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.

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.