WHAT THE MARCH 31ST 2007 RALLY FOR JOHN MCDONNELL INDICATES ABOUT THE PERIOD?
1. A TRANSITIONAL PERIOD COMING OUT OF PAST WORKERS DEFEATS IN BRITAIN IS COMING TO AN END AND POSSIBILITIES OF MASS STRUGGLES.
What Thatcherism and Blairism has achieved for the Ruling Class is coming to an end. The masses (as I argued in the ISG when I was a member from 1997-2002) had rejected Thatcherism and wanted a return to Social Democratic policies. For a whole number of historical factors the Trade Union Bureaucracy (which I analyse later in this document) and layers of Social Democracy managed to stop mass resistance by millions of workers.
Due to the masses hatred of Blair since the 2003 Iraq war he had to rely on more ruling class support to survive. It’s absolutely astonishing with the extent of mass feeling for change what he has got away until his third term started in May 2005. Marxists should not be surprised with such glaring contradictions. Trotsky taught our movement that in the dialectics of history the opposites reflecting contradictory forces inter-relate and eventually come in violent conflict.
One reason that the radicalisation is deepening among millions of organised workers is that the Blairites are confrontational towards the rest of the labour movement. This has been a tendency since the 2nd term. As I stated previously the Iraq war accelerated this process. The last coalition which Blairism had with right wing Social Democracy was to win that 2005 general election.
2. RULING CLASS DUMPING BLAIR AND TWO FACTORS IN THE BRITISH LABOUR MOVEMENT WHICH IS LEADING TO THE DEFEAT OF BLAIRISM.
There are three inter-connected factors which are influencing the crisis in Blairism and the Labour Party. Understanding these complex contradictory factors is the only way Trotskyists can work out effective tactics. The majority of British Ruling Class elements despite their anger how he has weakened Capitalism with the Iraq adventure used him to see what he could get away before the Labour Party’s base reacted.
These ruling class elements want him out due to them facing the backlash of rising world revolution and increasing radicalisation. Most ruling class elements want a Blairite to challenge Brown because despite his pro-Capitalist policies his base is more Social Democratic and they are frightened he may have to make concessions or be overthrown.
If McDonnell was a threat they would these different ruling class factions would have closed ranks behind Brown. These ruling class elements are resisting the return of Social Democracy because with the deep structural crisis of Capitalism it would impinge too much on their profits. This means that past gains can only be defended through mass struggles which potentially threaten Capitalism.
The dialectical paradox is that the ruling class have had so many victories and got away with so much without a price being extracted it is blinding them to class pressures which are already causing a radicalisation and could possibly develop into mass upheavals. Dialectically the more ruling class elements think they are winning, its opposite in the form of growing opposition is deepening and at some point cause a mass struggle/s. One victory won by big class conflict would probably open up a flood of other struggles.
One factor has already been mentioned the growing provocations which the Blairites have to both organised and unorganised workers. This is making it more difficult for Trade Union Bureaucrats and Social Democrats to contain potential upheavals. The Blairites are not giving the Trade Union Bureaucrats and Social Democrats to play their role of conciliating and manoeuvring between the classes. Trade Union Bureaucrats are playing their treacherous role of making sure Brown does not face a serious left opposition. At the same time they are forced to call a day of action on May Day to oppose health policies.
3. THE LANDSLIDE VICTORY FOR LABOUR IN 1997 GENERAL ELECTION REPRESENTED BEGINNING OF A MASS RADICALISATION,
There was an undocumented dispute (I defended my analysis in a 2000 pre-aggregate internal bulletin on electoral tactics for 2001 General Election) within the Birmingham ISG Branch over whether the 1997 election represented a radicalisation. Stuart Richardson’s main argument for denying a radicalisation was the absence of immediate mass workers struggles.
Trotsky argued against such formalism in his late 1920s and early 1930s writings on what constituted a radicalisation. Social Democrats in France used similar arguments of Richardson who similarly denied radicalisation due to absence of mass struggles. For Trotsky what constituted a radicalisation was a feeling or a struggle by workers; the oppressed; and some middle class elements against certain Capitalist policies. This could reflect itself in politics; industrial action; and social struggles. Elections he argued could be one form of political radicalisation.
