Anthony Brain wrote the following analysis of a Feminist conference held in
London on October 23rd:-
These brief comments update the line I argued in April 2010 in which I outlined
how to apply the old American SWP prior to Barnes of a Leninist-Trotskyist
strategy of what they called a combined revolution 3rd American Socialist
revolution (see appendix which has the original April document) to the British
situation before May 2010's general election.
It would be useful if other women comrades could write other reports about the
London Feminist Network (LFN) conference in London held on October 23rd 2010.
From the limited reading (I have only read Julia Long's report) the main
discussion was how to organise to stop Sexist violence against women. Due to
British Capitalism's decay all the old oppressions are coming to the surface.
During the 1970s, Britain's ruling class were able to buy off a layer of middle
class women which weakened the social movements. It is very positive that there
is a beginning of a sizeable Feminist movement of middle and working class women
are emerging. The varied demands being raised by Feminists ranging from
opposing violence against women to fighting against cuts which is going to hit
working and middle class women hard are signs of a profound radicalisation
against a Capitalist society which is making their oppression worse.
April's document dealt with how to apply the combined revolution strategy to
Britain. All I add here is there should be campaigns like the LFN which bring
together women fighting oppression in general and single issue campaigns which
unite women and their allies around one or two issues. Trotskyists have to
respect and argue why at this stage there should be women-only meetings because
it is only by developing confidence of how they fight their oppression, will
working/middle class women be able to unite with male workers and middle class
men eventually to overthrow Capitalism. If British Capitalism is going to be
overthrown male workers have to be broken from Sexism and won to fight for a
specific programme to liberate working and middle class women from their
oppression. One contradiction revealed in Long's report is that all the
panellists on the domestic violence workshop opposed campaigning for Sexist
hatred laws. We should campaign for Sexist violence to be criminalised. By
waging such a struggle you build a mass movement by the oppressed and their
allies in the working class which begins to challenge Capitalist rule. Even if
the ruling class makes concessions outlawing Sexist violence Trotskyists point
out it is mass action which achieved this.
Since the general election working class and middle class women are facing a
massive onslaught through cuts. 70% of these women are going to suffer the most
from these attempted cutbacks. A lot of working class women are on low incomes
already. Social benefits (different categories of unemployed) on top of this
are being slashed. Middle class women are being attacked with child benefit
being reduced and with top-up University fees increasing.
Trotskyists see other aspects of the middle class and women workers fighting
their oppression by campaigning against Sexist violence and withdrawing licenses
for lap dancing clubs which make super-profits by treating women as sexual
objects. Long correctly sees the need to link up with ethnic minority women who
suffer both Racism and Sexism. This started to happen at last Saturday's
conference. One major difference I have with Long is when she argues women from
all classes can unite against Women's oppression. It is class society which
causes women's oppression. Within this framework Trotskyists recognise specific
social oppressions, and by fighting around a specific programme of demands for
oppressed groups win them over to a workers struggle for power. Ruling class
women while being oppressed as women will very mostly put their class interests
first against an incipient Socialist revolution. Despite that difference of
opinion with Long she is correct to praise the Dagenham film. This shows the
potential of the oppressed and workers coming together to challenge Capitalism.
Saturday, 17 March 2012
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
FOUR DEVELOPMENTS IN BRITAIN IN DISTORTED WAYS COULD REPRESENT RE-EMERGENCE OF BRITISH TROTSKYISM!
FOUR DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN BRITAIN WHICH SHOW OBJECTIVE CONDITIONS FOR THE RE-EMERGENCE OF TROTSKYISM! BY ANTHONY BRAIN
This is a surprising article to appear in the Morning Star. It is one of four developments which have happened in the last week within Britain which shows there are good chances for the objective emergence of Trotskyism domestically and internationally. What’s positive about this John Green article is that it represents an admission after decades of Stalinist slander about Trotsky’s historic role in the Russian Revolution and world revolutionary politics.
