broke out in 1999 most of the finances allocated for schools; hospitals; and pensions came from Russia. This saved the Chechnyan Bureaucratic pillagers considerable sums of money. Since Russia has re-estabilshed their rule the physical ruins of buildings have been demolished with modern construction buildings and revival of their ecnonomy. This socio-economic development despite Stalinism strenghen forces which will eventually lead to their overthrow by Trotskyists leading a Political Revolution. Yeltsin lost the first Chechnyan war because of the Bureaucratic pillage which caused considerable poverty and unemployment. Even though he pledged to stop the dismemberment of Russia with launching that war during 1994 within Chechnya they did not trust him not to utilise it to undercut some of the Bureaucrats privliges by central government cutting spending and possibly deepening Capialist inroads. The Russian Bureaucrats partly launched the 1994 war in Chechyna because they were terrified of Tatarstan suceeding from Russia.
Putin moved quickly internationally to re-launch Russia as a major power by linking up with North Korea; India; and Latin America. Within monhs of gaining office he was driving powerful individial Capitalists out of Russia. Those sections of the Russian Bureauracy anxious about Imperialist encirclment felt betrayed by Putin allowing NATO especially American Imperialist bases in Central Asia after September 11th Individual Terrorist attacks on America. If it was not for the rapid decline of American Imperialism accelerated by their mistaken war on Iraq since 2003 the Russian Bureuacracy may have kicked him out as President due to him being unreliable in defending their interests. Russia's miltiary defeat of concillatonist elements within Georgia's Bureaucracy to Imperialism strenghened the confidence that Imperialism can be beat. This inspired some of the super-exploited by Imperialism to look for Rusia to back them up
The Russian Bureaucracy expropriated a Capitalist (Mikhail Khordorkavsky) who was the richest Russian and 16th most richest globally because he tried to own Sibneft, which had big reserves of oil, with Khordorkavsky offering massive stakes for Imperialist firms ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco. He was also trying to overthrow the Bureuacracy through organsing Bourgeois parties. Under Putin there were some social reforms such as more money going on nationalised services and public services (health; educaion; and welfare). At the same time he tried to reduce social security by monetising all social securiy subsudies which led to huge workers protests between 2005 and 2006. This rise in Bureaucratic pillage with economic growth falling has weakend Medvedov with the workers beginning to srike and elect Stalinist (CPRF) in local; regional; and national elections. There is a rise in world revolutions with upheavals in Thailand and Kyrgystan could deepen forces fighing for Political Revoluion in Russia.
Once the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 Third Campism became the main problem for the left than Campism. Due to certain fears sections of the Russian Bureaucrats of mobilising millions (fearing they be overthrown at the same time by Political Revoluion) who opposed cubacks to their privileges, made worse by Capitalist inroads manourved by having a war of atrrition with the Yeltsinites for years. Yeltsin was a Stalinist in transiton. He reflected pressures to restore Capitalism but it would be wrong to call him an outright Capitalist restorationist because those Bureaucrats opposed to this course utilised their remaining power to threatern a coup or civil war if he went too far. There were Prime Ministers such as Yeger Gaidar (15th June 1992-14th December 1992) and Sergei Kinyenko (23rd March 1998-23rd August 1998) who were cerainly Capitalist restorationist lasted only five and six months each because they were removed for faster Privitisations which threatened certain Bureaucrats privileges. Those Bureaucrats opposed to Capitalist restoration did not remove Gaidar when he lifed state controls on prices which quickly led to hyper-inflation during 1992 but when he directly tried to remove certain Bureaucratic elements which was the only profitable way the predomiance of the Law of Value could be re-established.
Yeltsin sacked Viktor Chernmodrin on March 23rd 1998 after being Prime Minister for five years which reflected pressures to go further towards restoring Capitalism. Before he became Prime Minister Chernmodrin was chair of Gasprom (state owned oil and gas organisation) which is why those Bureaucrats opposed to Capitalist restoration kept him in that posiion in order to put more state investments in thir industries/organisations. Yeltsin was feeling the pressure of Capitalist elements who were attempting to gain the maxinum concessions knowing support was necessary by them to stay as President with opponent Bureaucrats trying to remove him. The Yeltsinites achieved a Pyrrhic Victory by sucessfully forcing Kinyenko's appoinment as Prime Minister through the duma (lower house of the Russian parliament) with those Bureaucrats opposed to this may have engineered a financial crisis which forced Yeltsin to suspend payment of IMF loan debts. This financial crisis forced intermediate Bureaucratic layers to break from the IMF influence and for more state resources to keep their privilges within the Stalinist caste. Once major Bureaucrats become pauperised because of that financial crisis they turned quickly against Imperialist agencies such as the IMF and backed those Stalinists who wanted more state-centred investments and resources. It was only to enrich themselves through pillage that certain Bureuacrats accepted IMF loans. Imperialism knew this but tolerated it because they utilised every opportunity to advance Capialist restoration in Russia. This is why after Yeltsin had to surrendor power to Bureaucrats who wanted to mainain the workers' state did Imperialism menion Yeltsin's corruption in October 1999. After Kiryenko was dismissed as Prime Minister Chermondrin and then Primikaov replaced him.
