Dear readers
There is three other sections which I will write but
due to other committments the rest will not be written
for at least several weeks, if not months. I decided to
publish what I have already written to open up a
discussion.
HOW MARXIST CONCEPTS OF LAW AND UNEVEN AND COMBINED DEVELOPMENT AND DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM ARE CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND INTERNATIONAL EVENTS AND HISTORY.
Due to the break of many forces with Trotskyism the theoretical level of most left forces have gone backwards relapsing into adapting to anti-Trotskyist ideas. Trotsky remarked during the 1920s in a worse crisis when Social Democracy degenerated after 1914 that even outstanding intellectuals such as Kautsky went backwards. The only way forward for Trotskyism is to reclaim its old ideas and apply them.
1. MARX AND ENGELS’S CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENCE OF HISTORY: HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AND DIALECTICAL INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIFFERENT SCIENCES.
Marx and Engels developed the most advanced science of History by applying of what they called the Historical Materialist method. One very important theoretical breakthrough of Engels was that distinguished humans from other animals qualitatively were the use of labour as main means of our survival.
This key work is in “Transition from Ape to Human”. That represented the beginning of social as separate from Cosmology and Biology although each is subordinate to the other when it comes to the last analysis and are dialectically inter-related. As Trotsky said in his work “In Defence of Marxism” that dialectically lower developments develop into qualitatively higher ones. Cosmology in the last analysis affects all life on Earth as shown through Asteroids and weather patterns from the inner and outer cores and atmospheres of this planet. Biology has a big influence on humans through diseases and inter-reacts with other living creatures. Societies through its different modes of production influences nature as shown by global warming through Capitalism. Trotsky made the key point without the laws of space and nature developing dialectically with the ebb and flow of rapid advances and problems due to proceeding through contradictions Humanity would never have arisen.
Marx and Engels with the development of Anthropology modified their analysis that all of Human history was the laws of class struggle because they learnt about discoveries of remnants of Primitive Communism in remote islands. They explained how the transition was made from scarcity of these societies to class ones made possible by agricultural surpluses. It took centuries and decades for Slavery to establish itself by enslaving Slaves and protecting their property by disarming the masses and establishing a separate armed state apparatus protecting their rule. This was due to mass resistance which eventually over that time span was finally defeated.
Marx argued that class society was historically progressive in allowing specialists separate from subsistence production due to Sciences being able to emerge. He argued that each form of class society has different economic laws which characterise how they are run. The key point he made is that is these economic laws which determines which what property relations a particular state defends. Within this framework there can be political regimes which can politically expropriate the ruling class but defend that class’s rule in their own way.
This understanding enabled Trotsky to analyse the peculiarities of Fascism and Stalinism. Fascism as Trotsky explained in the “Revolution Betrayed” despite politically expropriating the Bourgeoisie has very close contacts with the ruling Capitalist class and subordinates those Aristocrats to German Capitalism. Trotsky argued what was unique about Stalinism was that a Bureaucratic caste had so much power due to arising out of a heavily improvised working class.
The dialectical paradox as pointed out by Trotsky was that the workers had better gains within the Soviet Union than under Capitalism but suffered harsh and brutal conditions. He argued this Bureaucracy emerged due to Imperialist encirclement of that country; the defeat of several revolutions and upheavals worldwide; and those Bureaucrats who were Scientists and technicians had a massive advantage due to lack of education among the workers. There is a mistake by some on the American left who use the wrong formula that Imperialism directly created Stalinism. The fallacy of this theory as Trotsky correctly pointed out in the “Revolution Betrayed” is that if Imperialism had this power they would have restored Capitalism in Russia. In my opinion the best way to explain this process is that Imperialism indirectly caused Stalinism’s rise through its encirclement and since 1989 has taken advantage of certain Bureaucratic layers to seriously attempt a return to Capitalism in Eastern Europe; Russia; and other ex-Soviet states.
2. SOCIAL REVOLUTIONS AND ATTEMPTED SOCIAL COUNTER-REVOLUTIONS AND LAW OF UNEVEN AND COMBINED DEVELOPMENT.
Social systems can be destroyed through a combination of revolutions and wars. The first historic example is proto-Feudal forces destroying the Roman Empire during 5th Century AD. That Empire was based on Slavery. Due to being defeated in war the Aristocracy filled the vacuum in Western Europe with a Feudal system emerging out of that collapse of Slavery. In Eastern Europe due to the Byzantine Empire officially called “Eastern Roman Empire” kept Slavery right through to Medieval times. This is how they carried on the traditions of the Roman Empire.
Capitalism in Holland; England; and France overthrow Feudalism through war; and at least through revolution (England and France) which led to mass mobilisations. There are important lessons how Bourgeois forces for two to three centuries in those countries manoeuvred with Liberal Aristocratic factions to gain concessions which strengthened them. This laid the basis for the Bourgeois revolutions. They were compelled to mobilise mainly petty-bourgeois forces because the main Aristocratic faction would not surrender their rule.
Prior to the 1642 direct conflict between Cromwell and Charles I there were violent disturbances in London by layers of the masses. The main conflict however was between the Bourgeois Parliament in alliance with Liberal Aristocratic factions against an outright Feudal monarchy which erupted into civil war. As the civil war battles were inconclusive Cromwell was forced to mobilise lower classes in order to win that war. In order to incorporate these layers the New Model Army was formed.
In 1789 the French Revolution was a turning point in European and world history. Trotsky quotes Robespierre in “History of the Russian Revolution” his famous statement that the nobility had undermined the Bourbon monarchy, which in turn encouraged Bourgeois elements to challenge Feudalism, resulting in a revolutionary uprising on 14th July 1789 in Paris beginning with the Bastille storming. Robespierre believed that the European ruling classes would learn from this experience and not precipitate a pre-revolutionary crisis again. Trotsky argued that was true with the ruling classes only splitting again publicly when an actual revolutionary upheaval breaks out. In 1848 when Bourgeois elements in the German states compromised with Aristocratic forces fearing mobilising the workers, Marx started formulating the theory and strategy of Permanent Revolution out of this experience. Trotsky developed a similar method after the defeat of 1905’s revolution in Russia.
There is an analogy between the Bourgeois revolutions against Feudalism and the manoeuvring of Imperialism to support certain Bureaucratic factions in Russia and Eastern Europe who they hoped would help the transition to Capitalism. The historical context is different. When they overthrew Feudalism Capitalism was progressive in developing the productive forces but when they are attempting to overthrow the Workers’ States it is completely reactionary as it would destroy considerable gains in these societies’ productive forces. Another distinction was that Capitalism succeeded in Western Europe against Feudalism because it represented the next progressive stage whereas both the workers and most Bureaucrats are resisting the moves back to Capitalism because their past gains (and most Bureaucrats privileges are threatened.
3. MARXISM LEARNS FROM PARTIAL HISTORIES AND EXPERIENCES OF STRUGGLE BY THE EXPLOITED AND OPPRESSED.
Trotsky in his many writings said that Marxism is the conscious expression of objective processes of fighting to remove the last class society: Capitalism. Even among historians of class society number 1: Slavery had to do accurate analysis of what kind of societies Ancient Greece had to deal with in terms of obtaining Slaves and through trade. Herodotus’s writings on the equality and central role of women in warfare within the Sauromatian population located in southern-eastern Crimea are a very good example of this.
