Introduction to Socialism or Barbarism

Entry for 19 January 2007
Completion of introducton to "Socialism or barbarism".
Capitalism is in its worse crisis since the 1930s. It is in Third World countries where Capitalist barbarism is expressing itself in millions of deaths through starvation; diseases; and wars. The rise of revolutionary struggles in Latin America is raising Socialist ideas and solutions to problems of Capitalist poverty and starvation.
Trotskyism is beginning to gain a hearing in rising struggles within Latin America. There are great opportunities with Chavez supporting Trotsky’s strategy of Permanent Revolution. This represents a further break on his part from Bourgeois Nationalism. He is not a fully-fledged Trotskyist but represents an important stage of reflecting the Masses beginning to go in this direction.
Ultra-Left Sectarians go wrong in not recognising the mass pressures on Chavez and how he has reacted to this by going partly in their direction. Chavez may not go all the way towards Trotskyism. It is important however that Trotskyists recognise reality when a head of state representing millions of Proletarians radicalising moves in our direction.
As I’ve said previously Trotskyists recognise Chavez’s first moves and don’t confuse that with his full evolutionary course which is yet to be determined. Trotskyists in contrast to Ultra-Left Sectarians who take an abstentionist attitude to the mass pressures on Chavez adopt a Transitional approach by calling on him to implement a Trotskyist programme of starting from mass anti-Capitalist/anti-Imperialist struggles to a conscious strategy of workers leading a struggle towards the seizure of power.
There should be a dual approach towards Chavez. Firstly Trotskyists fight for our strategy irrespective of what he argues. Secondly if he evolves more in a Trotskyist direction we would welcome in our movement. Trotskyism in the tradition of Marxism and Bolshevism has the capacity to be critical of ourselves let alone other forces. This is why we stress democratic debate within the Leninist framework of democratic centralism.
American Imperialism has been involved in a number of adventures in recent years. They are losing two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These adventures have led to massive anti-Imperialist movements within Third World countries. Except for Latin America; parts of India; and Nepal they are mostly led by Bourgeois Nationalist forces.
The important thing for Trotskyists is masses are beginning to move in these countries despite their reactionary leadership. This is because when the masses rise up in their hundreds of thousands or millions could go in any direction. In these revolutionary struggles against Imperialism Trotskyism can to begin to gain an influence if the masses move left; challenge the Bourgeois Nationalists; and at the same tine don’t take a sectarian attitude to the anti-Imperialist movements.
Saddam Hussein’s execution by American Imperialism could deepen mass uprisings against Imperialism particularly in the Middle East and south Asia. This is because these masses realise U.S. Imperialism is trying to terrorise them not to challenge their dominance. It will have the opposite effect: the masses could mobilise in their millions to overthrow the Arab pro-Imperialist regimes. This could bring the Arab Working Class entering politics.
There is already a beginning of demonstrations in Jordan; Iraq and Kashmir against the Hussein execution. Hussein’s two daughters were at the centre of demonstrations in Jordan. They could become symbols of resistance to American Imperialism. Sixteen per cent of Iraqis have left there since the U.S. occupation from 2003. A million Iraqis have gone into Syria. Three quarters of a million are in Jordan. An Hundred and a fifty thousand have entered Egypt. Some of them are Bourgeois and Petty-Bourgeois forces who have lost out from the U.S.-led Imperialist occupation of Iraq. Undoubtedly some of them would be Working Class.
This is on top of least thousands of Lebanese entering Syria during the 34 day war with Israel during the summer of 2006. These different classes could have a destabilising effect on these Arab states. The Bourgeois forces would be fearful of mobilising the masses in case their rule would be threatened. If workers lead the struggle against pro-Imperialist Arab regimes decisive Petty-Bourgeois layers could be won over to a Socialist Revolution which combines overthrow of pro-Imperialist/semi-Feudal regimes with the Socialist tasks expropriating Imperialist and Bourgeois owned property. Bourgeois forces would attempt to stop this happening by trying to hegemonise any mass upheaval if it occurs.
Only Trotskyism has the programme; strategy; and tactics of analysing the complexities arising from Imperialist domination of Colonies/Semi-Colonies; national oppression; tribal differences; and class exploitation both by Imperialism and Bourgeois Nationalists. In the tradition of Bolshevism and Trotskyism we support all Colonial struggles against Imperialist forces who directly military intervene in these countries irrespective if they led by Bourgeois Nationalists or even semi-Feudal forces.
We also support any expropriation of Imperialist property or assets again even it is led by such non-working class forces. This flows from our understanding of Permanent Revolution. We take advantage of this contradiction if it explodes in a war between Bourgeois Nationalists/semi-Feudal elements against Imperialism. In Afghanistan; Iraq; Sierra Leonne; and Haiti we support the driving out of Imperialist forces there.
Individual Terrorist attacks we oppose e.g. July 7th 2005 bombing of London tubes and bus because it hits incident working class people whose alliance we need if Colonial wars against Imperialism can be won quicker. Attacks such as July 7th 2005 play in the Imperialist Ruling Classes hands of isolating support for Colonial struggles.