There are two major differences I have with Green in that he offers an idealist analysis of why Trotsky lost to Stalin rather than the social forces and as American Trotskyist Tom Kerry argued during the early 1970s (except for Eastern Poland and Finland during 1939-40) until 1943 due to Stalinism there were major defeats of the world revolution which enabled the Bureaucracy to crush the Bolshevik-Leninists (which what Trotskyists called ourselves from 1923 to mid-1930s). The rising Bureaucratic caste approached Trotsky but refused because he did not want to be a prisoner of them. Trotsky explained in his 1930 preface to “My Life why the Soviet Bureaucracy was able to isolate Trotsky and certain human personality characteristics can only socially flourish in certain objective historical circumstances”:
“The very fact of its coming into the world is due to the pause in the author’s active political life. One of the unforeseen, though not accidental, stops in my life has proved to be Constantinople…
… I have dealt in especial detail with the second period of the Soviet revolution, the beginning of which coincided with Lenin’s illness and the opening of the campaign against “Trotskyism.” The struggle of the epigones for power, as I shall try to prove, was not merely a struggle of personalities; it represented a new Political chapter – the reaction against October, and the preparation of the Thermidor. From this the answer to the that I have so often been asked – “How did you lose power?” – follows naturally…
… I cannot deny that my life has not followed quite the ordinary course. The reasons for that are inherent in the conditions of the time, rather than in me. Of course certain personal traits were also necessary for the work, good or bad, that I performed. But under other historical conditions, these personal peculiarities might have remained completely dormant, as is true of so many propensities and passions on which the social environment makes no demands. On the other hand, other qualities today crowded out or suppressed might have come to the fore. Above the subjective there rises the objective, and in the final reckoning it is the objective that decides”.
Trotsky changed his analysis of what he meant by Thermidor in an article he wrote during 1935 entitled “Workers’ State; Thermidor; and Bonapartism” to the dangers of Capitalist restoration, he now defined it as a political counter-revolution of a Bureaucratic caste. Stalin, Trotsky argued was chosen by the Bureaucracy later because his characteristics of being narrow-minded Conservative and contempt for theory best reflected their nature most clearly. Green is fundamentally wrong in drawing a parallel between Trotsky’s and Stalin’s methods. Trotsky represented the defence of the working class and best interests of Soviet Union as a workers’ state and world revolution, whereas Stalin carried out interests of a privileged Bureaucratic caste.
On Thursday of last week there appeared an article by an ex-Stalinist by the name of Seamus Milne on China which in part represented an adaptation to Trotskyism. Milne argued that it was the state-owned banks and nationalized enterprises, which is driving massive economic growth of 8-10% within China annually. He also made criticisms of the Chinese Bureaucracy but argued is subordinate to the socio-economic gains. There was one major problem in his article of confusing the Chinese workers’ state with the mixed economy of Capitalism. It is only by overthrowing Capitalism can there be rapid economic growth today and lift hundreds of millions out of poverty. The Liberal Bourgeoisie and Social Democrats could use Milne’s arguments on the mixed economy to stop revolution by promoting reformist illusions.
The Guardian on Saturday of last week followed with Milne’s article with an editorial saying it was essentially stated owned banks and enterprises which explains their economic growth. They praised John Ross who came out of the British Trotskyist movement (he has broken very much from Trotskyism but contains small elements of it) who correctly argues that the main Chinese state—owned banks will not go bankrupt due to central planning and that with the Chinese workers’ state are mainly developing productive forces within third world countries to offset their decline in trade with the Imperialist countries. In the last few months I came to the same conclusion as Ross on why China is carrying out massive infrastructure projects within Third World countries.
Last Monday John McDonnell a left wing Social Democrat within the British Labour Party in an article within the Morning Star made a scientific analysis of why the material interests of Trade Union Bureaucrats within Britain attempt to sell out their members interests to Capital. McDonnell could have made this move because the Trade Union Bureaucrats are split over whether to compromise with the Tory-LibDem (nicknamed ComDems) over public sector pensions.
Len McCluskey who is general secretary of Britain’s largest union called Unite. There are rank-and-file groups in that union challenging him from the left. An example of this is that Electricians on construction sites are trying to organize strikes because three top building construction companies are trying to reduce their pay by 35%. Due to Bourgeois New Labour faction in a Social Democratic party going in behind a public sector pay freeze and refusing to reverse Com-Dem’s cuts has forced McCluskey to attack them in sharp terms last week’s publically.
Trotskyists should argue in the tradition of the Comintern’s 3rd World Congress in 1921 of calling for a united front with those Social Democrats and Trade Union Bureaucrats who want to fight against attacks on workers in both private and public sectors and want to fight New Labour. Within this framework of several united fronts’ Trotskyists keeps our political independence saying those Bureaucrats and Social Democrats cannot consistently defend workers and show through our Transitional Demands show in practice the need for a revolutionary leadership.
What is the Liberal Bourgeoisie through the Guardian up to in publishing this editorial on China? Their ideological heyday since 1989 is over. They are adapting to the middle class radicalization. By doing this and if the crisis of workers leadership continues to move them rightwards they can turn them against the working class.
These four developments are the opening stages of Trotskyism re-emerging through distorted ways. If consistent Trotskyists play our cards right the 1989-2008 period where ever politics alien to Trotskyism flourished and biggest crisis of cadre since Revolutionary Marxism emerged during 1848 could be dialectically turned into its opposite in the biggest upheavals in a million years of human history where Trotskyism can lead the struggle for world revolution to a successful conclusion.