The Sauromatians were descended from the Samaritans who come from ancient Persia (today Iran). After losing a battle with the Greeks at Pontus (northern Turkey) which meant they were enslaved. They rebelled and threw their captors overboard on ships which ended up in Scythia which was the land of that part of Crimea previously mentioned. Those Sauromatians forced Scythian men to become nomads like themselves and for Scythian women to have the same rights as they had. This is an example of Primitive Communism being a feature of ancient nomads.
Another example of useful history was the French Aristocratic women demanding more rights in late Medieval France by writing a series of works on womens’ history was the beginning of French Feminism. This is why mobilising oppressed women was key to the Bourgeois revolution in 1789. That is why the Jacobin party had a programme for women. The Renaissance and Enlightenment which was crucial in laying the basis for Capitalism all Sciences developed massively.
George Novack argued the biggest highpoint of that process of Enlightenment was the development of Marx which combined all the Natural Sciences; acceptance of Hegel’s Dialectics (whilst opposing Hegel’s Idealist version); and incorporated Feurbach’s Materialism on religion at the same time rejecting Feurbach’s mechanistic version. Novack pointed out in his work “Logic of Marxism” that Marx fused both Hegel and Feurbach but also rejecting their defects, developing the new method of Dialectical Materialism.
All the struggles by workers and oppressed layers are coming to the surface which is not accident. It is an anticipation of the struggles developing in embryo due to Capitalism needing to attack workers and petty-bourgeois elements, combined with scapegoats to take attention from the real causes of social misery: which is the crisis-ridden Capitalist system.
4. MARY SCULLY IS CORRECT ABOUT BOLSHEVISM’S LEGACY BUT WRONG TO ARGUE THAT ASPECTS OF LENIN’S THEORY ON IMPERIALISM IS OUTMODED.
Mary Scully has written a useful article (it is available on Socialist Action on News and Views) showing the link between Russia’s October 1917 Revolution and how it influenced colonial revolutions. She contrasts this with the Social Democratic betrayals on Imperialism, and social oppression. One important point she makes is that the betrayal of Germany’s 1918 revolution strengthened Imperialism laying the basis for World War 2. The Bolshevik literature including Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution links the struggle for workers power linked up to fights against social oppression within Imperialist countries; and the link between Permanent Revolution in colonies/semi-colonies; and Socialist Revolutions in those Imperialist countries. It is important with the world Capitalist economic crisis that this tradition is carried to the workers; youth; and oppressed. This is beginning with the theoretical resurgence of Marxism, especially Trotsky among the youth worldwide.
Scully is correct when she says that there are more possibilities of Socialist Revolutions within Imperialist countries due to necessity of Capital to remove workers’ past gains. She makes a major error implying that Lenin never saw this reality. After 1914 Lenin argued Capitalism had finished its historically progressive role by reaching a stage of Imperialist decay.
Capital within the Imperialist countries could only stop profits falling by cutting out their rivals’ profits and attacking their own workers. This is why he called the epoch as one of Imperialist war; attempted counter-revolutions; and World Socialist revolution. Scully also makes a mistake that the Iraq war represents a new qualitative development of Imperialism which Lenin according to her Lenin never foresaw.
In fact what the Afghan and Iraq war represent is that there is a tendency due to Capitalist crisis to go back to more to Imperialist forms of open Colonialism. Imperialism’s aims are to overthrow the Workers’ States and totally dominate the semi-colonies. This raises the danger of World War 3 as the Russian Bureaucracy will not tolerate total Imperialist hegemony which would threaten their rule.
Trotskyists have recognised this tendency after World War 2 but as the American SWP argued against Pablo the expansion of Workers’ States and the Colonial revolution weakened their ability to do this. Imperialism’s offensive after 1989 has raised the danger of such a World War but with the setbacks in Afghanistan and Iraq and the recovery of the Russian Workers’ State this danger has been weakened. Mass consciousness lags behind objective reality, Trotsky argued.
There was some nervousness by the masses when NATO bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 that this could lead to a World War but believed that Clinton would make a deal with the Russian Bureaucracy to lessen that danger. After September 11th 2001 the American and world masses realised the danger due to the neo-Cons overplaying their hand. Now that the masses have awoken to this danger there is going to be massive struggles against such an outcome which the world anti-Iraq war movement shows. It is one of the factors that are causing a massive youth radicalisation within America. Another adventure by Imperialism against the Serbs with the danger of provoking the Russian Bureaucracy could cause a pre-revolutionary crisis in America. If such an eventuality happens it could as Trotsky said in 1929 lift the entire world onto a new plain.
5. MARY-ALICE WATERS DUE TO FEAR OF BARNESITE CLIQUE OF GROWING RADIACALISATION WHICH COULD SEE RE-EMERGENCE OF AUTHENTHIC TROTSKYISM WHICH COULD DESTROY THEIR INFLUENCE IS TRYING TO WALL U.S. SWP MEMBERSHIP AWAY FROM INFLUENCES OF THIS OBJECTIVE PROCESS BY DRAWING MOST PESSIMISTIC CONCLUSIONS FROM CAPITALIST CRISIS.
Jack Barnes and his supporters broke from the Trotskyist tradition of the American SWP in a get-rich-quick scheme of building a mass Castroist international. During the early-to-mid 1980s the Barnesites capitulated to their programmatic weaknesses by rejecting Permanent Revolution and
Political Revolutions within the Degenerated Workers’ States. Barnes predicted at the 1982 YSA convention that by end of that decade Trotsky would be forgotten historically. This was another example of his impressionism but became qualitative in rejecting Trotskyism.
Contrary to Barnesite impressionism Stalinism in 1989 was challenged by the masses. The Barnesites pulled back from their adaptation to Stalinism by correcting supporting those revolutionary upheavals. They (Barnesites) managed to get away with freezing their politics by promoting Trotsky against Stalinism, whilst opposing his central theory of Permanent Revolution. By Trotskyism being marginalised by the Liberal Bourgeois ideological offensive within the Imperialist countries they managed to get away with this compromise.
There are certain aspects of Trotskyism which the SWP holds such as opposing the LCR CC majority supporting Chirac in a Popular Front supposedly to defeat Le Pen; supporting the Red Terror during the 1918-1921 Russian civil war against revisionists; the centrality of Afro-American struggle; defending Engels on origins of Womens oppression; and still recognising Eastern Europe and Russia as Workers’ States.
Despite this their Achilles hill is the growth of Permanent Revolution theory epitomised by Chavez and their wrong analysis of post-9/11 developments which they wrongly characterise being of total American Imperialist supremacy. This opportunism in opposing the Iraqi resistance flows from fear they cannot defend the totality of their politics from opponents. They are trying to create barriers so the membership is not influenced by the growth of Trotskyism. The Barnesites still lack confidence despite the fact that most ex-Trotskyists are even worse with them dumping defence of Eastern European and Russian Workers’ States.
