From what I have been reading in Xinhua since last Saturday indicates that Putin is moving very fast to reconstruct as much of the old Soviet Union as possible. I read on Saturday at Xinhua is the 11 economic ministers agreed in May this year to establish a CIS-wide free trade zone. In Tajikistan the same evening the heads of governments agreed to that free trade zone. It will receive final ratification in November.
There was an interesting article in Xinhua that Saturday arguing the non-Russian CIS countries (except for Georgia) stuck with Russia to stop Imperialism destroying what remained of the bureaucratic caste privileges and stop them becoming semi-Colonies of cheap raw materials. This is why Imperialism did everything to pressure Yeltsin to make massive Capitalist inroads because if they could restore Capitalism in Russia they could have completed that process in ex-Soviet states and Eastern Europe. Imperialism’s defeat by the removal of Yeltsin slowed Capitalist restoration in those areas of the world. It was an important victory for world revolution because it weakened Imperialism globally. If Yeltsin was not defeated Imperialism may have launched additional wars.
The material in this Xinhua article (see appendix) shows the nationalized parts of the workers’ states are linking up. There could be underhanded Russian Bureaucratic pressure for Gazprom to control Zalkar (Kyrgyz nationalized bank) and take over Kyrgyzneftgas and Kyrgzgas. Trotskyists argue the break-up of the Soviet Union was a major setback for the productive forces. We would be in favour of it coming back together on a voluntary basis.
There a number of Bureaucratic adventures Trotskyists would not support tactically. For example Trotskyists would not have been cutting off gas to the Ukrainian masses. Such moves could have alienated the masses and played into the hands of concillationist elements of Ukrainian Bureaucracy to Imperialism and Capitalist restorationist forces. In another similar situation I disagreed with how the Soviet Bureaucracy carried out the Berlin blockade during 1948-49 which alienated the West German masses and played into Imperialism’s hands. They were trying to pressure Imperialism through Bureaucratic manoeuvres but not want to extend the Socialist revolution westwards because if they overthrow Capitalist West Germany it would have caused the political revolution within Soviet Union. At the same if Imperialism had attacked the Soviet occupying forces we would defend that military force of Soviet workers’ state against Imperialism. Trotskyists give critical support under certain conditions if specific bureaucratic actions in economically reconstructing the Soviet Union coincide with what is in the workers’ states interest.
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
A reply to Charlie Hore on why Imperialism rather than Chinese Stalinism is responible for social inequalities within China!
IS CHARLE HORE CONCLUDING FROM HIS LINE THAT CHINESE STALINISM IS MORE RESPONIBLE FOR SOCIAL INEQUALITY THAN IMPERIALISM THAT IN PRATCICE STALINISM IS WORSE THAN IMPERIALISM?:- A REPLY BY ANTHONY BRAIN.
(Three sections missing :- debate on contradictions of Taafe's line and his increasingly revisionist line of "State Capitalism" on China; the extent of collapse in Capitalist firms within two provinces within China since 2008; and a reply to Heiko Khoo's adaptation to Chinese Stalinism. I may not be able to complete these 3 section due to having dental treatement but I published it now for reader's interest).
Charlie Hore seems to be moving towards an extremely Stalinphobic position when he argues due to Imperialism being weakened within China that Chinese Stalinism is now more responsible than Imperialism for social inequalities within China. Hore coming from the “State Capitalist” tradition does not understand workers’ states as transitional societies ruled by bureaucratic castes which require Political Revolution. Imperialism always impacts on workers’ states at different times until Capitalism is overthrown in the Imperialist countries, especially within America.. This is why the Monopoly of Foreign Trade is so important and you cannot build Socialism in one country.
There are Capitalist firms operating within China. At the same time there are layer of Chinese Bureaucrats who are enriching themselves by investing in the U.S. Treasury. It is what Mandel would call the dialectics of ziz-zags of the British SWP and their predecessors that you argue the complete opposite of several decades. Mandel wrote in 1951 in “Ten theses on Stalinism”, which he submitted to 3rd World Congress of the Fourth International (FI) that the key methodological error of “Bureaucratic Collectivism” was that it under-estimated world Capitalist pressures on the Soviet and Eastern European Bureaucracies and ignored in particular the Bourgeois norms of distribution (money; trade; and currencies etc) . He argued against “State Capitalism” in the same document because it did not recognise the non-Capitalist mode of production within those economies.
Does Hore draw the logical conclusion from his line on social inequality that Stalinism in practice now is worse than Imperialism? His third article is an eclectic mix of downplaying Imperialist pressures on the Chinese workers’ state to justify not defending that society from Imperialist attack; and to the worse aspects of “State Capitalism”.
There are two basic contradictions within Hore’s series of three articles on China. At first he has to admit some of the development within productive forces within China and social gains for workers. He has to adapt towards the accomplished facts because he would be more in denial what is happening within China than what the Bourgeois intelligentsia within Imperialist countries has to admit. It would isolate the SWP from a possible radicalization among middle class academics who look to Chinese workers’ state as an alternative to Capitalism.
Even on a factual level Hore contradicts himself when he outlines socio-economic accomplishments with examples at the beginning of his first article and then says conditions for workers has generally worsened. These are the following examples he gives:- 10% growth for several years even after the crisis of world Capitalism from 2008 onwards; several years after 1978 rural incomes doubled; hundreds of millions being lifted out of poverty; 7 out of 10 Chinese households have computers; 8 out of 10 households have cars; and almost every households have at least 2 mobile phones.
After Hore making these factual concessions he then returns to arguing against a Trotskyist analysis of why this is happening (which argues the Bureaucracy carrying out the Permanent Revolution distorted for their caste interests) saying the workers have made no gains it is only in the interests of “rich and business” and “complexity of Capitalist exploitation”. On Hore’s latter point Trotsky took up the exact argument in a introduction to “Revolution Betrayed” about” Capitalist exploitation” being responsible for massive industrialization within the Soviet Union’s economy during the 1930s. Trotsky refuted this by saying:- why did the Soviet economy expand when there was a global Capitalist depression? The same is applicable within China today which those on the left who argue China is “Capitalist” cannot answer.