There may be a calculation that Ross can be used by them again. From 2000 to 2008 Ross under Livingstone’s administration worked with the Capitalists in London closely. Who knows what pressures Ross will come under?
This is a surprising article to appear in the Morning Star. It is one of four developments which have happened in the last week within Britain which shows there are good chances for the objective emergence of Trotskyism domestically and internationally. What’s positive about this John Green article is that it represents an admission after decades of Stalinist slander about Trotsky’s historic role in the Russian Revolution and world revolutionary politics.
There are two major differences I have with Green in that he offers an idealist analysis of why Trotsky lost to Stalin rather than the social forces and as American Trotskyist Tom Kerry argued during the early 1970s (except for Eastern Poland and Finland during 1939-40) until 1943 due to Stalinism there were major defeats of the world revolution which enabled the Bureaucracy to crush the Bolshevik-Leninists (which what Trotskyists called ourselves from 1923 to mid-1930s). The rising Bureaucratic caste approached Trotsky but refused because he did not want to be a prisoner of them. Trotsky explained in his 1930 preface to “My Life why the Soviet Bureaucracy was able to isolate Trotsky and certain human personality characteristics can only socially flourish in certain objective historical circumstances”:
“The very fact of its coming into the world is due to the pause in the author’s active political life. One of the unforeseen, though not accidental, stops in my life has proved to be Constantinople…
… I have dealt in especial detail with the second period of the Soviet revolution, the beginning of which coincided with Lenin’s illness and the opening of the campaign against “Trotskyism.” The struggle of the epigones for power, as I shall try to prove, was not merely a struggle of personalities; it represented a new Political chapter – the reaction against October, and the preparation of the Thermidor. From this the answer to the that I have so often been asked – “How did you lose power?” – follows naturally…
… I cannot deny that my life has not followed quite the ordinary course. The reasons for that are inherent in the conditions of the time, rather than in me. Of course certain personal traits were also necessary for the work, good or bad, that I performed. But under other historical conditions, these personal peculiarities might have remained completely dormant, as is true of so many propensities and passions on which the social environment makes no demands. On the other hand, other qualities today crowded out or suppressed might have come to the fore. Above the subjective there rises the objective, and in the final reckoning it is the objective that decides”.
Trotsky changed his analysis of what he meant by Thermidor in an article he wrote during 1935 entitled “Workers’ State; Thermidor; and Bonapartism” to the dangers of Capitalist restoration, he now defined it as a political counter-revolution of a Bureaucratic caste. Stalin, Trotsky argued was chosen by the Bureaucracy later because his characteristics of being narrow-minded Conservative and contempt for theory best reflected their nature most clearly. Green is fundamentally wrong in drawing a parallel between Trotsky’s and Stalin’s methods. Trotsky represented the defence of the working class and best interests of Soviet Union as a workers’ state and world revolution, whereas Stalin carried out interests of a privileged Bureaucratic caste.
On Thursday of last week there appeared an article by an ex-Stalinist by the name of Seamus Milne on China which in part represented an adaptation to Trotskyism. Milne argued that it was the state-owned banks and nationalized enterprises, which is driving massive economic growth of 8-10% within China annually. He also made criticisms of the Chinese Bureaucracy but argued is subordinate to the socio-economic gains. There was one major problem in his article of confusing the Chinese workers’ state with the mixed economy of Capitalism. It is only by overthrowing Capitalism can there be rapid economic growth today and lift hundreds of millions out of poverty. The Liberal Bourgeoisie and Social Democrats could use Milne’s arguments on the mixed economy to stop revolution by promoting reformist illusions.
The Guardian on Saturday of last week followed with Milne’s article with an editorial saying it was essentially stated owned banks and enterprises which explains their economic growth. They praised John Ross who came out of the British Trotskyist movement (he has broken very much from Trotskyism but contains small elements of it) who correctly argues that the main Chinese state—owned banks will not go bankrupt due to central planning and that with the Chinese workers’ state are mainly developing productive forces within third world countries to offset their decline in trade with the Imperialist countries. In the last few months I came to the same conclusion as Ross on why China is carrying out massive infrastructure projects within Third World countries.
Last Monday John McDonnell a left wing Social Democrat within the British Labour Party in an article within the Morning Star made a scientific analysis of why the material interests of Trade Union Bureaucrats within Britain attempt to sell out their members interests to Capital. McDonnell could have made this move because the Trade Union Bureaucrats are split over whether to compromise with the Tory-LibDem (nicknamed ComDems) over public sector pensions.
Len McCluskey who is general secretary of Britain’s largest union called Unite. There are rank-and-file groups in that union challenging him from the left. An example of this is that Electricians on construction sites are trying to organize strikes because three top building construction companies are trying to reduce their pay by 35%. Due to Bourgeois New Labour faction in a Social Democratic party going in behind a public sector pay freeze and refusing to reverse Com-Dem’s cuts has forced McCluskey to attack them in sharp terms last week’s publically.