The Barnesites room for manoeuvre is narrowing. Authentic Trotskyism is beginning to rise due to the Capitalist and Stalinist crisis which has the potential to sweep the world and smash anything that stands in its way. In the past few days there has been an article in the Telegraph predicting a worse depression than 1929 if the financial crisis deepens. They think this crisis could be brought to a head within two months. If there is a quick crisis there could be a revolutionary upheaval equivalent to 1918 German Revolution which Trotskyists hope to turn into a global type October 1917 revolution which overthrows Capitalism within its Imperialist centres.
This strategy is in contrast to Waters speech at a Venezuelan conference where she gave her views of the American political situation suggesting Fascism was a massive force within the Imperialist countries. Fascism will only become a mass movement when this radicalisation fails and despair sets in. The songs and videos on my blog shows how rapid the radicalisation is growing and drawing equally fast correct conclusions in America. This is creating the conditions for a massive Trotskyist organisation to emerge within America.
Waters ignores all the features of radicalisation and reduces everything down to abstract Workerism. Strikes are important and especially the TV writers are an indication of a radicalisation. They however are only one part of a rounded revolutionary strategy. It is criminal for Waters to paint a negative feature of imminent Counter-Revolution within America, which can only demoralise emerging revolutionaries. The role of revolutionaries is to show the way forward and not the defeatist nonsense that Waters represent.
Tuesday 1 January 2008
Saturday 8 December 2007
Statement on Dmriti D's video
For the information of readers I only released Dmriti D's
video because I could not delete it without removing
the Brazilian Trotskyist video. I mostly agree with Dmriti D
except his wrong line that Capitalism has been restored
in Russsia
video because I could not delete it without removing
the Brazilian Trotskyist video. I mostly agree with Dmriti D
except his wrong line that Capitalism has been restored
in Russsia
Wednesday 28 November 2007
WHY THE WORKERS MOVEMENT MUST OPPOSE A CONCERTED RULING CLASS ASSAULT ON THE LABOUR PARTY.
What is unfolding in the Labour Party is that Social Democracy and the Trade Union movement is beginning to gain more influence within this party. It is taken distorted forms and is not clearly visible. Using the Marxist method of Uneven and combined development developed by Trotsky and utilising a Dialectical Materialist analysis of analysing Labour’s internal contradictions, it is possible to see that this process could be accelerated by a hysterical ruling class using the whip hand of reaction.
The Blairites made serious inroads in Bourgeoisfying the Labour Party.
When Trotsky developed the methodological tool of Uneven and combined development he meant that reaction can make inroads depending on a number of objective and subjective factors; but at the same time not all the workers gains are not destroyed until that process is completed. For a party like Labour to become completely Bourgeois and Workers’ States like Eastern Europe and Russia to become Capitalist states requires a massive qualitative break of an explosive character. In the former case it would need a decisive rupture between Bourgeois elements and those who support the Social Democratic Bureaucracy. For Workers’ States to become Capitalist States Trotsky argued would necessitate a civil war.
There have been partial changes in Labour which are fundamental on one level with the reduction of democracy. At the same time for a whole number of historical factors there has not been a decisive rupture for a change in Labour’s class character. This complexity can only be understood by the dialectical interplay of these major forces:-partial/fundamental; accident/necessity; and general/particular. Even if you apply the law of identity in formal logic those Ultra-lefts who define Social Democracy as Bourgeois which the Committee for a Workers International (CWI) does and most workers’ states violate this scientific law. The law of identity means seeing clear differences between different phenomena
In Russia like there has been a decisive move away from Capitalist restoration. The regime is becoming more apparently Stalinist every day. In the Labour Party there is a beginning of a reversal of Blarism with Social Democracy having more influence. This is why you have this hysterical and concerted ruling class campaign against the Labour Party even with its extreme right wing leadership because they fear with the new balance of forces that Brown maybe forced to make additional concessions to the workers. This they do not want to hand out unless they are threatened by revolutionary upheavals because of Capitalism being potentially in its worse crisis.
One of Trotsky’s greatest contributions alongside Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin to Marxism was their theory of Workers Bureaucracy with their dual character. The Trade Union Bureaucrats in the last analysis defends Capitalism because their privileges rest on mediating between Capital and Labour. If a healthy workers’ state comes out of a victorious Socialist Revolution their special privileges would be abolished. This is not to say there would not be Bureaucratic deformations but they would be reduced. At the same Trade Union Bureaucrats sometimes have to mobilise workers to stop Capitalist encroachments on their privileges and come under pressure to defend workers due to fear the rank-and-file will remove their leadership.
Social Democracy carries out on the political level that the Trade Union Bureaucrats do in the economy/workplace of mediating between the classes, sometimes making concessions to workers in order to control them for Capital. This gives them the bargainship that they control millions of workers when they negotiate with the ruling class. This is why British Socialist Worker is wrong in this week’s paper to compare the French Social Democrats with New Labour. New Labour was a Bourgeois faction which attempted to “liberate” themselves from any workers pressure in order to reduce their wages and conditions. In France that kind of faction has not the same weight as it had in the British Labour Party.
That Bourgeois faction was unique to Britain and Italy but did not complete its process of Bourgeoisifcation in Britain. This is why it is methodologically wrong to define Labour as completely New Labour. As a Trotskyist I have no difference with the British SWP about French Social Democracy’s treachery in these strikes but I define them scientifically. During this year’s Presidential elections they proposed massive reforms which gave them a high workers and deprived youth vote. If the French ruling class fears a pre-revolutionary crisis they may use them to contain a growing radicalisation with reforms. To fight this counter-revolutionary leadership it is necessary to understand their dual character and know how to win their mass base over.
The ideological crisis of the workers movement partly influenced by the Soviet Union’s break-up combined with what Mandel defined as “creditability of Socialism” project due to Social Democratic and Stalinist betrayals helped the rise of Blairism. This combined with the workers losing strikes during the 1980s gave the pretext and ideological rationale for supporting right wing leaders within Labour. This is where the law of Uneven and combined development comes in. Trade Union Bureaucrats could not support a complete Bourgeoisifcation because their political role would be carved out and would be no use in utilising the Labour Party to defuse potential rebellions. They were prepared to support a move to the right as long has there was a Social Democratic fig-leaf. Blairism needed the Trade Union Bureaucracy to take as far their Bourgeoisifcation project and to win the 1997 general election. The Trade Union Bureaucracy in return cold control their rank-and-file base in return by making promises of what a Labour government would do for them.
The landslide for Labour in 1997 was a major blow to the Bourgeoisifcation process as it undercut a key mechanism of a coalition government with the Lib Dems. This strengthened the Social Democratic wing and slowed the Blairite assault on workers and the oppressed. They attempted to take their offensive as far as possible by cutting benefits for single parents; cuts for disabled people; attack democratic rights; and to massively develop PFI. This was resisted by elements of Social Democracy who forced the Blairites to rescind the single parent cuts and made treacherous concessions by allowing some cut backs on disabled people in return for concessions on other Blairite excesses. There were Labour MPs during 1999 in double figures opposed any cutbacks on disabled people. In Labour’s first term this Social Democratic opposition and other concessions such as the minimum wage and legislation making it easier to organise union stopped mass upheavals.