In Semi-Colonies the Bourgeois Nationalists oppress other nationalities, and tribes. The Trotskyist attitude to such struggles is determined by what role Imperialism is playing in such battles, and whether it is ending genuine national oppression.
Kurdish struggles are a good example in the Middle East. Until 1991 Trotskyists correctly supported unconditionally the Kurdish struggle for self-determination against Turkish Imperialism; and against Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian Bourgeois Nationalist oppression. From 1991 once U.S. and British Imperialism supporting certain Bourgeois Kurdish forces the fight against those Imperialist powers need a greater emphasis. Trotskyists see Imperialist occupation of a country like Iraq as worse than the Bourgeois Nationalists oppressing other nationalities. This is because they can exploit more of their natural resources and have a greater force to suppress anti-Imperialist and workers struggles.
From the 2003 Iraqi War onwards we fight for the Kurdish part to stay in Iraq, so the Imperialists can’t steal their oil. The Kurdish struggle directed against Turkish Imperialism Trotskyists correctly support. We hold this position unless U.S. Imperialism supports such forces to weaken Turkish Imperialism.
In Latin America since 2000 there have been several revolutionary upheavals. In Bolivia a pre-revolutionary crisis (at least) during summer months of 2005 overthrow a Bourgeois government and forced early elections. The Bolivian Ruling Class used this tactic in order to stop their overthrow and play for time to manoeuvre. Morales was elected in January 2006 out of this mass radicalisation. In order to maintain his base Morales has nationalised certain parts of the gas and oil industries.
Morales is a Social Democrat carrying out these reforms in order to maintain his base and sees this as the best way of maintaining Capitalism. Trotskyists support all anti-Capitalist measures he makes but call on him to expropriate all Capitalists. In one region of Bolivia Trade Unionists; coffee growers etc formed a revolutionary council and demanded the governor resigns. They called on Morales to recognise them ruling that region but he has refused. We support all initiatives of workers attempting to seize power. This struggle can help workers realise what Morales is up to and win decisive layers of them towards a revolutionary alternative.
In Africa there have been big workers struggles this decade in Nigeria and a massive revolutionary upheaval currently unfolding in Guinea now. From what I read on 16th of January 2007 there have been revolutionary upheavals in Guinea for nine days. It is over prices rising. What made things worse for the Guinean government is that police killed demonstrators in Conakry (capital). Considerable number of workers struck including Bauxite miners. These workers are demanding the government resigns.
Barbarism has expressed itself in Eastern Europe and until very recently in Russia alongside other ex-Soviet states. This is because the potential of Political Revolution in 1989-1991 was missed due to the lack of a proper revolutionary leadership. These Workers’ States went through a major crisis with the extreme Bureaucratic pillage and inroads of Capitalism. Millions as a result died of starvation and disease.
Stalinist barbarism was expressed in Serb Stalinism’s slaughter of Bosnians and the murder of thousands of Kosovan Albanians by the Serbian Bureaucracy. One of the negative consequences of the Serbian Bureaucracy’s war in Bosnia was its destruction as a multi-ethnic society. NATO’s intervention compounded the barbarism by killing thousands in their attempts to overthrow the Workers’ State first in Bosnia during 1995 and then throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) in 1999 by trying to destroy the Stalinist forces military.
China despite its Stalinist leadership (and Capitalist inroads which are peripheral to the main growth which is in the planed economy) has shown how a Workers’ State can massively develop the productive forces and lift 300 million workers and peasants out of poverty. Even Bourgeois commentators admit it is the biggest economic development in history. The power of a Workers’ State is impacting on Asia. This is despite the Chinese Bureaucracy’s attempts to stop the spread of their revolution to the rest of Asia. The potential of a Socialist Revolution in Nepal have been betrayed by Maoists joining a Bourgeois government. There are Maoist struggles throughout India.
Despite led by treacherous Stalinist leaderships Trotskyists can take advantage of radicalisations and pre-revolutionary crises caused by these masses going into struggle. Trotskyism can hegomonise these masses if they fight for our politics and try to break their Maoist dominance through conducting a United Front approach against Capitalism. Maoism now being in government of Nepal with Bourgeois forces will alienate their workers base, and gives openings for a Trotskyist organisation to be set up there.
The Chinese Bureaucracy is backing some Bourgeois governments in Africa who are having battles with Imperialism. This gives the Bourgeois Nationalists room to manoeuvre. Due to the Chinese Workers’ State investing in African infrastructure, these aspects of their economies are beginning to develop. Chinese money to these governments may be used to make concessions to the masses so they don’t overthrow these Bourgeois regimes.
Trotskyists disagree with the Chinese Bureaucracy’s Africa strategy. In the last analysis only the overthrow of Capitalism in Africa can the productive forces massively can go forward and end poverty. This is why we unlike the Stalinists don’t agree in propping up these Bourgeois regimes. We would use our power in arming the working class in overthrowing these Bourgeois regimes. Despite the treachery of Chinese Stalinism it is in aiding the Colonial Revolution in a distorted manner. If it wasn’t for China British Imperialism would have overthrown the Mugabe regime who are expropriating aspects of British Imperialist ownership of land in Zimbabwe.