By not recognizing the workers’ state within China you cannot see why only the class rule of workers despite being politically expropriated is the rapid development of productive forces made possible by a planned economy and public services being expanded. Trotsky also argued in “the Revolutionary Betrayed” that socio-economic gains listed below is only possible by overthrowing Capitalism. The Bureaucracy has a dual role of undermining the workers’ state through bureaucratic pillage and defending their own privileges based on it. This contradiction leads to conflicts within the bureaucracies. You can see this in Eastern Europe and Russia in the battles within these castes between those who gain from pillage and cutbacks:-governments and those who lose out those who work in public services or nationalized industries.
Marx argued in the “Communist Manifesto” that Capitalism requires mass poverty and destroying any past workers gains as the way to offset declining profits. This can be seen even in the Imperialist countries with millions of workers and even middle class elements having their living standards slashed and public services being rapidly cut and privatized. China shows most clearly the validity of Permanent Revolution of how a Socialist revolution can accomplish even in a former semi-Colony.
American Trotskyists Joseph Hansen and Tom Kerry updated Trotsky’s analysis of independent Stalinist-led Socialist revolutions (which Trotsky did not see as a theoretical possibly except as a workers and farmers government) independent of the Soviet Bureaucracy. Kerry argued during the 1960s that Stalinism is one of the most contradictory phenomena which ever exists. It is one of the most counter-revolutionary forces but also protects property relations due to its caste privileges being based on the greatest mode of production within class society as a result of Capitalist property relations being overthrown. The objective basis for Socialism is laid due to socialization of productive relations. Bureaucratic castes resist the restoration of Capitalism because most of them would lose their privileges as they would have to be eliminated if Capitalist profits Marx called the law of Value is to predominate.
I am going to finish where I began with the Imperialist pressures on the Chinese workers’ state. (Contradictions of Taafe’s position on China. His July-August article in Socialism Today gave statistical data which could be used to argue China is a degenerate workers’ states and quotes Bourgeois economists showing that there different factions within the Chinese Bureaucracy. Later in that article he refrains from drawing conclusions that it is a workers’ state and goes more revisionist by defining China as “State Capitalist”. Taafe while denying he is different from Cliff echoes similar arguments that “State Capitalism” will not privatize for a whole period. In reality if the Capitalist firms unlike Cliff/Taafe revisionists had the upper hand they would quickly overthrow Chinese Stalinism and defeat working class so Capitalist restoration could proceed quickly. At CWI summer school this summer Taafe emphasized less socio-economic gains in China and stressed more his “State Capitalism” revisionism. Taafe even though shift in emphasis in July-August Socialism Today article is a prisoner of Third Camp/Stalinphobic elements who has accommodated in the past and may faced a backlash from that right-wing of the CWI because he began to change his line on China. The CWI’s Stalinphobia is clearly seen when they will not defend North Korea from Imperialism even though they admit that regime is Stalinist, which means for Trotskyists a degenerate workers’ state. Trotskyists defend the North Korean workers’ state from Imperialism. We try to overthrow them with a political revolution but if Imperialism threatens them we have a united front with that bureaucracy to defeat Imperialism).
(I read somewhere – check sources those Capitalist firms semi-collapsed in those two provinces – after 2008 crisis. Criticism of Heiko Khoo when he adapts to Chinese Stalinism; wrong method on class nature of Libya; and his wrong line on Russia).
(Three sections missing :- debate on contradictions of Taafe's line and his increasingly revisionist line of "State Capitalism" on China; the extent of collapse in Capitalist firms within two provinces within China since 2008; and a reply to Heiko Khoo's adaptation to Chinese Stalinism. I may not be able to complete these 3 section due to having dental treatement but I published it now for reader's interest).
Charlie Hore seems to be moving towards an extremely Stalinphobic position when he argues due to Imperialism being weakened within China that Chinese Stalinism is now more responsible than Imperialism for social inequalities within China. Hore coming from the “State Capitalist” tradition does not understand workers’ states as transitional societies ruled by bureaucratic castes which require Political Revolution. Imperialism always impacts on workers’ states at different times until Capitalism is overthrown in the Imperialist countries, especially within America.. This is why the Monopoly of Foreign Trade is so important and you cannot build Socialism in one country.
There are Capitalist firms operating within China. At the same time there are layer of Chinese Bureaucrats who are enriching themselves by investing in the U.S. Treasury. It is what Mandel would call the dialectics of ziz-zags of the British SWP and their predecessors that you argue the complete opposite of several decades. Mandel wrote in 1951 in “Ten theses on Stalinism”, which he submitted to 3rd World Congress of the Fourth International (FI) that the key methodological error of “Bureaucratic Collectivism” was that it under-estimated world Capitalist pressures on the Soviet and Eastern European Bureaucracies and ignored in particular the Bourgeois norms of distribution (money; trade; and currencies etc) . He argued against “State Capitalism” in the same document because it did not recognise the non-Capitalist mode of production within those economies.
Does Hore draw the logical conclusion from his line on social inequality that Stalinism in practice now is worse than Imperialism? His third article is an eclectic mix of downplaying Imperialist pressures on the Chinese workers’ state to justify not defending that society from Imperialist attack; and to the worse aspects of “State Capitalism”.
There are two basic contradictions within Hore’s series of three articles on China. At first he has to admit some of the development within productive forces within China and social gains for workers. He has to adapt towards the accomplished facts because he would be more in denial what is happening within China than what the Bourgeois intelligentsia within Imperialist countries has to admit. It would isolate the SWP from a possible radicalization among middle class academics who look to Chinese workers’ state as an alternative to Capitalism.