During the second and third term Blairism steeped up its attacks and made fewer concessions to workers. This led to strikes and increased demonstrations. One important struggle was the fire-fighters strike of 2002-03 which had mass support of workers and sizeable middle class layers. The government had to make concessions to local government workers after a successful one day strike in July 2002. There was a massive battle by Social Democratic MPs against University top-up fees. This led to a knife-edge parliamentary vote where Blair only got a majority in single numbers. What finished Blair was the disastrous Iraq war. This meant he only survived by the ruling class seeing him as useful. This is why he attempted to introduce massive cuts in the NHS and to lay the basis for its privatisation, and to privatise Secondary schools from 2005 to his downfall.
The Labour Party is at the crossroads. This is what the Ultra-Lefts do not understand. Brown is trying to carry on Blairism with public sector wage cuts and to cut further single parent and disabled benefits. Due to Social Democratic pressures he had to slow down City Academies and withdraw some private contracts for the NHS. This is what is making the ruling class furious as they want a major assault on workers due to their declining profit rates.
The ruling class are divided due to differences over the EU whether there should be a coalition government between Brown and the Lib Dems or whether there should be a Tory government. Liberal Bourgeois elements are trying to soften Brown up to launch further attacks on workers. They may be overplaying their hand with them pushing Brown more into the Social Democratic camp. Trotskyists should have a dual approach to this funding scandal. We call on Labour to not have to any further donations from Capitalists and attack the Brownite concessions to big business but oppose the Capitalist state intervening in the Labour Party. The state’s class character should be exposed. This crisis in Labour gives Trotskyists a chance to intervene in a Transitional manner by calling for the Social Democrats to fight for socialist policies. Through this process we can show why a Socialist Revolution is necessary to guarantee workers gains.
What is unfolding in the Labour Party is that Social Democracy and the Trade Union movement is beginning to gain more influence within this party. It is taken distorted forms and is not clearly visible. Using the Marxist method of Uneven and combined development developed by Trotsky and utilising a Dialectical Materialist analysis of analysing Labour’s internal contradictions, it is possible to see that this process could be accelerated by a hysterical ruling class using the whip hand of reaction.
The Blairites made serious inroads in Bourgeoisfying the Labour Party.
When Trotsky developed the methodological tool of Uneven and combined development he meant that reaction can make inroads depending on a number of objective and subjective factors; but at the same time not all the workers gains are not destroyed until that process is completed. For a party like Labour to become completely Bourgeois and Workers’ States like Eastern Europe and Russia to become Capitalist states requires a massive qualitative break of an explosive character. In the former case it would need a decisive rupture between Bourgeois elements and those who support the Social Democratic Bureaucracy. For Workers’ States to become Capitalist States Trotsky argued would necessitate a civil war.
There have been partial changes in Labour which are fundamental on one level with the reduction of democracy. At the same time for a whole number of historical factors there has not been a decisive rupture for a change in Labour’s class character. This complexity can only be understood by the dialectical interplay of these major forces:-partial/fundamental; accident/necessity; and general/particular. Even if you apply the law of identity in formal logic those Ultra-lefts who define Social Democracy as Bourgeois which the Committee for a Workers International (CWI) does and most workers’ states violate this scientific law. The law of identity means seeing clear differences between different phenomena
In Russia like there has been a decisive move away from Capitalist restoration. The regime is becoming more apparently Stalinist every day. In the Labour Party there is a beginning of a reversal of Blarism with Social Democracy having more influence. This is why you have this hysterical and concerted ruling class campaign against the Labour Party even with its extreme right wing leadership because they fear with the new balance of forces that Brown maybe forced to make additional concessions to the workers. This they do not want to hand out unless they are threatened by revolutionary upheavals because of Capitalism being potentially in its worse crisis.
One of Trotsky’s greatest contributions alongside Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin to Marxism was their theory of Workers Bureaucracy with their dual character. The Trade Union Bureaucrats in the last analysis defends Capitalism because their privileges rest on mediating between Capital and Labour. If a healthy workers’ state comes out of a victorious Socialist Revolution their special privileges would be abolished. This is not to say there would not be Bureaucratic deformations but they would be reduced. At the same Trade Union Bureaucrats sometimes have to mobilise workers to stop Capitalist encroachments on their privileges and come under pressure to defend workers due to fear the rank-and-file will remove their leadership.
Social Democracy carries out on the political level that the Trade Union Bureaucrats do in the economy/workplace of mediating between the classes, sometimes making concessions to workers in order to control them for Capital. This gives them the bargainship that they control millions of workers when they negotiate with the ruling class. This is why British Socialist Worker is wrong in this week’s paper to compare the French Social Democrats with New Labour. New Labour was a Bourgeois faction which attempted to “liberate” themselves from any workers pressure in order to reduce their wages and conditions. In France that kind of faction has not the same weight as it had in the British Labour Party.
That Bourgeois faction was unique to Britain and Italy but did not complete its process of Bourgeoisifcation in Britain. This is why it is methodologically wrong to define Labour as completely New Labour. As a Trotskyist I have no difference with the British SWP about French Social Democracy’s treachery in these strikes but I define them scientifically. During this year’s Presidential elections they proposed massive reforms which gave them a high workers and deprived youth vote. If the French ruling class fears a pre-revolutionary crisis they may use them to contain a growing radicalisation with reforms. To fight this counter-revolutionary leadership it is necessary to understand their dual character and know how to win their mass base over.
The ideological crisis of the workers movement partly influenced by the Soviet Union’s break-up combined with what Mandel defined as “creditability of Socialism” project due to Social Democratic and Stalinist betrayals helped the rise of Blairism. This combined with the workers losing strikes during the 1980s gave the pretext and ideological rationale for supporting right wing leaders within Labour. This is where the law of Uneven and combined development comes in. Trade Union Bureaucrats could not support a complete Bourgeoisifcation because their political role would be carved out and would be no use in utilising the Labour Party to defuse potential rebellions. They were prepared to support a move to the right as long has there was a Social Democratic fig-leaf. Blairism needed the Trade Union Bureaucracy to take as far their Bourgeoisifcation project and to win the 1997 general election. The Trade Union Bureaucracy in return cold control their rank-and-file base in return by making promises of what a Labour government would do for them.
The landslide for Labour in 1997 was a major blow to the Bourgeoisifcation process as it undercut a key mechanism of a coalition government with the Lib Dems. This strengthened the Social Democratic wing and slowed the Blairite assault on workers and the oppressed. They attempted to take their offensive as far as possible by cutting benefits for single parents; cuts for disabled people; attack democratic rights; and to massively develop PFI. This was resisted by elements of Social Democracy who forced the Blairites to rescind the single parent cuts and made treacherous concessions by allowing some cut backs on disabled people in return for concessions on other Blairite excesses. There were Labour MPs during 1999 in double figures opposed any cutbacks on disabled people. In Labour’s first term this Social Democratic opposition and other concessions such as the minimum wage and legislation making it easier to organise union stopped mass upheavals.
During the second and third term Blairism steeped up its attacks and made fewer concessions to workers. This led to strikes and increased demonstrations. One important struggle was the fire-fighters strike of 2002-03 which had mass support of workers and sizeable middle class layers. The government had to make concessions to local government workers after a successful one day strike in July 2002. There was a massive battle by Social Democratic MPs against University top-up fees. This led to a knife-edge parliamentary vote where Blair only got a majority in single numbers. What finished Blair was the disastrous Iraq war. This meant he only survived by the ruling class seeing him as useful. This is why he attempted to introduce massive cuts in the NHS and to lay the basis for its privatisation, and to privatise Secondary schools from 2005 to his downfall.