Trotsky argued that whether a radicalisation deepens; declines; or growth of contradictory reactionary trends is what form the radicalisation has taken and whether hope or disillusionment grows among the masses. Due to workers defeats in the 1980s through major strike battles the Trade Union Bureaucrats arguments against effectiveness of strikes hegemonised whole layers of Trade Unionists. Those Bureaucrats asked their rank-and-file members to be patient and wait for a Labour government to rectify their problems. Middle class elements started demonstrating against cuts in schools. Millions of workers and middle class elements hoped that Labour would improve their lives.
The middle class elements who/have politicises have gone in different directions. There are some elements of this class who have led anti-globalisation protests and gone into the ant-war since 9/11 attacks. Reactionary tendencies have also grown among some other middle class layers. This is reflected in the growth of right wing populist forces UKIP during the 2004 European Elections and limited inroads of the Fascist BNP. When those youth attacked the stock market in June 1999, this was seen by the ruling class as an anticipation of what could happen to them if millions of workers and middle class elements did something similar in the future. In other words they feared revolution. To counter this threat Conservative Bourgeois elements were allowed to promote xenophobia and racism.
Due to the disillusionment with Blarism combined with the failure of the organised working class to assert themselves there has caused despair among middle class and unorganised workers. This would be a passing phrase if workers begin to fight and promote pro-workers answers to Capitalism’s problems. An indication of this was the broad workers and middle class support for the Firefighters strikes in 2002-3.
The huge protests against war on Iraq has mobilised workers; middle class layers; and elements of oppressed ethnicities. This has deepened the radicalisation against Imperialism. When other struggles break out some of these forces may come together. An indication of this is the rally for McDonnell on March 31st 2007. If the Liberal Bourgeoisie hadn’t adapted to this movement by Kennedy going on that demonstration in February 2003 politics could have moved to the left of Bourgeois politics and Blairism. The impact of this movement could have weakened UKIP’s and BNP’s ability to grow by dividing and ruling.
4. THE BATTLES BY WORKERS AND OPPRESSED AGAINST BROWN WILL DETERMINE WHETHER RADICALISATION DEEPENS OR REACTIONARY TENDENCIES INCREASE AMONG MIDDLE CLASS AND LUMPEN PROLETARIAN ELEMENTS.
These two big radicalisations have not been effectively used by revolutionaries due to opportunism and Ultra-Leftism of centrist forces. This problem goes back decades and can be traced to the break-up of the Revolutionary Communist Party in 1947-1950 where ex-Trotskyists began to break from Trotskyism. International and domestic problems will help to forge a Trotskyist cadre as objective conditions will give rise to this politics. Trotskyism will grow by linking up with millions of workers as they fight Brown through the Unions and political fights it will cause in the Labour Party.
Brown in the short-term will attempt to keep wage cuts among public sector workers. This is already leading to calls for strike action. The PCS is going on strike against privatisation and tens of thousands redundancies. There are other unions are considering taking solidarity action. Two processes are at work. It indicates that public sector workers are going to work together to fight Brown’s policies and could even develop into a one day general strike by these workers. Trade Union Bureaucrats could utilise this mood to bargain with Brown.
At the local elections because this workers action won’t kick in onto election day and after it won’t halt the centrifugal tendencies which could be expressed in this election. In Scotland there is a danger of the SNP winning at least the biggest number of seats to the Scottish parliament. They are being quite demagogic in promising to scrap loans and student debt, alongside restoring full grants. There are dangers that the Conservative Party could make further gains by capitalising on hatred towards Blair. The BNP will attempt to make further inroads. If they make too many gains it could provoke a reaction among organised workers and among oppressed ethnicities.
The resurgence of Social Democracy within Labour is seen by what the Walsh Labour Party is campaigning for election to the Walsh assembly. They are promising to have free proscriptions. John McDonnell’s rally on March 31st shows that workers; alongside women fighting Sexism; and oppressed ethnicities struggling against Racism are coming behind him in his struggle to be leader.
This is a deepening of a radicalisation that began in the early 1980s where there were struggles for Women and Black caucuses. It is positive these forces are coming together despite being led by left wing Social Democrats. These three forces the organised working class; women; and oppressed ethnicities are coming together to begin a fight against Capitalism. Trotskyists should orientate to this form of radicalisation and win considerable numbers to an ultimate break from Social Democracy. If this policy is successfully applied a mass revolutionary party could be established.
This development around McDonnell shows how to unite the workers and oppressed. It shows the bankrupt policies of Popular Frontism carried out by SWP and Galloway with certain Bourgeois reactionary Islamic forces. Due to these alliances they can’t consistently defend workers; women; and gays/lesbians. As those workers and oppressed deepen their struggles Respect will break up among its fault-lines. The SWP have gone from one form of opportunism to another kind. They went from opposing struggles for positive action to know unprincipled alliances with Islamic Bourgeois forces. It is correct for Trotskyists to support positive action for oppressed groups. By championing these demands the oppressed can be won to the workers side.