Even on a factual level Hore contradicts himself when he outlines socio-economic accomplishments with examples at the beginning of his first article and then says conditions for workers has generally worsened. These are the following examples he gives:- 10% growth for several years even after the crisis of world Capitalism from 2008 onwards; several years after 1978 rural incomes doubled; hundreds of millions being lifted out of poverty; 7 out of 10 Chinese households have computers; 8 out of 10 households have cars; and almost every households have at least 2 mobile phones.
After Hore making these factual concessions he then returns to arguing against a Trotskyist analysis of why this is happening (which argues the Bureaucracy carrying out the Permanent Revolution distorted for their caste interests) saying the workers have made no gains it is only in the interests of “rich and business” and “complexity of Capitalist exploitation”. On Hore’s latter point Trotsky took up the exact argument in a introduction to “Revolution Betrayed” about” Capitalist exploitation” being responsible for massive industrialization within the Soviet Union’s economy during the 1930s. Trotsky refuted this by saying:- why did the Soviet economy expand when there was a global Capitalist depression? The same is applicable within China today which those on the left who argue China is “Capitalist” cannot answer.
By not recognizing the workers’ state within China you cannot see why only the class rule of workers despite being politically expropriated is the rapid development of productive forces made possible by a planned economy and public services being expanded. Trotsky also argued in “the Revolutionary Betrayed” that socio-economic gains listed below is only possible by overthrowing Capitalism. The Bureaucracy has a dual role of undermining the workers’ state through bureaucratic pillage and defending their own privileges based on it. This contradiction leads to conflicts within the bureaucracies. You can see this in Eastern Europe and Russia in the battles within these castes between those who gain from pillage and cutbacks:-governments and those who lose out those who work in public services or nationalized industries.
Marx argued in the “Communist Manifesto” that Capitalism requires mass poverty and destroying any past workers gains as the way to offset declining profits. This can be seen even in the Imperialist countries with millions of workers and even middle class elements having their living standards slashed and public services being rapidly cut and privatized. China shows most clearly the validity of Permanent Revolution of how a Socialist revolution can accomplish even in a former semi-Colony.
American Trotskyists Joseph Hansen and Tom Kerry updated Trotsky’s analysis of independent Stalinist-led Socialist revolutions (which Trotsky did not see as a theoretical possibly except as a workers and farmers government) independent of the Soviet Bureaucracy. Kerry argued during the 1960s that Stalinism is one of the most contradictory phenomena which ever exists. It is one of the most counter-revolutionary forces but also protects property relations due to its caste privileges being based on the greatest mode of production within class society as a result of Capitalist property relations being overthrown. The objective basis for Socialism is laid due to socialization of productive relations. Bureaucratic castes resist the restoration of Capitalism because most of them would lose their privileges as they would have to be eliminated if Capitalist profits Marx called the law of Value is to predominate.
I am going to finish where I began with the Imperialist pressures on the Chinese workers’ state. (Contradictions of Taafe’s position on China. His July-August article in Socialism Today gave statistical data which could be used to argue China is a degenerate workers’ states and quotes Bourgeois economists showing that there different factions within the Chinese Bureaucracy. Later in that article he refrains from drawing conclusions that it is a workers’ state and goes more revisionist by defining China as “State Capitalist”. Taafe while denying he is different from Cliff echoes similar arguments that “State Capitalism” will not privatize for a whole period. In reality if the Capitalist firms unlike Cliff/Taafe revisionists had the upper hand they would quickly overthrow Chinese Stalinism and defeat working class so Capitalist restoration could proceed quickly. At CWI summer school this summer Taafe emphasized less socio-economic gains in China and stressed more his “State Capitalism” revisionism. Taafe even though shift in emphasis in July-August Socialism Today article is a prisoner of Third Camp/Stalinphobic elements who has accommodated in the past and may faced a backlash from that right-wing of the CWI because he began to change his line on China. The CWI’s Stalinphobia is clearly seen when they will not defend North Korea from Imperialism even though they admit that regime is Stalinist, which means for Trotskyists a degenerate workers’ state. Trotskyists defend the North Korean workers’ state from Imperialism. We try to overthrow them with a political revolution but if Imperialism threatens them we have a united front with that bureaucracy to defeat Imperialism).
(I read somewhere – check sources those Capitalist firms semi-collapsed in those two provinces – after 2008 crisis. Criticism of Heiko Khoo when he adapts to Chinese Stalinism; wrong method on class nature of Libya; and his wrong line on Russia).
Friday, 2 September 2011
Anthony Brain exchange on Facebook between me debating a Blairite and an Ultra-Left!
• ANTHONY BRAIN’S REPLY IN A DEBATE WITH A BLAIRITE AND ULTRALEFT!
o Merlin Reader wrote the following not fully realizing the workers government slogan and why revolutionaries pose demands on Left Wing Social Democrats:-
o
o “Changing the government doesn't change attitudes any more than changing the law. The only point of a left wing government is to encourage a push for further change. And it will be opposed by the police, political establishment and military. Examples: Paris 1871, Russia 1917, Germany 1918-23, Portugal 1974, Iran 1979 etc”.
A Blairite Lukey Stanger wrote the following in defence of New Labour:-
o “Hahaa what about the 80s when we were a pathetic far left hardcore socialism party which resulted in us being completely un-electable however luckily then blair, mandy and brown came along and modernised it, took it to the right in a progressive way and made us electable again which resulted in our record time ever in government and us to achieve all the amazing things we achieved, @merlin, no mate I will defend my party's track record in education till the day I die, record levels of investment in it which resulted in more teachers and tas then ever before as well more students leaving school with 5 a* to c grades than ever before as well as also played a part in us taking more kids out of poverty since we introduced the welfare state when recently in government and yes we did introduced tution fees however at a fair reasonable price and what did it enable, 70% more students to attend uni, we don't however support them being trebled which is y we were vigorously opposed to the tory plans to do so and will no doubt retract them when DAVID miliband is the next pm of britainn :)”
o
o Below is my answer to a Blarite who attacks me for calling for McDonnell to challenge Miliband for Labour Party leadership. It is unusual for the Blairites to respond! Are they worried about the growth of the Labour left particularly from the Unions? If there was any Trotskyist cadre knew what they were doing New Labour would not last long within the Labour Party. It is partly Ultra-Leftism which has played into their hands.