The Labour Party is at the crossroads. This is what the Ultra-Lefts do not understand. Brown is trying to carry on Blairism with public sector wage cuts and to cut further single parent and disabled benefits. Due to Social Democratic pressures he had to slow down City Academies and withdraw some private contracts for the NHS. This is what is making the ruling class furious as they want a major assault on workers due to their declining profit rates.
The ruling class are divided due to differences over the EU whether there should be a coalition government between Brown and the Lib Dems or whether there should be a Tory government. Liberal Bourgeois elements are trying to soften Brown up to launch further attacks on workers. They may be overplaying their hand with them pushing Brown more into the Social Democratic camp. Trotskyists should have a dual approach to this funding scandal. We call on Labour to not have to any further donations from Capitalists and attack the Brownite concessions to big business but oppose the Capitalist state intervening in the Labour Party. The state’s class character should be exposed. This crisis in Labour gives Trotskyists a chance to intervene in a Transitional manner by calling for the Social Democrats to fight for socialist policies. Through this process we can show why a Socialist Revolution is necessary to guarantee workers gains.
Tuesday 6 November 2007
20 years as a Trotskyist
20th Anniversary of being a Trotskyist.
On November 15th (a week this Thursday) I became a convinced ideological
Trotskyist but too young at 10 to join the movement. At 16 I joined the
4th International. Watching on the TV how the riot police treated Miners
who were just fighting to keep their jobs radicalised me and helped the
process of becoming a Socialist.
THEORY OF PERMANENT REVOLUTION
VERSUS STAGES THEORY WON ME
TO TROTSKYISM.
Before I left primary school I was reading books at the school library on
the Russian Revolution. In 1987 I became interested in Trotsky’s
theory of Permanent Revolution against the Mensheviks-Stalinists
theory of stages. This coincided although I did not know this
at the time with an internal struggle within the Socialist Action editorial
board between supporters of Permanent Revolution and those who rejected
that theory due to agreeing with Jack Barnes’s line. The Barnesites lost
that battle and set up their own organisation in February 1988/
What I learnt from Trotsky is that the Peasantry is middle class
which vacillates between Capitalists/Aristocrats and Labour. They follow
whichever class is the most decisive. Trotsky also rejected the two class
dictatorship which Barnes revived in how he formulated the Workers
and Farmers government. The two class dictatorship was the
Menshevik/Stalinist theory that the workers could rule with middle class
and Capitalist forces. This Menshevik/Stalinist theory was a revision of Marx’s
line on the unstable character of petty-bourgeois forces in how they
differentiate between Capital and labour. The essence of Trotsky’s
theory is that classical Bourgeois-Democratic tasks such as land reform
could only be carried out by revolutionary workers overthrowing Capitalism
because Bourgeois forces would block any major reform due to their
potential profits being threatened.
BEING THE MOST
CONSISTENT
IN ANALYSING CONTRADICTORY
EFFECTS OF 1989 EVENTS IN
EASTERN EUROPE.
Alongside Ernest Mandel I was one of the few Trotskyists to analyse the
contradictory character of 1989 Eastern European upheavals. The line
I agree with is that Trotskyists support all challenges to Bureaucratic rule
by workers and equally oppose moves to Capitalist restoration. There
was a dispute within the Socialist Action editorial board over how
to respond to these rebellions. Fourth International supporters argued a
line I agree with wherehas the editorial board majority adapted to
Stalinism by dismissing all the workers rebellions moving in the
direction of incipient Political Revolution as purely counter-revolutionary.
Again I was not aware of this dispute.
There are three qualifications I would make to my 1989 analysis,
I tended to be spontationist in seeing inevitable Political Revolution
without a revolutionary leadership. Due to this crisis of leadership
the struggle between workers; Bureaucrats; and Capitalists have been
protracted. Socialist Action was one extreme but Trotskyists should
have been more critical of those petty-bourgeois leaderships of the
1989 revolutions who went onto to link with elements of the
Bureaucratic Castes that became conciliatory to Imperialism. During
1989 I was proven wrong that Trotskyism would massively grow.
What I under-estimated was to the extent that the Liberal Bourgeoisie
within the Imperialist countries could get a new lease of life
ideologically.
The weakening of Stalinism in Eastern Europe and Russia has created
a whole series of hybrid; contradictory; and transitional phenomena.
There has been Capitalist economic inroads within these states but
they remain Workers’ States due to the predominance of non-Capitalist
ownership of key industries/sectors of those economies/industries.
Trotsky’s prediction of Stalinism imploding going in every direction
has been proven correct. Another aspect of Trotsky’s analysis is that
the main section of Russian Stalinism would resist going back
to Capitalism because of losing their privileges. This is because
restoring Capitalism would mean this because Capitalism would
only keep those Bureaucrats who were profitable.
There have been certain Stalinist formations set up on a chauvinist basis
as they see that is the best way of protecting the Bureaucrats power,
They have set up these parties in certain cases with right wing Bourgeois
forces. Unlike the Stalinphobes we see the Stalinists has predominantly
leading such parties but oppose them for being chauvinistic and
being in alliance with Bourgeois forces. This is another example
of Trotsky’s analysis that Stalinism by its counter-revolutionary
character lays the basis for its own overthrow by chauvinists to
their right. Trotskyists also recognise that these Stalinist and
Bourgeois forces in chauvinist alliances are ultimately irreconcilable
due to their different class basis. The upturn of world revolution
can help lay the basis for other Political Revolutions in these
countries to clear these degenerates out.
HIGHLIGHT NUMBER 2 DEMOLISHING
SEAN MATGANNA ON IRELAND
AT A 1995 DEBATE.
I joined the ISG in 1993. One of my best interventions outside
of a 2002 summary at a ISG aggregate was when I made a
5 minute contribution on Ireland at a 1995 debate on Ireland.
In that contribution I went briefly why Bourgeois Nationalists
could not defeat Imperialism in North of Ireland; why the
struggle to reunify Ireland was tied with the Permanent
Revolution; and ended up attacking Matgamma for reviving
Kautsky’s Ultra-Imperialism with him arguing a federal
Europe could liberate Ireland.
BEING INVOLVED WITH
A TENDENCY STRUGGLE
WITHIN THE ISG.
In April 1996 I was involved with other co-thinkers in establishing
Tendency E to oppose a majority which was arguing for de-facto
Strategic Entryism and to fight an element from a tendency we came out
Of (Tendency C) which was under Ultra-Left pressures. TE opposed
both currents for semi-rejecting Trotsky’s analysis of Bureaucracy
in Russia; and being sectarian in the Russian Communist Party’s
struggle against Yeltsin. For three months in the summer of 1996 I wrote a
74 page document (which Bob Whitehead edited and reduced to
37 pages by double pages) defending our tendency’s line on Russia.
The main thrust of that document was to attack “State Capitalist” theory
and British SWP’s method of politics.
WHY I LEFT THE ISG
IN 2002.