Trotskyists should argue in the tradition of the Comintern’s 3rd World Congress in 1921 of calling for a united front with those Social Democrats and Trade Union Bureaucrats who want to fight against attacks on workers in both private and public sectors and want to fight New Labour. Within this framework of several united fronts’ Trotskyists keeps our political independence saying those Bureaucrats and Social Democrats cannot consistently defend workers and show through our Transitional Demands show in practice the need for a revolutionary leadership.
What is the Liberal Bourgeoisie through the Guardian up to in publishing this editorial on China? Their ideological heyday since 1989 is over. They are adapting to the middle class radicalization. By doing this and if the crisis of workers leadership continues to move them rightwards they can turn them against the working class.
These four developments are the opening stages of Trotskyism re-emerging through distorted ways. If consistent Trotskyists play our cards right the 1989-2008 period where ever politics alien to Trotskyism flourished and biggest crisis of cadre since Revolutionary Marxism emerged during 1848 could be dialectically turned into its opposite in the biggest upheavals in a million years of human history where Trotskyism can lead the struggle for world revolution to a successful conclusion.
There may be a calculation that Ross can be used by them again. From 2000 to 2008 Ross under Livingstone’s administration worked with the Capitalists in London closely. Who knows what pressures Ross will come under?
Monday, 2 January 2012
Thornett by adapting to overpopulation theories further breaks with Marxism!
THORNETT DEEPENS HIS BREAK WITH MARXISM! BY ANTHONY BRAIN
Due to the global Capitalist crisis every contradiction is being dramatically magnified. Thornett’s latest article on Socialist Resistance website where he begins to support overpopulation theories is another slide into Bourgeois politics. He has been on this trajectory since 1989 in supporting German re-unification; calling for Imperialism to try Milosevic; backing UN occupation of East Timor after 1999. During 2002 there was a qualitative degeneration when he called for a vote to Chirac. His adaptation to overpopulation theories represents a qualitative degeneration.
Thornett is totally a-historical and does not situate the rise of overpopulation theories in a context of a worse crisis unfolding today in the history of Capitalism. Ian Angus is totally correct in seeing how overpopulation theories can be used now/later to carry out the barbarism of Capitalism. Only by resolving the crisis of working class leadership will prevent the worse aspects of Capitalism coming to the surface. This can only be done by defeating the ruling class’s ideology among the masses.
It is dialectically ironic considering Thornett’s years of Healyite sectarianism to the Feminist movement that he distorts Feminism to falsely claim overpopulation is a ‘Feminist’ issue. The American SWP always challenged overpopulation theories for being anti-Feminist. I have not read much of their literature on this issue. Those more familiar with that material could bring this history to life, which has great contemporary relevance.
Due to the global Capitalist crisis every contradiction is being dramatically magnified. Thornett’s latest article on Socialist Resistance website where he begins to support overpopulation theories is another slide into Bourgeois politics. He has been on this trajectory since 1989 in supporting German re-unification; calling for Imperialism to try Milosevic; backing UN occupation of East Timor after 1999. During 2002 there was a qualitative degeneration when he called for a vote to Chirac. His adaptation to overpopulation theories represents a qualitative degeneration.
Thornett is totally a-historical and does not situate the rise of overpopulation theories in a context of a worse crisis unfolding today in the history of Capitalism. Ian Angus is totally correct in seeing how overpopulation theories can be used now/later to carry out the barbarism of Capitalism. Only by resolving the crisis of working class leadership will prevent the worse aspects of Capitalism coming to the surface. This can only be done by defeating the ruling class’s ideology among the masses.
It is dialectically ironic considering Thornett’s years of Healyite sectarianism to the Feminist movement that he distorts Feminism to falsely claim overpopulation is a ‘Feminist’ issue. The American SWP always challenged overpopulation theories for being anti-Feminist. I have not read much of their literature on this issue. Those more familiar with that material could bring this history to life, which has great contemporary relevance.
Monday, 24 October 2011
2 grammatical corrections and supplemenary comments on international character of Wall Street movement
TWO GRAMMATICAL CORRECTIONS TO DOCUMENT ON BANKING COLLAPSE AND ONE SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS CONCERNING OCCUPY WALL STREET MOVEMENT AS AN INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT BY ANTHONY BRAIN.