New Labour played into the Tory hands. They enabled a hated party to manouvre back into power. They are a half way house to the Tory attacks. Despite New Labour's character as a Bourgeois faction they had to make compromises with the Social Democrats due to their failure to convert Labour into a Bourgeois party whose measures Stanger mentions to justify New Labour's role. New Labour did this inspite themselves. It is an example of contradictions within dialectics of intermediary stages in uncompleted transitions where opposite end-results emerge. It is also an example of law of uneven and combined development
o
o
o As a Trotskyist I argue Social Democracy is going to find it hard to defend workers past gains due to relying on the ruling class to rule. This does not mean they will not defend specific gains against Capital due to them being based on the organized working class. Trotskyists through united fronts’ involving millions of workers aims to show them that their gains can only be ensured by overthrowing Capitalism.
If Social Democracy is incapable of defending the old workers gains even less the Bourgeois New Labour faction can. Their aim is to weaken workers past gains and destroy Social Democracy which stands in the way of Capital taking the falling rate of profit at the expense of workers and middle class. New Labour's ability to do this internally within the Labour Parry is going to be reduced. This means they either join the Lib Dems or Tories in the near future.
Reader does not understand the workers government slogan of revolutionaries’ and why they call on left wing Social Democrats to fight Bourgeois faction or right wing Social Democrats. The workers government slogan is the jewel in the ground of the Transitional Programme. Trotskyists pose demands on mass Social Democratic parties or Stalinist parties in Western Europe and Japan to form a government so we can show their base that reformism serves Capitalism and only Socialist revolutions can defend and extends workers gains.
In periods of crisis within Social Democratic parties Trotskyists like in the British Labour Party call for left wing Social Democrats like McDonnell to drive the Blairites out so out of the turmoil we defeat the worse Bourgeois elements and show through going through struggles of millions of workers politically in the Labour Party that you can break them from reformism towards revolutionary politics.
o Merlin Reader wrote the following not fully realizing the workers government slogan and why revolutionaries pose demands on Left Wing Social Democrats:-
o
o “Changing the government doesn't change attitudes any more than changing the law. The only point of a left wing government is to encourage a push for further change. And it will be opposed by the police, political establishment and military. Examples: Paris 1871, Russia 1917, Germany 1918-23, Portugal 1974, Iran 1979 etc”.
A Blairite Lukey Stanger wrote the following in defence of New Labour:-
o “Hahaa what about the 80s when we were a pathetic far left hardcore socialism party which resulted in us being completely un-electable however luckily then blair, mandy and brown came along and modernised it, took it to the right in a progressive way and made us electable again which resulted in our record time ever in government and us to achieve all the amazing things we achieved, @merlin, no mate I will defend my party's track record in education till the day I die, record levels of investment in it which resulted in more teachers and tas then ever before as well more students leaving school with 5 a* to c grades than ever before as well as also played a part in us taking more kids out of poverty since we introduced the welfare state when recently in government and yes we did introduced tution fees however at a fair reasonable price and what did it enable, 70% more students to attend uni, we don't however support them being trebled which is y we were vigorously opposed to the tory plans to do so and will no doubt retract them when DAVID miliband is the next pm of britainn :)”
o
o Below is my answer to a Blarite who attacks me for calling for McDonnell to challenge Miliband for Labour Party leadership. It is unusual for the Blairites to respond! Are they worried about the growth of the Labour left particularly from the Unions? If there was any Trotskyist cadre knew what they were doing New Labour would not last long within the Labour Party. It is partly Ultra-Leftism which has played into their hands.
New Labour played into the Tory hands. They enabled a hated party to manouvre back into power. They are a half way house to the Tory attacks. Despite New Labour's character as a Bourgeois faction they had to make compromises with the Social Democrats due to their failure to convert Labour into a Bourgeois party whose measures Stanger mentions to justify New Labour's role. New Labour did this inspite themselves. It is an example of contradictions within dialectics of intermediary stages in uncompleted transitions where opposite end-results emerge. It is also an example of law of uneven and combined development
o
o
o As a Trotskyist I argue Social Democracy is going to find it hard to defend workers past gains due to relying on the ruling class to rule. This does not mean they will not defend specific gains against Capital due to them being based on the organized working class. Trotskyists through united fronts’ involving millions of workers aims to show them that their gains can only be ensured by overthrowing Capitalism.
If Social Democracy is incapable of defending the old workers gains even less the Bourgeois New Labour faction can. Their aim is to weaken workers past gains and destroy Social Democracy which stands in the way of Capital taking the falling rate of profit at the expense of workers and middle class. New Labour's ability to do this internally within the Labour Parry is going to be reduced. This means they either join the Lib Dems or Tories in the near future.
Reader does not understand the workers government slogan of revolutionaries’ and why they call on left wing Social Democrats to fight Bourgeois faction or right wing Social Democrats. The workers government slogan is the jewel in the ground of the Transitional Programme. Trotskyists pose demands on mass Social Democratic parties or Stalinist parties in Western Europe and Japan to form a government so we can show their base that reformism serves Capitalism and only Socialist revolutions can defend and extends workers gains.
In periods of crisis within Social Democratic parties Trotskyists like in the British Labour Party call for left wing Social Democrats like McDonnell to drive the Blairites out so out of the turmoil we defeat the worse Bourgeois elements and show through going through struggles of millions of workers politically in the Labour Party that you can break them from reformism towards revolutionary politics.