From 2000 layers of the ISG started crossing class lines with central
leaders supporting Imperialist UN occupation of East Timor. In 2002
there were further three qualitative developments in the ISG’s leadership
degeneration. They were calling for a vote to Chirac; dumping most
of the Workers’ States except Cuba; and liquidating a revolutionary
paper into Centrism,
Since I left in November 2002 the ISG has degenerated further with
them going into a Popular Front with Respect; Socialist Resistance in
statements suggesting they support Prosecution of Sheridan. Now
Socialist Resistance have supported Galloway organisationally against
Forces opposing his Popular Frontism. Their degeneration reminds me
What Cannon said that small degenerations grow into bigger
Degenerations.
PROSPECTS FOR
TROTSKYISM.
Revolutionary Marxism is growing among radical youth globally. This
is because of Capitalism’s and Stalinism’s crisis. Trotskyism has the
potential to grow and attract the best of the youth due to the correctness
of our ideas and being bold. There has a greater potential for Trotskyism
among these layers than the 1960s.
I am glad to be a Trotskyist for 20 years and bring some of my knowledge
and experiences in helping to forge a Trotskyist cadre.
On November 15th (a week this Thursday) I became a convinced ideological
Trotskyist but too young at 10 to join the movement. At 16 I joined the
4th International. Watching on the TV how the riot police treated Miners
who were just fighting to keep their jobs radicalised me and helped the
process of becoming a Socialist.
THEORY OF PERMANENT REVOLUTION
VERSUS STAGES THEORY WON ME
TO TROTSKYISM.
Before I left primary school I was reading books at the school library on
the Russian Revolution. In 1987 I became interested in Trotsky’s
theory of Permanent Revolution against the Mensheviks-Stalinists
theory of stages. This coincided although I did not know this
at the time with an internal struggle within the Socialist Action editorial
board between supporters of Permanent Revolution and those who rejected
that theory due to agreeing with Jack Barnes’s line. The Barnesites lost
that battle and set up their own organisation in February 1988/
What I learnt from Trotsky is that the Peasantry is middle class
which vacillates between Capitalists/Aristocrats and Labour. They follow
whichever class is the most decisive. Trotsky also rejected the two class
dictatorship which Barnes revived in how he formulated the Workers
and Farmers government. The two class dictatorship was the
Menshevik/Stalinist theory that the workers could rule with middle class
and Capitalist forces. This Menshevik/Stalinist theory was a revision of Marx’s
line on the unstable character of petty-bourgeois forces in how they
differentiate between Capital and labour. The essence of Trotsky’s
theory is that classical Bourgeois-Democratic tasks such as land reform
could only be carried out by revolutionary workers overthrowing Capitalism
because Bourgeois forces would block any major reform due to their
potential profits being threatened.
BEING THE MOST
CONSISTENT
IN ANALYSING CONTRADICTORY
EFFECTS OF 1989 EVENTS IN
EASTERN EUROPE.
Alongside Ernest Mandel I was one of the few Trotskyists to analyse the
contradictory character of 1989 Eastern European upheavals. The line
I agree with is that Trotskyists support all challenges to Bureaucratic rule
by workers and equally oppose moves to Capitalist restoration. There
was a dispute within the Socialist Action editorial board over how
to respond to these rebellions. Fourth International supporters argued a
line I agree with wherehas the editorial board majority adapted to
Stalinism by dismissing all the workers rebellions moving in the
direction of incipient Political Revolution as purely counter-revolutionary.
Again I was not aware of this dispute.
There are three qualifications I would make to my 1989 analysis,
I tended to be spontationist in seeing inevitable Political Revolution
without a revolutionary leadership. Due to this crisis of leadership
the struggle between workers; Bureaucrats; and Capitalists have been
protracted. Socialist Action was one extreme but Trotskyists should
have been more critical of those petty-bourgeois leaderships of the
1989 revolutions who went onto to link with elements of the
Bureaucratic Castes that became conciliatory to Imperialism. During
1989 I was proven wrong that Trotskyism would massively grow.
What I under-estimated was to the extent that the Liberal Bourgeoisie
within the Imperialist countries could get a new lease of life
ideologically.
The weakening of Stalinism in Eastern Europe and Russia has created
a whole series of hybrid; contradictory; and transitional phenomena.
There has been Capitalist economic inroads within these states but
they remain Workers’ States due to the predominance of non-Capitalist
ownership of key industries/sectors of those economies/industries.
Trotsky’s prediction of Stalinism imploding going in every direction
has been proven correct. Another aspect of Trotsky’s analysis is that
the main section of Russian Stalinism would resist going back
to Capitalism because of losing their privileges. This is because
restoring Capitalism would mean this because Capitalism would
only keep those Bureaucrats who were profitable.
There have been certain Stalinist formations set up on a chauvinist basis
as they see that is the best way of protecting the Bureaucrats power,
They have set up these parties in certain cases with right wing Bourgeois
forces. Unlike the Stalinphobes we see the Stalinists has predominantly
leading such parties but oppose them for being chauvinistic and
being in alliance with Bourgeois forces. This is another example
of Trotsky’s analysis that Stalinism by its counter-revolutionary
character lays the basis for its own overthrow by chauvinists to
their right. Trotskyists also recognise that these Stalinist and
Bourgeois forces in chauvinist alliances are ultimately irreconcilable
due to their different class basis. The upturn of world revolution
can help lay the basis for other Political Revolutions in these
countries to clear these degenerates out.
HIGHLIGHT NUMBER 2 DEMOLISHING
SEAN MATGANNA ON IRELAND
AT A 1995 DEBATE.
I joined the ISG in 1993. One of my best interventions outside
of a 2002 summary at a ISG aggregate was when I made a
5 minute contribution on Ireland at a 1995 debate on Ireland.
In that contribution I went briefly why Bourgeois Nationalists
could not defeat Imperialism in North of Ireland; why the
struggle to reunify Ireland was tied with the Permanent
Revolution; and ended up attacking Matgamma for reviving
Kautsky’s Ultra-Imperialism with him arguing a federal
Europe could liberate Ireland.
BEING INVOLVED WITH
A TENDENCY STRUGGLE
WITHIN THE ISG.
In April 1996 I was involved with other co-thinkers in establishing
Tendency E to oppose a majority which was arguing for de-facto
Strategic Entryism and to fight an element from a tendency we came out
Of (Tendency C) which was under Ultra-Left pressures. TE opposed
both currents for semi-rejecting Trotsky’s analysis of Bureaucracy
in Russia; and being sectarian in the Russian Communist Party’s
struggle against Yeltsin. For three months in the summer of 1996 I wrote a
74 page document (which Bob Whitehead edited and reduced to
37 pages by double pages) defending our tendency’s line on Russia.
The main thrust of that document was to attack “State Capitalist” theory
and British SWP’s method of politics.
WHY I LEFT THE ISG
IN 2002.