Imperialism plays up the Stalinist crimes in ex-Yugoslavia and don’t mention the millions who died due to the Soviet Union’s break-up. These millions died of poverty, and tens of thousands were killed in wars. This has been pointed out by Historians who show the fallacy that the Soviet Union broke up peacefully in contrast to Yugoslavia.
The Yeltsinite wing of Russian Stalinism being defeated by Bureaucrats who lost out has helped to turn Russia around. Putin was brought to power by the military-industrial complex to reverse the direction Russia was going under the Yeltsinites. These Putinite Bureaucrats wanted more investment in nationalised industries/workplaces; public services which would restore some of their privileges; and expropriation of certain Capitalists and their firms who threatened this wing of the Bureaucracy’s remaining power.
This wing of Russian Stalinism also wanted to end the Imperialist encirclement of Russia brought about by Imperialism expanding into Eastern Europe, and the air strikes on Iraq in December 1998 which was to weaken Russian influence in the Middle East. The final straw for this wing was NATO bombing the FRY because they were attacking that country which was near their sphere of influence after World War 2. They feared Imperialism was testing to see how they go without this wing reacting. If they didn’t stand up to them they saw Imperialism increasing their attacks on them. The Islamic Fundamentalists attacking Dagestan in the summer of 1999 was an attempt by a Bourgeois force working with Imperialism to continue the break-up of Russia.
The defeat of Imperialism in failing to restore Capitalism in Russia and the example of a resurgent Workers’ State despite Stalinisms’ continued rule strengthens the world revolution against Capitalism. This is because it gives an example of benefits where Capitalism is overthrown. That is despite Stalinism’s attempts to stop it developing to its logical conclusion because the more world revolution deepens; the more workers within degenerated Workers’ States challenge their Stalinist rule. Trotskyism in carrying the tradition of early Marxists and Bolsheviks sees that the more world revolution extends the more Workers’ States can enter their classical norms of extensive workers democracy.
U.S. Imperialism is trying to develop nuclear weapons which they crazily hope will destroy all Russian defences. Their madness is coming from the fact that they want Russian natural resources worth billions of Dollars as U.S. Imperialism’s profitable raw materials run out. Most Russian Bureaucrats realise this danger can be answered by developing the latest sophisticated nuclear weapons. In the Russian press recently it has been revealed that Putin has congratulated military developers for launching nuclear weapons which can avoid detection through decoys. Russian Stalinism combine overwhelming military force to deter an Imperialist attack combined with treacherous policies of peaceful co-existence.
Within Western Europe due to Capitalism’s economic crisis there is millions unemployed; whole layers of workers in poverty; moves to privatise and cut back on public services. This is causing millions of workers to rebel. Over the past period there have been Social Democratic or Bourgeois parties elected to government.
When Social Democracy is in power there is great disillusionment. Due to the Revolutionary Left’s failure to win decisive layers of Social Democratic workers over it plays into the right wing’s hand. This can lead to right wing populism and Fascism.
What’s happening in Italy is an example of the dangers. Due to the Stalinist PRC being in a Popular Front with Prodi they are attacking workers. Fascists are taking advantage of this disillusionment e.g. in one incident half a coachful of Romanies were burned alive in an arson attack. Fascism has not got a mass base anywhere in Western Europe. The left have been able to hold counter-protests against Fascist marches in Italy and Belgium.
In France the 2007 Presidential elections some political commentators see as being a close election between Royale and Surkosy. Surkosy models himself on Thatcher. This shows the attack on workers and the oppressed which would happen if Surkosy wins. There’s a good chance the Socialist Party (P.S.) could win due to the struggle they led last year against Labour laws. On British BBC TV I heard one French Black person saying if Surkosy wins “there would be a bigger upheaval than the French Revolution”. Oppressed Black workers are hostile to Surkosy’s racist policies. If Le Pen gains more votes this could further destabilise France.
If there is an upheaval by oppressed ethnic minorities in France this could spread to the rest of Western Europe and involve even Caucasian workers. This is what the Imperialist ruling classes feared was happening with the Paris riots of 2005 and mass struggles against the law which would make it easier to fire younger workers. The pro-Immigrant struggles within America could deepen these anti-racist and workers struggles in Western Europe. Trotsky and American Trotskyists have always recognised that Black workers are the most oppressed. They can lead struggles which challenges racist oppression and Capitalist exploitation.
Capitalism in its pursuit of profits is threatening the ecological balance. Only a world planned economy can reverse these dangers by stopping harmful gases and finding ingenious ways of restoring the ecological balance. Before 1914 Capitalism was considered correctly to be a progressive system because it made mass industry available, which laid the basis for Socialism. This manifesto will detail the Capitalist barbarism since 1914. The manifesto will conclude with how to stop and overthrow today’s Capitalist barbarism, and a strategy on how to overthrow U.S. Capitalism which threatens nuclear annihilation of human life.