Friday, 26 August 2011
A few remarks about Argentinian PTS Morenoite group showing film of Trotsky based on a novel of Trotsky overthrowing Stalinism with Political Revolution!
This is a PTS video! (who are a Morenoite group) in Argentina). I have lost touch with the Morenotes and Lambertists. It seems an impressive film about how the Political Revolution could unfold in Russia. Even if it posed as a historic novel about Trotsky leading it and overthrowing Stalin. I do not know the PTS line on the workers' states. As the pre-Barnes American SWP leadership used to say if they promoting a process which they do not see applicable today it's their contradiction!
Last week there was an article within the Economist calling the Putin presidency as a neo-Soviet regime weakening the Capitalist elements promoted by Yeltsin. This could be a conscious move by Imperialist Bourgeoisies if Putin gets the Presidency back to launch a new Cold War. They can no longer pretend the left is historically finished which they tried to make out after 1989. Due to the upturn of the world revolution they cannot hide the rise of the left but if they concede the truth about Russia it will lead to a new balance of forces on the left of what its class character is.
I was re-reading Trotsky the other week on the rise of German Fascism and his tactic of a united front with Social Democracy to defeat Hitler. The key point I picked up glancing at those documents again was Trotsky utilized every contradiction and opportunity to show workers their power. Russia's working class will not put up with the extent of Bureaucratic pillage and major Capitalist inroads under Yeltsin. This could be seen by the mass workers protests against monetization of social benefits during 2004-05. This potential mobilization of the Russian working class moving in the direction of Political Revolution with social consequences is only possible due to the defeat of Yeltsin’s wing of the Bureaucracy between 1998 and 2000.
Last week there was an article within the Economist calling the Putin presidency as a neo-Soviet regime weakening the Capitalist elements promoted by Yeltsin. This could be a conscious move by Imperialist Bourgeoisies if Putin gets the Presidency back to launch a new Cold War. They can no longer pretend the left is historically finished which they tried to make out after 1989. Due to the upturn of the world revolution they cannot hide the rise of the left but if they concede the truth about Russia it will lead to a new balance of forces on the left of what its class character is.
I was re-reading Trotsky the other week on the rise of German Fascism and his tactic of a united front with Social Democracy to defeat Hitler. The key point I picked up glancing at those documents again was Trotsky utilized every contradiction and opportunity to show workers their power. Russia's working class will not put up with the extent of Bureaucratic pillage and major Capitalist inroads under Yeltsin. This could be seen by the mass workers protests against monetization of social benefits during 2004-05. This potential mobilization of the Russian working class moving in the direction of Political Revolution with social consequences is only possible due to the defeat of Yeltsin’s wing of the Bureaucracy between 1998 and 2000.
Sunday, 21 August 2011
Left recomposition on Libya!
Gerry Downing is correct that the groups who supported the rebels or were openly pro-Imperialist military intervention such as AWL and SP minority will go through a massive crisis. They will go into crisis regardless of how the Libyan war goes with either pro-Imperialist rebel forces being driven out of Tripoli or Imperialism oust Gaddafi could embolden Imperialism to go further into other adventures. If Imperialism is defeated it will strengthen the radicalization within the Imperialist countries with those factions within the Centrist groups under Imperialist countries paying the price for supporting the wrong side. If dangers of a third world war become more obvious with dangers of nuclear suicide the workers and middle classes within the Imperialist countries will want it stopped. In that situation those who were openly pro-Imperialist or pro-Libyan rebels will be seen to assist that process of allowing Imperialism to go further down the road to a Third World War. The Libyan War has to be seen in an international context of Capitalist crisis which is forcing Imperialism to attempt re-Colonizing the semi-Colonies and overthrow the workers' states. If Imperialism is not stopped in its adventures a Third World War could break out.
Downing has spelled out correctly what will happen if Imperialism wins out in Libya in terms of massive privatization and women rights being dramatically worsened under Sharia law. Downing has kept the continuity of Trotskyism on most aspects of semi-Colonies. In 1994 he broke with Trotskyism by being opportunist when he supported calling for a vote to a Bourgeois party: - the ANC.
On the workers' states he has abandoned Trotskyism completely with him giving up battle within Russia before it is really beginning. Cannon said in "The struggle for a Proletarian Party" that it is the worse crime to give up defence of workers' states when the struggle against Capitalist restoration is in the balance. Downing argues Russia and China are "Imperialist powers". This is a break from Permanent Revolution which Trotskyists argue that if Capitalism is restored in either Russia or China would be dismembered as semi-Colonies.
I have just read Andy Pollack submission to Marxmail. He is completely wrong to say Imperialism played no role in Tripoli fighting. According to Russia Today NATO has not relented bombing Tripoli over the last 48 hours for even two seconds. Pollack does not see the pro-Imperialist character of rebels. This concillationist and capitulatioin to now pro-Imperialist forces by American Socialist Action leadership has its roots in them supporting the KLA in Kosovo when they were fighting with Imperialism to overthrow the workers’ states in what remained of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY – Serbia and Montenegro).and supporting pro-Imperialist Kurds when they fought with US/British Imperialism during the 2003 Iraq war.
Downing has spelled out correctly what will happen if Imperialism wins out in Libya in terms of massive privatization and women rights being dramatically worsened under Sharia law. Downing has kept the continuity of Trotskyism on most aspects of semi-Colonies. In 1994 he broke with Trotskyism by being opportunist when he supported calling for a vote to a Bourgeois party: - the ANC.
On the workers' states he has abandoned Trotskyism completely with him giving up battle within Russia before it is really beginning. Cannon said in "The struggle for a Proletarian Party" that it is the worse crime to give up defence of workers' states when the struggle against Capitalist restoration is in the balance. Downing argues Russia and China are "Imperialist powers". This is a break from Permanent Revolution which Trotskyists argue that if Capitalism is restored in either Russia or China would be dismembered as semi-Colonies.