From 2000 layers of the ISG started crossing class lines with central
leaders supporting Imperialist UN occupation of East Timor. In 2002
there were further three qualitative developments in the ISG’s leadership
degeneration. They were calling for a vote to Chirac; dumping most
of the Workers’ States except Cuba; and liquidating a revolutionary
paper into Centrism,
Since I left in November 2002 the ISG has degenerated further with
them going into a Popular Front with Respect; Socialist Resistance in
statements suggesting they support Prosecution of Sheridan. Now
Socialist Resistance have supported Galloway organisationally against
Forces opposing his Popular Frontism. Their degeneration reminds me
What Cannon said that small degenerations grow into bigger
Degenerations.
PROSPECTS FOR
TROTSKYISM.
Revolutionary Marxism is growing among radical youth globally. This
is because of Capitalism’s and Stalinism’s crisis. Trotskyism has the
potential to grow and attract the best of the youth due to the correctness
of our ideas and being bold. There has a greater potential for Trotskyism
among these layers than the 1960s.
I am glad to be a Trotskyist for 20 years and bring some of my knowledge
and experiences in helping to forge a Trotskyist cadre.
Wednesday 4 July 2007
Statement on Chris Brook article concerning AWL in summer edition of Socialist Resistance
STATEMENT ON CHRIS BROOK’S ARTICLE ON AWL ADOPTING 2ND INTERNATIONAL POSITIONS.
Brooks has made a useful contribution in tracing why Revolutionary Marxists oppose Imperialist interventions in colonies/semi-colonies. He traces the predecessors of AWL-type politics of supporting Imperialism in practice back to the Second International while it was being reformised by Social Democracy. An important point made by Brooks is how Imperialism is dividing and ruling Shiites; Sunnis; and Kurds in Iraq.
Brooks seems to making moves back towards Trotskyism. Ten years ago he split from the ISG arguing against building a Leninist-type revolutionary organisation. What happened after 1989 was contradictory. One negative effect was how the Liberal Bourgeois ideology against Marxism destroyed many on the left including former Trotskyists.
Due to the mistakes of Imperialism with NATO’s war in Serbia Capitalist restorationst dangers were lessened in Russia with the wing of Russian Stalinism opposing Capitalist restoration being strengthened. Clinton conned the masses that a Third World War was not possible with NATO’s attack on Serbia in 1999 by being quite sophisticated in his propaganda of Russia being finished as a major power.
After September 11th the Neo-Cons overplayed their hand threatening a whole number of countries aggressively. This alerted the world and American masses that this adventurism if implemented could cause such a world war. They defied the world masses by attacking Iraq. The price paid by American Imperialism is an upturn in world revolution and increase in radicalisation within the Imperialist countries.
This is why I am not convinced with Brooks’s sweeping statement that Colonialism effectively weakens class consciousness. His formulation on this question conflicts with the end of that article where he correctly calls for implementing Permanent Revolution. The Trotskyist theory of Permanent Revolution starts from Lenin’s theory of Imperialism and Trotsky’s strategy that class conflicts are fought more sharply in Colonies/Semi-Colonies due to lack of manoeuvrability of Bourgeois Nationalists. Socialist revolutions are more favourable in these countries objectively with Capitalism tending to break as Lenin formulated it “in its weakest link”.
The Neo-Con adventures has led to a link between Colonial fights against Imperialism tied up with anti-War movements within the Imperialist countries. These two sectors of world revolution are linking up. It is not fully rounded with the masses within Imperialist countries understanding why they should support Colonial struggles against Imperialism. This is why a revolutionary party and international is needed. On a mass level millions in the Imperialist countries accept the demand for US withdraw from Iraq. It is very positive they accept this demand because a mass movement is building around this clear anti-Imperialist demand.
The Workers’ States have linked up with the colonial revolution with Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies opposing a whole number of Imperialist interventions. Trotsky is growing in influence due to the rise of world revolution. What we are witnessing is the biggest upturn of world revolution since the end of both world wars. Revolutions broke out at the end of those wars because millions rose up against Capitalist barbarism. It is the threat of a Third World War which is a causing a similar development as billions don’t want to be annihilated in nuclear suicide. Trotskyism can gain a mass base under these objective conditions maturing.
There are a layer of ex-Trotskyists who cannot be salvaged. The future Trotskyist cadres will be built out of new forces; those who broke from a rounded Trotskyist programme reconsidering and moving back towards Trotskyism; and winning millions who will break from Social Democracy and Stalinism. This is why I object to Brooks characterising Trotsky as old-fashioned.
Brooks has made a useful contribution in tracing why Revolutionary Marxists oppose Imperialist interventions in colonies/semi-colonies. He traces the predecessors of AWL-type politics of supporting Imperialism in practice back to the Second International while it was being reformised by Social Democracy. An important point made by Brooks is how Imperialism is dividing and ruling Shiites; Sunnis; and Kurds in Iraq.
Brooks seems to making moves back towards Trotskyism. Ten years ago he split from the ISG arguing against building a Leninist-type revolutionary organisation. What happened after 1989 was contradictory. One negative effect was how the Liberal Bourgeois ideology against Marxism destroyed many on the left including former Trotskyists.
Due to the mistakes of Imperialism with NATO’s war in Serbia Capitalist restorationst dangers were lessened in Russia with the wing of Russian Stalinism opposing Capitalist restoration being strengthened. Clinton conned the masses that a Third World War was not possible with NATO’s attack on Serbia in 1999 by being quite sophisticated in his propaganda of Russia being finished as a major power.
After September 11th the Neo-Cons overplayed their hand threatening a whole number of countries aggressively. This alerted the world and American masses that this adventurism if implemented could cause such a world war. They defied the world masses by attacking Iraq. The price paid by American Imperialism is an upturn in world revolution and increase in radicalisation within the Imperialist countries.
This is why I am not convinced with Brooks’s sweeping statement that Colonialism effectively weakens class consciousness. His formulation on this question conflicts with the end of that article where he correctly calls for implementing Permanent Revolution. The Trotskyist theory of Permanent Revolution starts from Lenin’s theory of Imperialism and Trotsky’s strategy that class conflicts are fought more sharply in Colonies/Semi-Colonies due to lack of manoeuvrability of Bourgeois Nationalists. Socialist revolutions are more favourable in these countries objectively with Capitalism tending to break as Lenin formulated it “in its weakest link”.
The Neo-Con adventures has led to a link between Colonial fights against Imperialism tied up with anti-War movements within the Imperialist countries. These two sectors of world revolution are linking up. It is not fully rounded with the masses within Imperialist countries understanding why they should support Colonial struggles against Imperialism. This is why a revolutionary party and international is needed. On a mass level millions in the Imperialist countries accept the demand for US withdraw from Iraq. It is very positive they accept this demand because a mass movement is building around this clear anti-Imperialist demand.
The Workers’ States have linked up with the colonial revolution with Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies opposing a whole number of Imperialist interventions. Trotsky is growing in influence due to the rise of world revolution. What we are witnessing is the biggest upturn of world revolution since the end of both world wars. Revolutions broke out at the end of those wars because millions rose up against Capitalist barbarism. It is the threat of a Third World War which is a causing a similar development as billions don’t want to be annihilated in nuclear suicide. Trotskyism can gain a mass base under these objective conditions maturing.
There are a layer of ex-Trotskyists who cannot be salvaged. The future Trotskyist cadres will be built out of new forces; those who broke from a rounded Trotskyist programme reconsidering and moving back towards Trotskyism; and winning millions who will break from Social Democracy and Stalinism. This is why I object to Brooks characterising Trotsky as old-fashioned.