After the three day bombing of Iraq in 1998 and especially after NATO bombed Serbia during 1999 the Russian Bureaucracy started organsing more against Imperialism. Those Russian Bureaucrats who felt threatend by Imperialism's growing aggression forced Yeltsin to make an alliance with the Chinese workers' state in October-November 1999; smashed the Dagstanti separtists who attacked Russia; and re-established Russian rule over Chechnya. Primakov was forced on Yeltsin due to rise of one Stalinist faction wanting more socio-ecoomic resources for them in the workers' state, which is the materal base for their privilges. Primakov was fired on 12th May 2010 and replaced by Sergei Stepashin. He was fired due to allowing CP ministers draw up impeachment charges against President Yeltsin. It is said after the Russian Army seized Pristina Airport in June 1999 Yeltsin was not in office but had lost real power. The Russian Bureaucracy made that move at that airport because they were promised by Imperialist representives during secret negotitations at Dachas just outside Moscow they would have a say in Kosovo's future. Imperialism double crossed them by attempted exclusion. This process of Yeltsin losing power may have began with the August 1998 financial crisis. Putin replaced Stepashin on August 12th 1999 as Prime Minister becuase the Russian Bureaucracy felt that Stepashin was not fighting the Dagastani separtists sufficently. Putin moved to crush the Dagastani seperatists and re-establish Russian Bureaucratic control of Chechnya. The miltiary-industrial complex carried out a coup by forcing Yeltsin out as President on the last day of the second Millennium. It was timed to catch Imperialism by surprise. In the last few months it has been revealed that Yeltsin was under house arrest only allowed to leave there with the Kremlin's permission after he left as President on December 31st 1999 to he died during 2007. This is proof of the political coup with Putin becoming acting President after Yeltsin relinquished office.
There is undoubtedly national oppression by Russian Stalinism against the Chechnyan masses which Trotskyists oppose as part of our programme and strategy of Political Revolution. At the same time you cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater with defence of Russia as a workers' state. When the extreme Bureaucratic pillagers of Chcchyna's Bureaucracy and Islamic Fundamentalists deepened that society's crisis with increased ruins on all levels. From 1996 to the second Chechyan war which broke out in 1999 most of the finances allocated for schools; hospitals; and pensions came from Russia. This saved the Chechnyan Bureaucratic pillagers considerable sums of money. Since Russia has re-estabilshed their rule the physical ruins of buildings have been demolished with modern construction buildings and revival of their ecnonomy. This socio-economic development despite Stalinism strenghen forces which will eventually lead to their overthrow by Trotskyists leading a Political Revolution. Yeltsin lost the first Chechnyan war because of the Bureaucratic pillage which caused considerable poverty and unemployment. Even though he pledged to stop the dismemberment of Russia with launching that war during 1994 within Chechnya they did not trust him not to utilise it to undercut some of the Bureaucrats privliges by central government cutting spending and possibly deepening Capialist inroads. The Russian Bureaucrats partly launched the 1994 war in Chechyna because they were terrified of Tatarstan suceeding from Russia.
Putin moved quickly internationally to re-launch Russia as a major power by linking up with North Korea; India; and Latin America. Within monhs of gaining office he was driving powerful individial Capitalists out of Russia. Those sections of the Russian Bureauracy anxious about Imperialist encirclment felt betrayed by Putin allowing NATO especially American Imperialist bases in Central Asia after September 11th Individual Terrorist attacks on America. If it was not for the rapid decline of American Imperialism accelerated by their mistaken war on Iraq since 2003 the Russian Bureuacracy may have kicked him out as President due to him being unreliable in defending their interests. Russia's miltiary defeat of concillatonist elements within Georgia's Bureaucracy to Imperialism strenghened the confidence that Imperialism can be beat. This inspired some of the super-exploited by Imperialism to look for Rusia to back them up
The Russian Bureaucracy expropriated a Capitalist (Mikhail Khordorkavsky) who was the richest Russian and 16th most richest globally because he tried to own Sibneft, which had big reserves of oil, with Khordorkavsky offering massive stakes for Imperialist firms ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco. He was also trying to overthrow the Bureuacracy through organsing Bourgeois parties. Under Putin there were some social reforms such as more money going on nationalised services and public services (health; educaion; and welfare). At the same time he tried to reduce social security by monetising all social securiy subsudies which led to huge workers protests between 2005 and 2006. This rise in Bureaucratic pillage with economic growth falling has weakend Medvedov with the workers beginning to srike and elect Stalinist (CPRF) in local; regional; and national elections. There is a rise in world revolutions with upheavals in Thailand and Kyrgystan could deepen forces fighing for Political Revoluion in Russia.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)