If there is a rise in workers struggles it could dramatically weaken the reactionary tendencies. Millions of workers going on strike against pay cuts and privatisation of public services will expose the Bourgeois parties. In Belgium the Fascist vote were dramatically cut due to workers occupying a Volkswagen plant. The Fascists lost votes by calling for that plant to close down. Mass struggles by workers could shake the Labour Party up and possibly begin to split it. This could keep the Labour Party in power at the next general election and forces to its right could be weakened. Left Wing Social Democracy under these circumstances could take the Labour Party or there could be a sizeable left split under pressure of huge class battles.
5. THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS WHICH COULD INFLUENCE BRITISH SITUATION.
Revolutionary upheavals in Latin America, especially the revolutionary process unfolding in Venezuela are having a huge impact on radicalising forces. Trotskyists should circulate to British workers similar struggles which are unfolding in Western Europe. The British ruling class keep this quiet because if the effectiveness of these struggles were widely known mass struggles would break out faster.
The French Presidential elections could have a big impact if Royale wins. Royale has promised big reforms for workers. Irrespective of whether she implements these reforms, workers there will have big expectations of change which could even lead to bigger struggles by them. Her victory could strengthen Social Democratic tendencies within the British Labour Party.
China’s massive economic development shows the alternative to Capitalism of what a Workers’ State can accomplish. This is why the British Ruling Class through its media is finding every weakness in China to undercut an ideological rival. The Chinese Bureaucracy does not want extension of world Socialist revolution. Imperialism understands this but they utilise their weaknesses to undermine ideologically the economic base which poses an alternative to Capitalism.
6. TWO WEAKNESSES AT MCDONNELL RALLY AND HOW A TROTSKYIST ORGANISATION WILL BE FORGED.
Two problems with the rally was hostility to Mugabe and Stalinphobia towards Putin. Mugabe is a Bourgeois Nationalist which workers should oppose. In this context he is expropriating aspects of Imperialist owned land which should be supported. Trotsky argued in 1938 that Bourgeois Nationalists in semi-Colonies have a dual character. They are both exploited and exploiters. Imperialism exploits them and Bourgeois Nationalists exploit workers.
Any anti-Imperialist action should be supported by Trotskyists. We take advantage of this Bourgeois Nationalist and Imperialist divide to strengthen the workers. By understanding the Permanent Revolution we know that only the working class can end Imperialist rule in Zimbabwe because the Bourgeois Nationalists will make a deal with Imperialism because they fear workers the most. I instinctively felt there was a layer not distancing themselves sufficiently from Imperialist attacks on Mugabe.
Putin is carrying out terrible Stalinist crimes in Chechnya. Somebody at the rally got up and said that Putin “is carrying out Western interests in Chechnya”. This is a completely wrong analysis. As always the Russian Bureaucracy is both oppressing Chechnyans and crushing pro-Imperialist elements. Imperialism was furious when Russia re-entered Chechnya because they hoped the oil resources would fall into their hands. As the Cold War deepens between the Russian Workers’ State and Imperialism there will be more recognition of the dual nature of Russian Stalinism.
No process is completely perfect. This is why a revolutionary party is built around a rounded programme which sees all the complexities internationally and in Britain.
Tuesday, 10 April 2007
Monday, 19 March 2007
Introduction to Bob Swart letter to British League for Socialst Action on Labour Party
INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON WHY I AM REPRINTING THIS LETTER.
Revolutionary Marxists since the Labour Party was formed in 1900 main strategy and tactics has been how to break millions of workers from Social Democracy and over to revolutionary politics. Engels explained during the 19th century that due to the dominance of British Capitalism and Imperialism the price has been Opportunism and Ultra-Leftism. Lenin and Trotsky both opposed dismissing battles within Social Democracy which involves millions of workers and at the same rejecting utopian Strategic Entryist policy of old Militant Tendency of turning Labour into a revolutionary party. Against such illusions both Lenin and Trotsky stressed that the Social Democratic Bureaucracy would attempt to exclude forces which threatened their hegemony over workers.