I have just read Andy Pollack submission to Marxmail. He is completely wrong to say Imperialism played no role in Tripoli fighting. According to Russia Today NATO has not relented bombing Tripoli over the last 48 hours for even two seconds. Pollack does not see the pro-Imperialist character of rebels. This concillationist and capitulatioin to now pro-Imperialist forces by American Socialist Action leadership has its roots in them supporting the KLA in Kosovo when they were fighting with Imperialism to overthrow the workers’ states in what remained of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY – Serbia and Montenegro).and supporting pro-Imperialist Kurds when they fought with US/British Imperialism during the 2003 Iraq war.
Friday, 5 August 2011
Letter to Rachel Horwitz on aspects of an article expressing skepcism towards working class radicaliztion!
(This letter deals with Hansen's theory of the long detour; how NATO overthrew workers' state in Kosovo; how the Serbian Bureaucracy are maintaining previous social gains of workers' state in Serb enclaves within Kosovo; and how end of long detour can lead to Trotskyisn play its historice role)!
Dear Rachel
There are certain problems with this article which echoes scepticism about how the working class will radicalize and how revolutionaries relate to them. This is expressed through jokes on what workers will be like when they radicalize! Rachel despite these weaknesses in how you approach politics you are looking to Trotskyism to fight the threat of Fascism. You should read Trotsky and the old American SWP pre-Barnes who argued to take politics seriously. At the same time they understood the objective laws of how different layers of workers; middle classes; and oppressed among those classes would radicalize; and how the revolutionary party would link them that up to speed these processes up towards Socialist revolutions.
Due to Barnes expelling the Trotskyists during the 1980s and degeneration of the 4th International after Mandel's death there is very little cadres and break down in continuity of Trotskyism. Another major error in this article Rachel is that it echoes that we what the FI majority argued before Mandel died that we are at year zero. What they meant by this is the workers' states; Social Democratic parties; and even unions had become Bourgeois. The CWI had a similar line except not agreeing to Ultra-Leftism on unions. Taffe has made a left turn on China in latest Socialism Today in seeing Capitalism has not been restored but fails to draw correct conclusion from this analysis by arguing that China is not a workers' state. As Trotsky said against Burnham in Defence of Marxism you cannot have a non-Workers' or non-Bourgeois state. Despite past setbacks and defeats a lot of gains still remain intact. This is why I disagreed with the return to Year Zero analysis.
The future of degenerated and degenerate workers’ states over whether inter-bureaucratic battles; Capitalists makes further inroads; and whether revolutionary upheavals will deepen struggles towards Political Revolution with social consequences is before us. Capitalism in my opinion has only been restored in ex-GDR through absorption through German re-unification with West Germany and Kosovo with the Serbian workers’ state being driven out by war and complete Imperialist occupation. In Eastern Europe the Bureaucratic castes rule through fragmented factions clashing. Similar conflicts are happening in Russia. There are major Capitalist inroads within Eastern Europe but they have not overthrown what remains of the Stalinist Bureaucrats who want the nationalized sectors/workplaces they control intact against Capitalist takeover. In Russia the Bureaucracy is stronger.
Due to the failure to make Political Revolution successfully the Eastern European workers’ states are in severe crisis. Even in Russia between 2000 and 2008 under Putin he prolonged the crisis of Bureaucratic rule to the medium-term. The conflict between the Medvedev and Putin wings of Stalinism could destabilize the Bureaucracy’s rule and let the working class to come through the middle independently moving in direction of Political Revolution due to workers’ having more confidence they can defeat any moves similar to Yeltsin. World Capitalism’s depression could strengthen the Putin wing by whole layers of the Russian Bureaucracy seeing their future tied up to maintaining nationalized industries. In those circumstances the dangers of Political Revolution lessen because Medvedev can be easily removed.
For the past four or five days I have been doing some preliminary background reading on Kosovo. This is part of a long series of documents to analyse why Kosovo is Capitalist; and analyse what the main contradictions within Serbian and Russian degenerate/degenerated workers’ states are today. I started by looking up at the BBC archive from February 2008 when independence was declared to the current day. The reason I started my search there was I found out that after independence Serbian troops were sent to Serb enclaves in Northern Kosovo. I am going to investigate whether Serbian troops have challenged the Capitalist property relations within those enclaves. Trotsky looked for similar tendencies when the Soviet Bureaucracy overthrew Capitalism in eastern Poland.
Serbian Stalinism carried out terrible crimes against the Kosovon Albanians in ethnic cleansing. The struggle against Stalinism became subordinate to stop Capitalist restoration through NATO’s 1999 war and internal Capitalist restorationist:-the KLA. Trotskyists would have a united front with Serb army against the KLA but refuse to ethnic cleanse due to its anti-working class policy of persecution. We had the same line on the Soviet Union when they fought German Imperialism during World War 2. Stalinism’s slogan “Great Patriotic War” Trotskyists opposed with calls for international working class solidarity with the Soviet Union. The crimes of Stalinism in Kosovo played into Imperialism’s hands of overthrowing that workers’ state.
There are still elements of gains for workers within the Serb enclaves such as Serb special needs teachers earning in 2008 had double their salaries in Kosovo than their Serbian counterpart. These salaries are there so the Serbian Bureaucracy has an independent base to bargain with Kosovon Capitalists and Imperialism. If Capitalism extends total control of the Serb enclaves they will have to destroy whatever remains of Serbia’s influence as workers’ states by reducing these salaries which are necessary to generate profits. Trotskyists would argue for the Serb workers to appeal to the Albanian workers to fight for similar conditions by overthrowing Kosovon Capitalism. There is hope that the combined struggle against Kosovon Capitalism and influence of Stalinism can lead to end of national oppressions and a healthy workers’ state as part of a voluntary Socialist confederation.