First on the grammatical corrections I missed out important words on two paragraphs on contradictions between Miliband as really representing neo-New Labour in conflict with the Social Democratic nature of the Labour Party. On page 2, paragraph 2 I missed out the word correct on the main point of document written by me in September 2010 that the social base that elected Miliband as leader represented a radicalization despite my secondary errors he would mainly go over to Social Democracy. On Page 2, paragraph 3, extending to page 3, paragraph 1 I missed out Miliband made deal with Right Wing Social Democrats to oppose certain ConDem cuts.
What’s missing in the document is not mentioning the international dimension of the Occupy Wall Street movement. One million marched against Capitalism internationally in 80+ countries during October 15th 2011. It is the biggest mobilization since the February 15th 2003 internationally co-ordinated demonstrations against war in Iraq. The internationalist character of this movement will make it harder for Imperialist Bourgeoisies to contain this movement.
First on the grammatical corrections I missed out important words on two paragraphs on contradictions between Miliband as really representing neo-New Labour in conflict with the Social Democratic nature of the Labour Party. On page 2, paragraph 2 I missed out the word correct on the main point of document written by me in September 2010 that the social base that elected Miliband as leader represented a radicalization despite my secondary errors he would mainly go over to Social Democracy. On Page 2, paragraph 3, extending to page 3, paragraph 1 I missed out Miliband made deal with Right Wing Social Democrats to oppose certain ConDem cuts.
What’s missing in the document is not mentioning the international dimension of the Occupy Wall Street movement. One million marched against Capitalism internationally in 80+ countries during October 15th 2011. It is the biggest mobilization since the February 15th 2003 internationally co-ordinated demonstrations against war in Iraq. The internationalist character of this movement will make it harder for Imperialist Bourgeoisies to contain this movement.
Will banking collapse or more austerity measures in Greece lead to more pre-Revolutionary crises?
ARE REVOLUTIONARY UPHEAVALS WITHIN THE IMPERIALIST COUNTRIES MORE LIKELY IF AUSTERITY MEASURES GETS WORSE OR BANKS COLLAPSE? BY ANTHONY BRAIN
The Occupy Wall Street movement is a turning point in terms of mass struggles against Capital’s attempts to make workers and middle class pay for falling profits of Capitalists. In how this movement has emerged and its mass character shows millions of workers and sizeable middle class layers will not tolerate these attacks anymore.
This is very bad timing for the Western European Capitalists. Due to losses of Western European banks which are on the brink of going bankrupt there was talk on Newsnight programme last week that half a trillion Euros (500 Billion Euros) would be needed to stop these banks going bankrupt. French Capital hopes that this money is made available by the European Central Bank (ECB) based in Frankfurt, in Germany. There is big resistance by German Capitalists who do not want to help their Imperialist rivals. In periods of Capitalist crisis within the Imperialist countries Rosa Luxemburg argued was their nation states’ being strengthened in increased competition for declining markets.
In the last two days there have been rumours on the British TV news programmes that the ECB will allocate 100 Billion Euros to bank re-capitalization and that Greece will be given 7 billion in a loan to repay their debts. On ITV news tonight it is reported there are no real agreement on any concrete measures. It is clear that the Greeks cannot repay their debts in full. There is talk of the banks receiving losing between 50% and 60% of their loans investments. Bourgeois Economists use the jargon term of “taking a haircut” to describe these sorts of losses. The most likely development is banks using a lot of money forcing considerable number of them into bankruptcy. Reaching a plaster-like deal which prolongs Greek attempts to repay debts seems unlikely but cannot be ruled out.
Trotskyists need to understand whatever happens next the working class and middle class are going to rebel more as Capital attacks them more. Even in the best scenario for Western European bankers of Greek debt is repaid longer for several weeks to months (at most) the attempted increased austerity measures will lead to bigger revolutionary upheavals in Greece. If the banks’ collapse and millions of workers and middle class elements cannot access their bank accounts this could be a tipping point for revolutionary upheavals within Imperialist countries to threaten Finance Capital’s rule and governments. During December 2001 the banks’ collapse led to the overthrow of a right wing government within Argentina.
The Imperialist ruling classes will manouvre to contain any serious revolutionary threats. Trotsky uses the formula in such situations they make desperate last-minute concessions to the masses in order to stop Socialist revolutions succeeding. Under such threats Liberal Bourgeois elements may feel the necessity of making significant reforms to the working and middle class. Social Democracy may be utilized in Western Europe for those purposes and to hegemonies these radicalizations. Greek Social Democracy is becoming too discredited to play this role. Stalinism may be used by Greek ruling class as a second option to contain threat of Socialist revolution.
One secondary mistake I made in September 2010 was to think Miliband was going over to Social Democracy. On the major issue of his social base in terms of middle class youth, especially students; wider middle class; Trade Union Bureaucrats; and millions of workers were voting for him as leader hoping he strengthen Social Democracy and isolate New Labour. He only survives as leader due to opportunist deals by Trade Union Bureaucrats. Those forces (except for cynical Trade Union Bureaucrats) who voted for Miliband felt betrayed by his deceit.