Sunday 24 June 2007
One additional point on Harman
As I pointed out in April 2006 on this blog see (what McDonnell meeting
reveals about the period?) that if Brown carried on with Blair's offensive
against the Labour Movement there was a potential of titanic class battles.
The postal strike next friday and UNISON conference defeating Prentis in
favour of co-ordinated public sector srike action against low pay and
privisation is an indication of what's coming.
I have outlined how the radicalisation is already influencing the Labour
Party. If these strikes come into conflict with Brown it could deepen
the tensions within this party. By an oreination to the Labour Party
Trotskyists are not Conservative (with a small c) to youth who
rebel on the sreets which might appear in this radicalisation.
It could even be a sign of this radicalisation deepening into a pre-revolutionary
crisis. The role of Trotskyists is to link the revolutionary youth with the
millions of workers opppsing Brown. In doing this Trotskyists do not
adapt to the ultra-leftism of the youth who might subsitute themselves
for revolutionary action of millions and don't understand how to break
millions of workers from Social Democracy. A revolution is only possible
when millions of workers are convinced of this course. If the Ruling Class
senses a pre-revolutionary crisis is coming they could use Social Democracy
to give out reforms to stop a potential revolution. This is why Trotskyists
have to relate to Social Democracy so we can keep in touch with these workers
and don't allow ourselves to be outmanourved.
reveals about the period?) that if Brown carried on with Blair's offensive
against the Labour Movement there was a potential of titanic class battles.
The postal strike next friday and UNISON conference defeating Prentis in
favour of co-ordinated public sector srike action against low pay and
privisation is an indication of what's coming.
I have outlined how the radicalisation is already influencing the Labour
Party. If these strikes come into conflict with Brown it could deepen
the tensions within this party. By an oreination to the Labour Party
Trotskyists are not Conservative (with a small c) to youth who
rebel on the sreets which might appear in this radicalisation.
It could even be a sign of this radicalisation deepening into a pre-revolutionary
crisis. The role of Trotskyists is to link the revolutionary youth with the
millions of workers opppsing Brown. In doing this Trotskyists do not
adapt to the ultra-leftism of the youth who might subsitute themselves
for revolutionary action of millions and don't understand how to break
millions of workers from Social Democracy. A revolution is only possible
when millions of workers are convinced of this course. If the Ruling Class
senses a pre-revolutionary crisis is coming they could use Social Democracy
to give out reforms to stop a potential revolution. This is why Trotskyists
have to relate to Social Democracy so we can keep in touch with these workers
and don't allow ourselves to be outmanourved.
Why Harman's election to deputy leader of the Labour Party represents a radicalisation!
HARMAN’S ELECTION REPRESENTS A RADICALISATION IN THE LABOUR MOVEMENT DESPITE ITS DISTORTED CHARACTER.
Harriet Harman’s election to deputy leader of the Labour Party this afternoon represents in a distorted manner a radicalisation within the Labour Movement against Brown’s policies. Her acceptance speech reflected this when she called for more council housing; for more democracy in the Labour Party; criticising to a certain extent the Iraq war; and what potentially a Labour government could achieve. Two examples of this she cited were the minimum wage and increased rights for gays/lesbians.
As a Trotskyist I have many criticisms of her acceptance speech. Examples are Harman prettifying one-sidely the increases in NHS which have largely strengthened private Capitalists; supporting British Imperialist troops in Iraq; and supporting the family. Those payments to a limited degree have peripherally strengthened the NHS. Harman played a terrible role in 1997 in cutting single parent benefits. Where the ultra-lefts go wrong is not seeing that radicalisations can take on all kinds of distorted forms and they break in practice from the Transitional method of posing demands on Social Democrats to carry out a fight so we can win their mass base over.
Trotsky in the 1920s argued for example argued that the landslide victory of Liberals in a 1906 British General Election represented a radicalisation reflecting a European radicalisation strongly influenced by the 1905 Russian revolutionary upheaval. Marxists would not vote Liberal because it was a Bourgeois party. Voting for Social Democrats is tactical and permissible because they are part of the workers movement. Trotskyists should demand that Harman fights for policies that benefit workers and the oppressed by struggling against Brown.
Brown is trying to stop this growing radicalisation within the Labour Party by trying to form a coalition government with Bourgeois parties e.g. Liberal Democrats and Conservative Party. Those on the left who argue falsely the Labour Party and Russia is Capitalist have confused intermediately stages of going in that direction with the completion of this process. Due to confusing those stages in these processes they are caught in a difficult position with the Bureaucrats in Russia reversing Capitalist restoration which is helping this economy to recover.
Labour going Bourgeois has been setback in a big way with the Blairites being kicked out. The fight against Brown will determine whether Labour will stay a workers party and whether a major left split will break from Labour. Trotskyists do not believe like the old Militant group that Labour can be transformed into a revolutionary party but relate to millions of workers who look to Social Democracy for a lead, so that Trotskyists can win millions of workers to a mass revolutionary party.
Harriet Harman’s election to deputy leader of the Labour Party this afternoon represents in a distorted manner a radicalisation within the Labour Movement against Brown’s policies. Her acceptance speech reflected this when she called for more council housing; for more democracy in the Labour Party; criticising to a certain extent the Iraq war; and what potentially a Labour government could achieve. Two examples of this she cited were the minimum wage and increased rights for gays/lesbians.
As a Trotskyist I have many criticisms of her acceptance speech. Examples are Harman prettifying one-sidely the increases in NHS which have largely strengthened private Capitalists; supporting British Imperialist troops in Iraq; and supporting the family. Those payments to a limited degree have peripherally strengthened the NHS. Harman played a terrible role in 1997 in cutting single parent benefits. Where the ultra-lefts go wrong is not seeing that radicalisations can take on all kinds of distorted forms and they break in practice from the Transitional method of posing demands on Social Democrats to carry out a fight so we can win their mass base over.
Trotsky in the 1920s argued for example argued that the landslide victory of Liberals in a 1906 British General Election represented a radicalisation reflecting a European radicalisation strongly influenced by the 1905 Russian revolutionary upheaval. Marxists would not vote Liberal because it was a Bourgeois party. Voting for Social Democrats is tactical and permissible because they are part of the workers movement. Trotskyists should demand that Harman fights for policies that benefit workers and the oppressed by struggling against Brown.
Brown is trying to stop this growing radicalisation within the Labour Party by trying to form a coalition government with Bourgeois parties e.g. Liberal Democrats and Conservative Party. Those on the left who argue falsely the Labour Party and Russia is Capitalist have confused intermediately stages of going in that direction with the completion of this process. Due to confusing those stages in these processes they are caught in a difficult position with the Bureaucrats in Russia reversing Capitalist restoration which is helping this economy to recover.
Labour going Bourgeois has been setback in a big way with the Blairites being kicked out. The fight against Brown will determine whether Labour will stay a workers party and whether a major left split will break from Labour. Trotskyists do not believe like the old Militant group that Labour can be transformed into a revolutionary party but relate to millions of workers who look to Social Democracy for a lead, so that Trotskyists can win millions of workers to a mass revolutionary party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