Capitalism is maintained in most of Kosovo by making deals with elements of the Serb and Russian Bureaucracy. This is why Imperialism restrains the Kosovo government being too provocative since 1999 because if the Serb Bureaucrats turned on them the Serb armed forces could re-invade Kosovo and destroy what remains of Kosovon Capitalism. The Russian Bureaucracy will only put up with Imperialist moves in Kosovo up to a point. Putin warned the Imperialists if they went too far Russia would military intervene within Kosovo. He made those threats during February/March 2008. Imperialism has gained ownership of very valuable natural resources within Kosovo which they do not want to lose by alienating the Serbian and Russian Bureaucracies!
Rachel have you heard or read anything by American Trotskyist Joseph Hansen. He developed a theory called the Long Detour which analyzed with the rise of Stalinism and the destruction of Bolshevik cadres within the USSR Trotskyism for a whole number of objective factors did not manage to build an alternative leadership to replace Stalinism. The victory of the Soviet workers' state had a dual character. It weakened Capitalism and destroyed Fascism in Europe; led to other workers' states in Eastern Europe; it contributed to the 1949-50 Chinese Socialist revolution and strengthened Colonial revolutions. At the same time Stalinism’s increased prestige led to the Italian; Greek; and French revolutions being betrayed. Hansen argued the Chinese revolution impact had a dual character. It further weakened Capitalism and laid foundations for it to be the second biggest industrial power in the world. Negatively Chinese Stalinism deepened the crisis of revolutionary leadership within the Imperialist countries with lots of middle class youth influenced by ultra-left Maoism.
Castroism Hansen argued correctly that the Cuban revolution was the first non-Stalinist led Socialist revolution since the Russian revolution. In their early years they adopted Permanent Revolution in the “Second declaration of Havana”. They also contributed to the global crisis of revolutionary leadership with ultra-left guerrilla warfare as a continental strategy within Latin America impacting again negatively on middle class youth within the Imperialist countries encouraging their Ultra-Leftism.
Hansen died in 1979. My analysis is that the crisis of Stalinism in 1989 within Eastern Europe and 1991 in Russia is the continuation of the long detour. Before the crisis of the workers’ states in 1989 the crisis hit the 3rd world. Central to Hansen’s theory of the long detour is that there are centrifugal forces carrying out struggles for their interests but are not conscious revolutionary leaderships. The masses challenging Bureaucratic rule within Eastern Europe during 1989 was the beginning of incipient Political Revolutions but when concillationist wings of these Bureaucracies started to allow Capitalist inroads strengthened reaction within some Western European countries. This was followed by the break-up of the Soviet Union during 1991. The centrifugal forces unleashed by this led to the rise of Fascism within Western Europe at the expense of declining Stalinist parties and led to Hindu Fundamentalist BJP party coming to power in India from 1998 to 2004. If the ex-Trotskyists had not collapsed Trotskyism could had a left shift within the ex-Soviet countries and Eastern Europe utilizing the anger against Capitalist inroads to begin a serious struggle for Political Revolution with social consequences. This is possible now due to the rise of world revolution. The long detour is finally coming to end with Trotskyism objectively having the possibility to complete world revolution.
One other thing I raise here with you Rachel is that I do not agree with the SP line that Social Democracy within Western Europe is Bourgeois. There has been some pulling back on this from the CWI when they say the Norway attacks were against the labour movement. In Holland and France millions of workers are looking to Social Democracy for solutions and represent a polarization against Fascism. There are no substitutes from the hard task of breaking millions of workers from Social Democracy.
Anthony Brain
Dear Rachel
There are certain problems with this article which echoes scepticism about how the working class will radicalize and how revolutionaries relate to them. This is expressed through jokes on what workers will be like when they radicalize! Rachel despite these weaknesses in how you approach politics you are looking to Trotskyism to fight the threat of Fascism. You should read Trotsky and the old American SWP pre-Barnes who argued to take politics seriously. At the same time they understood the objective laws of how different layers of workers; middle classes; and oppressed among those classes would radicalize; and how the revolutionary party would link them that up to speed these processes up towards Socialist revolutions.
Due to Barnes expelling the Trotskyists during the 1980s and degeneration of the 4th International after Mandel's death there is very little cadres and break down in continuity of Trotskyism. Another major error in this article Rachel is that it echoes that we what the FI majority argued before Mandel died that we are at year zero. What they meant by this is the workers' states; Social Democratic parties; and even unions had become Bourgeois. The CWI had a similar line except not agreeing to Ultra-Leftism on unions. Taffe has made a left turn on China in latest Socialism Today in seeing Capitalism has not been restored but fails to draw correct conclusion from this analysis by arguing that China is not a workers' state. As Trotsky said against Burnham in Defence of Marxism you cannot have a non-Workers' or non-Bourgeois state. Despite past setbacks and defeats a lot of gains still remain intact. This is why I disagreed with the return to Year Zero analysis.
The future of degenerated and degenerate workers’ states over whether inter-bureaucratic battles; Capitalists makes further inroads; and whether revolutionary upheavals will deepen struggles towards Political Revolution with social consequences is before us. Capitalism in my opinion has only been restored in ex-GDR through absorption through German re-unification with West Germany and Kosovo with the Serbian workers’ state being driven out by war and complete Imperialist occupation. In Eastern Europe the Bureaucratic castes rule through fragmented factions clashing. Similar conflicts are happening in Russia. There are major Capitalist inroads within Eastern Europe but they have not overthrown what remains of the Stalinist Bureaucrats who want the nationalized sectors/workplaces they control intact against Capitalist takeover. In Russia the Bureaucracy is stronger.
Due to the failure to make Political Revolution successfully the Eastern European workers’ states are in severe crisis. Even in Russia between 2000 and 2008 under Putin he prolonged the crisis of Bureaucratic rule to the medium-term. The conflict between the Medvedev and Putin wings of Stalinism could destabilize the Bureaucracy’s rule and let the working class to come through the middle independently moving in direction of Political Revolution due to workers’ having more confidence they can defeat any moves similar to Yeltsin. World Capitalism’s depression could strengthen the Putin wing by whole layers of the Russian Bureaucracy seeing their future tied up to maintaining nationalized industries. In those circumstances the dangers of Political Revolution lessen because Medvedev can be easily removed.