If Miliband comes out again against the November 30th strikes his cosy relationship which some Trade Union bureaucrats have with Miliband could very likely end as they cannot justify it to rank-and-file Trade Unionists. Trotskyists are missing an historic opportunity due to Ultra-Left forces still having influence to build a mass left wing within the Labour Party of those working and middle class forces radicalizing. By conducting such united front tactics against Miliband Trotskyists would be in a good position to break millions of workers from Social Democracy and towards revolutionary politics. The mistake in September 2010 I made that Miliband would go over to Social Democracy willingly was to under-estimate that he represented New Labour despite the concessions to right wing Social Democrats in opposing ComDem (popular reference to Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition government) would do everything to salvage that New Labour social layer. As a Trotskyist I am opposed to all cuts.
Already Liberal Bourgeois layers reflected by the New York Times in America are trying to contain the radicalization which the Occupy Wall Street movement represents by appearing to support this movement and gear it into Keynesian measures to increase regulations of banking and speculation. Conservative Bourgeois elements in America such as Ron Paul are adapting to the Occupy Wall Street movement by appearing to support it hoping middle class layers move away from their left wing direction of looking to the workers for them to lead a fight against Capital. If the Trade Union Bureaucrats and other opportunists within the workers movement betray anti-Capitalist struggles Right Wing Populists such as Paul hopes to capitalize on despair that would generate within the middle class and hopes to turn them against the working class.
Imperialist Nationalism including liberal versions Trotskyists has to reject because they promote reactionary oppressor nationalism. The American SWP before 1981 in the tradition of Lenin and Trotsky correctly distinguished between the nationalism of the oppressor and those of the oppressed. Conservative Bourgeois elements within Imperialist countries utilize such nationalism to blame other Capitalists in other countries exclusively for socio-economic crises. They also use scapegoats such as Jews; Muslims; and other non-White ethnicities for those problems.
Liberal Bourgeois Imperialist nationalism is equally reactionary because it promotes illusions Imperialist ruling classes will fundamentally change from their exploitative character, and abandon racism; Islamophobia; or ant-Semitism altogether. Their differences with Conservative Bourgeois elements is at most strategic differences or sometimes tactical disagreements over how it affects Capitalist profits/markets or how best to maintain ruling class rule.
Rachael Horwitz has made her worse mistake in adapting to this middle class layer who have those illusions in Liberal Bourgeois layers. Horwitz obviously does not support the Liberal Bourgeoisie or shares these middle class illusions. The mistake is she makes is conceding to English Liberal Nationalism by even signing up to “We like England”. Trotskyists should set up separate facebook groups calling for a workers/Socialist England. We would pose transitional demands to win workers; middle class; and all oppressed nationalities/ethnicities; women; and gays/lesbians of those classes over to this politics.
If the banks’ collapse in Western Europe and America within days positive dynamics of Occupy Wall Street movement will advance much faster in possibly creating pre-revolutionary crises. Any prolonging of Capitalist crisis for several weeks/months will give the chances for Conservative Bourgeois elements to influence any despair coming from lack of success in Occupy Wall Street movement. Trotskyist strategies and tactics have to be to break any Bourgeois influences among those radicalizing and push for mass action to show the masses their power. These are the best ways to build up for Socialist revolutions.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is a turning point in terms of mass struggles against Capital’s attempts to make workers and middle class pay for falling profits of Capitalists. In how this movement has emerged and its mass character shows millions of workers and sizeable middle class layers will not tolerate these attacks anymore.
This is very bad timing for the Western European Capitalists. Due to losses of Western European banks which are on the brink of going bankrupt there was talk on Newsnight programme last week that half a trillion Euros (500 Billion Euros) would be needed to stop these banks going bankrupt. French Capital hopes that this money is made available by the European Central Bank (ECB) based in Frankfurt, in Germany. There is big resistance by German Capitalists who do not want to help their Imperialist rivals. In periods of Capitalist crisis within the Imperialist countries Rosa Luxemburg argued was their nation states’ being strengthened in increased competition for declining markets.
In the last two days there have been rumours on the British TV news programmes that the ECB will allocate 100 Billion Euros to bank re-capitalization and that Greece will be given 7 billion in a loan to repay their debts. On ITV news tonight it is reported there are no real agreement on any concrete measures. It is clear that the Greeks cannot repay their debts in full. There is talk of the banks receiving losing between 50% and 60% of their loans investments. Bourgeois Economists use the jargon term of “taking a haircut” to describe these sorts of losses. The most likely development is banks using a lot of money forcing considerable number of them into bankruptcy. Reaching a plaster-like deal which prolongs Greek attempts to repay debts seems unlikely but cannot be ruled out.
Trotskyists need to understand whatever happens next the working class and middle class are going to rebel more as Capital attacks them more. Even in the best scenario for Western European bankers of Greek debt is repaid longer for several weeks to months (at most) the attempted increased austerity measures will lead to bigger revolutionary upheavals in Greece. If the banks’ collapse and millions of workers and middle class elements cannot access their bank accounts this could be a tipping point for revolutionary upheavals within Imperialist countries to threaten Finance Capital’s rule and governments. During December 2001 the banks’ collapse led to the overthrow of a right wing government within Argentina.
The Imperialist ruling classes will manouvre to contain any serious revolutionary threats. Trotsky uses the formula in such situations they make desperate last-minute concessions to the masses in order to stop Socialist revolutions succeeding. Under such threats Liberal Bourgeois elements may feel the necessity of making significant reforms to the working and middle class. Social Democracy may be utilized in Western Europe for those purposes and to hegemonies these radicalizations. Greek Social Democracy is becoming too discredited to play this role. Stalinism may be used by Greek ruling class as a second option to contain threat of Socialist revolution.
One secondary mistake I made in September 2010 was to think Miliband was going over to Social Democracy. On the major issue of his social base in terms of middle class youth, especially students; wider middle class; Trade Union Bureaucrats; and millions of workers were voting for him as leader hoping he strengthen Social Democracy and isolate New Labour. He only survives as leader due to opportunist deals by Trade Union Bureaucrats. Those forces (except for cynical Trade Union Bureaucrats) who voted for Miliband felt betrayed by his deceit.
If Miliband comes out again against the November 30th strikes his cosy relationship which some Trade Union bureaucrats have with Miliband could very likely end as they cannot justify it to rank-and-file Trade Unionists. Trotskyists are missing an historic opportunity due to Ultra-Left forces still having influence to build a mass left wing within the Labour Party of those working and middle class forces radicalizing. By conducting such united front tactics against Miliband Trotskyists would be in a good position to break millions of workers from Social Democracy and towards revolutionary politics. The mistake in September 2010 I made that Miliband would go over to Social Democracy willingly was to under-estimate that he represented New Labour despite the concessions to right wing Social Democrats in opposing ComDem (popular reference to Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition government) would do everything to salvage that New Labour social layer. As a Trotskyist I am opposed to all cuts.
Already Liberal Bourgeois layers reflected by the New York Times in America are trying to contain the radicalization which the Occupy Wall Street movement represents by appearing to support this movement and gear it into Keynesian measures to increase regulations of banking and speculation. Conservative Bourgeois elements in America such as Ron Paul are adapting to the Occupy Wall Street movement by appearing to support it hoping middle class layers move away from their left wing direction of looking to the workers for them to lead a fight against Capital. If the Trade Union Bureaucrats and other opportunists within the workers movement betray anti-Capitalist struggles Right Wing Populists such as Paul hopes to capitalize on despair that would generate within the middle class and hopes to turn them against the working class.
Imperialist Nationalism including liberal versions Trotskyists has to reject because they promote reactionary oppressor nationalism. The American SWP before 1981 in the tradition of Lenin and Trotsky correctly distinguished between the nationalism of the oppressor and those of the oppressed. Conservative Bourgeois elements within Imperialist countries utilize such nationalism to blame other Capitalists in other countries exclusively for socio-economic crises. They also use scapegoats such as Jews; Muslims; and other non-White ethnicities for those problems.
Liberal Bourgeois Imperialist nationalism is equally reactionary because it promotes illusions Imperialist ruling classes will fundamentally change from their exploitative character, and abandon racism; Islamophobia; or ant-Semitism altogether. Their differences with Conservative Bourgeois elements is at most strategic differences or sometimes tactical disagreements over how it affects Capitalist profits/markets or how best to maintain ruling class rule.
Rachael Horwitz has made her worse mistake in adapting to this middle class layer who have those illusions in Liberal Bourgeois layers. Horwitz obviously does not support the Liberal Bourgeoisie or shares these middle class illusions. The mistake is she makes is conceding to English Liberal Nationalism by even signing up to “We like England”. Trotskyists should set up separate facebook groups calling for a workers/Socialist England. We would pose transitional demands to win workers; middle class; and all oppressed nationalities/ethnicities; women; and gays/lesbians of those classes over to this politics.
If the banks’ collapse in Western Europe and America within days positive dynamics of Occupy Wall Street movement will advance much faster in possibly creating pre-revolutionary crises. Any prolonging of Capitalist crisis for several weeks/months will give the chances for Conservative Bourgeois elements to influence any despair coming from lack of success in Occupy Wall Street movement. Trotskyist strategies and tactics have to be to break any Bourgeois influences among those radicalizing and push for mass action to show the masses their power. These are the best ways to build up for Socialist revolutions.