For the past four or five days I have been doing some preliminary background reading on Kosovo. This is part of a long series of documents to analyse why Kosovo is Capitalist; and analyse what the main contradictions within Serbian and Russian degenerate/degenerated workers’ states are today. I started by looking up at the BBC archive from February 2008 when independence was declared to the current day. The reason I started my search there was I found out that after independence Serbian troops were sent to Serb enclaves in Northern Kosovo. I am going to investigate whether Serbian troops have challenged the Capitalist property relations within those enclaves. Trotsky looked for similar tendencies when the Soviet Bureaucracy overthrew Capitalism in eastern Poland.
Serbian Stalinism carried out terrible crimes against the Kosovon Albanians in ethnic cleansing. The struggle against Stalinism became subordinate to stop Capitalist restoration through NATO’s 1999 war and internal Capitalist restorationist:-the KLA. Trotskyists would have a united front with Serb army against the KLA but refuse to ethnic cleanse due to its anti-working class policy of persecution. We had the same line on the Soviet Union when they fought German Imperialism during World War 2. Stalinism’s slogan “Great Patriotic War” Trotskyists opposed with calls for international working class solidarity with the Soviet Union. The crimes of Stalinism in Kosovo played into Imperialism’s hands of overthrowing that workers’ state.
There are still elements of gains for workers within the Serb enclaves such as Serb special needs teachers earning in 2008 had double their salaries in Kosovo than their Serbian counterpart. These salaries are there so the Serbian Bureaucracy has an independent base to bargain with Kosovon Capitalists and Imperialism. If Capitalism extends total control of the Serb enclaves they will have to destroy whatever remains of Serbia’s influence as workers’ states by reducing these salaries which are necessary to generate profits. Trotskyists would argue for the Serb workers to appeal to the Albanian workers to fight for similar conditions by overthrowing Kosovon Capitalism. There is hope that the combined struggle against Kosovon Capitalism and influence of Stalinism can lead to end of national oppressions and a healthy workers’ state as part of a voluntary Socialist confederation.
Capitalism is maintained in most of Kosovo by making deals with elements of the Serb and Russian Bureaucracy. This is why Imperialism restrains the Kosovo government being too provocative since 1999 because if the Serb Bureaucrats turned on them the Serb armed forces could re-invade Kosovo and destroy what remains of Kosovon Capitalism. The Russian Bureaucracy will only put up with Imperialist moves in Kosovo up to a point. Putin warned the Imperialists if they went too far Russia would military intervene within Kosovo. He made those threats during February/March 2008. Imperialism has gained ownership of very valuable natural resources within Kosovo which they do not want to lose by alienating the Serbian and Russian Bureaucracies!
Rachel have you heard or read anything by American Trotskyist Joseph Hansen. He developed a theory called the Long Detour which analyzed with the rise of Stalinism and the destruction of Bolshevik cadres within the USSR Trotskyism for a whole number of objective factors did not manage to build an alternative leadership to replace Stalinism. The victory of the Soviet workers' state had a dual character. It weakened Capitalism and destroyed Fascism in Europe; led to other workers' states in Eastern Europe; it contributed to the 1949-50 Chinese Socialist revolution and strengthened Colonial revolutions. At the same time Stalinism’s increased prestige led to the Italian; Greek; and French revolutions being betrayed. Hansen argued the Chinese revolution impact had a dual character. It further weakened Capitalism and laid foundations for it to be the second biggest industrial power in the world. Negatively Chinese Stalinism deepened the crisis of revolutionary leadership within the Imperialist countries with lots of middle class youth influenced by ultra-left Maoism.
Castroism Hansen argued correctly that the Cuban revolution was the first non-Stalinist led Socialist revolution since the Russian revolution. In their early years they adopted Permanent Revolution in the “Second declaration of Havana”. They also contributed to the global crisis of revolutionary leadership with ultra-left guerrilla warfare as a continental strategy within Latin America impacting again negatively on middle class youth within the Imperialist countries encouraging their Ultra-Leftism.
Hansen died in 1979. My analysis is that the crisis of Stalinism in 1989 within Eastern Europe and 1991 in Russia is the continuation of the long detour. Before the crisis of the workers’ states in 1989 the crisis hit the 3rd world. Central to Hansen’s theory of the long detour is that there are centrifugal forces carrying out struggles for their interests but are not conscious revolutionary leaderships. The masses challenging Bureaucratic rule within Eastern Europe during 1989 was the beginning of incipient Political Revolutions but when concillationist wings of these Bureaucracies started to allow Capitalist inroads strengthened reaction within some Western European countries. This was followed by the break-up of the Soviet Union during 1991. The centrifugal forces unleashed by this led to the rise of Fascism within Western Europe at the expense of declining Stalinist parties and led to Hindu Fundamentalist BJP party coming to power in India from 1998 to 2004. If the ex-Trotskyists had not collapsed Trotskyism could had a left shift within the ex-Soviet countries and Eastern Europe utilizing the anger against Capitalist inroads to begin a serious struggle for Political Revolution with social consequences. This is possible now due to the rise of world revolution. The long detour is finally coming to end with Trotskyism objectively having the possibility to complete world revolution.
One other thing I raise here with you Rachel is that I do not agree with the SP line that Social Democracy within Western Europe is Bourgeois. There has been some pulling back on this from the CWI when they say the Norway attacks were against the labour movement. In Holland and France millions of workers are looking to Social Democracy for solutions and represent a polarization against Fascism. There are no substitutes from the hard task of breaking millions of workers from Social Democracy.
Anthony Brain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)