Sunday, 16 October 2011
Why I am writing a book on the Dialetical unity of the Sciences?
o I am studying the natural sciences in order to write a book on the dialectical unity of the Sciences; and show the application of Dialectical Materialism and Law of Uneven and combined Development! I am researching the three theories of how the early universe was formed and developed. One of the things I learned watching Brian Cox's "Wonders of the Universe" TV series which was on BBC 2 this year is that Oxygen could not form without Hydrogen. This shows life could not emerge on Earth without those Cosmological-chemical changes. Is it true protons was one of the first materials that developed in the early universe? Did it precede Atoms? Did Atoms take later to form because they were more complex than Protons?
o
o
o One of the main reasons I am writing this book on the Dialectics of the Sciences is to explore why it took billions of years before life could develop and compare it socially with the culmination now in the worse Capitalist crisis of the struggle to abolish class society. It is no accident that it is now being determined whether humanity survives by overthrowing world Capitalism.
o
o On another level it is no accident that the greatest Scientific achievements are still going ahead. As Trotsky would say it is this historic dialectic of these social contradictions being worked out with all their complexities and subtleties. In other words it is the dialectical interplay of necessity and chance. The role of Marxism as Trotsky and Cannon would say is to give a conscious expression to these processes and push it in the direction of world revolution. Once Trotskyism has established world Socialism the mass of humanity will have chances to study all Sciences which enable them to deal with natural disasters; explore into space more extensively; and consciously deal with most situations.
o
o
o One of the main reasons I am writing this book on the Dialectics of the Sciences is to explore why it took billions of years before life could develop and compare it socially with the culmination now in the worse Capitalist crisis of the struggle to abolish class society. It is no accident that it is now being determined whether humanity survives by overthrowing world Capitalism.
o
o On another level it is no accident that the greatest Scientific achievements are still going ahead. As Trotsky would say it is this historic dialectic of these social contradictions being worked out with all their complexities and subtleties. In other words it is the dialectical interplay of necessity and chance. The role of Marxism as Trotsky and Cannon would say is to give a conscious expression to these processes and push it in the direction of world revolution. Once Trotskyism has established world Socialism the mass of humanity will have chances to study all Sciences which enable them to deal with natural disasters; explore into space more extensively; and consciously deal with most situations.
Thursday, 15 September 2011
Letter to British Socialist Action on a David Fennell article on Libya
It is rare I agree with a British Socialist Action article. The article on Libya published on September 1st 2011 by David Fennell (except for one difference and another possible difference – which I deal with later) is an outstanding theoretical article especially those quotes from Lenin about science of totality and applies it well to Libyan situation. Fennel’s article demolishes the SWP and Counterfire and shows their anti-Marxist method.
Does Socialist Action support the Permanent Revolution? I was wondering about that because a few months ago when I glanced an article on your website which only talked about Lenin on the Colonial revolution and never mentioned Trotsky. What’s missing in Fennel’s article is mention of Permanent Revolution’s method. Fennel is correct to have a military united front with Gaddafi to defeat Imperialism. Within this framework Trotskyists fight for workers to lead the anti-Imperialist struggle in the direction of Socialist revolution.
I fundamentally disagree that Mao was a Revolutionary Marxist. He was always a Stalinist protecting Bureaucratic privileges first based on a party in the workers movement (Chinese Communist Party) and when he overthrow Capitalism during 1950 established a bureaucratic caste which still rules.
I am not sure about your criticism of the SWP and Counterfire on Britain. They are both Ultra-Left and Opportunist. On a lot of questions I consider your positions as opportunist. Despite these differences we should work together to build a united front to stop Imperialist war on Libya.
Anthony Brain
Does Socialist Action support the Permanent Revolution? I was wondering about that because a few months ago when I glanced an article on your website which only talked about Lenin on the Colonial revolution and never mentioned Trotsky. What’s missing in Fennel’s article is mention of Permanent Revolution’s method. Fennel is correct to have a military united front with Gaddafi to defeat Imperialism. Within this framework Trotskyists fight for workers to lead the anti-Imperialist struggle in the direction of Socialist revolution.
I fundamentally disagree that Mao was a Revolutionary Marxist. He was always a Stalinist protecting Bureaucratic privileges first based on a party in the workers movement (Chinese Communist Party) and when he overthrow Capitalism during 1950 established a bureaucratic caste which still rules.
I am not sure about your criticism of the SWP and Counterfire on Britain. They are both Ultra-Left and Opportunist. On a lot of questions I consider your positions as opportunist. Despite these differences we should work together to build a united front to stop Imperialist war on Libya.
Anthony Brain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)