The relevance of this letter is that Ultra-Left Centrists are in crisis as they were during the early 1980s as Blarism is losing the Labour Party and Social Democracy is trying to regain their hegemony in this party. In the period that Swart wrote this letter Tariq Ali attempted to liquidate into this party. Ultra-Left currents still dominated the International Marxist Group (IMG) by not joining Labour to have a united front with the Bennite left against right wing Social Democracy.
Trotskyists should have entered Labour with that united front tactic in order to relate with millions of workers who were radicalising in a Socialist direction despite limitations of its Left Social Democratic leadership. They should have used the Transitional method to bridge the gap between their embryonic Socialist consciousnesses to take them towards revolutionary answers.
Eventually the IMG enter Labour and renamed themselves as supporters of Socialist Action. John Ross did a zig-zag from opposing entry to extreme opportunism. He opposed Tony Benn running for leader of Labour in 1988 because it hindered Livingstone’s chance to be leader at a later stage.
For a whole number of reasons the Social Democratic left was seriously weakened by 1994. Blairism did represent something new in that he attempted to Bourgeoisifly it. He failed. The radicalisation by millions of workers and middle class elements with the landslide weakened his coalition plans with the Liberal Democrats. Those Ultra-Lefts who prematurely wrote off battles between Social Democracy and Blairism broke with law of Uneven and Combined Development with the Blairite manoeuvres to Bourgeoisifly Labour and the resistance of Social Democracy.
Labour is still has a contradictory and dual character as a Social Democratic party which Blairsm has not destroyed. Trade Unions affiliated to Labour alongside thousands of Labour Party activists with some being councillors; and a sizeable layer of Social Democratic MPs sponsored by Trade Unions (even the unaffiliated RMT has 24 sponsored Labour MPs). Blarism still has a base among layers of MPs and in some of the constituencies.
This Social Democratic layer has to be taken into account when Trotskyists determine our tactics. For example when Labour lost councils, those who replaced them were Conservative and Liberal Democratic ones which soon afterwards moved secondary schools out of LEA control.
There is a big danger of a Conservative majority or Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition government at the next general election. This would speed up the privatisation of the NHS; increase selection in secondary schools; and launch an even more vicious attack on workers and oppressed more than Blarism can get away with. Sensing this danger there is a whole layer of Social Democrats who are organising for John McDonnell in order to appeal towards millions of workers disaffected with Blairism. Trotskyists should have a united front with these forces in order to keep Conservatives/Liberal Democrats out of government and to take advantage of 95 Labour MPs against Trident to mobilise millions of workers; middle class elements; and oppressed against Imperialism and Capitalism. Upturn in class struggles e.g. strikes against low pay by Nurses could expose the reality of Cameron’s politics behind his demagogy on the NHS crisis by revealing his true class character.
Ultra-Leftism and Popular Frontist projects such as Respect is passing as a major danger. Social Democratic pressures of what Swart analysed could be the next danger for revolutionaries. There are such groups such as Workers Action and Permanent Revolution who have broken from Trotskyism and making major concessions to Social Democracy. Workers Action has called for building Social Democratic parties with revolutionaries not organising as a distinct faction.
Permanent Revolution thinks we have been in a boom but don’t mention the depression in the last ten years in the Tiger Economies and Japan. They think that the Chinese Workers’ State is Capitalist and concludes from that analysis that China is prospering indicating a new wave of Capitalist boom based on the Chinese model. This is an echo of the Cliffite line during 1948- 1973 period that Capitalism for a whole period has resolved its internal contradictions. It represents also adaptationism to Bernsteinite Social Democracy who argued in 1898-9 that Capitalism had overcome its internal contradictions. Rosa Luxemburg wrote defending Marxism in her work “Reform or Revolution” against Bernstein’s revisionism.
REPRINT OF BOB SWART’S LETTER TO BRITISH LEAGUE OF SOCIALIST ACTION’S PAPER SOCIALIST ACTION MAY 1981 EDITION ENTITLED: ”HOW NOT TO FIGHT FOR SOCIALISM IN THE LABOUR PARTY”.
In the March issue of Socialist Action, a review article attacked the sectarian attitude of groups such as the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) towards the Labour Party.
While correct, I think it is important to balance this out by setting the danger of adaptation within the Labour Party as well. Over the coming years, as ferment grows in the CLPs, I feel this will become a much more pressing problem.
This is particularly true for currents and individuals – which developed outside the labour movement and have no strategy towards it.
Most of the present Marxist left grew out of the youth radicalisation of the late 1960s. While showing a healthy hostility to the bureaucratic leaders of the labour movement, they are tended to identify these leaders with the unions and Labour Party to which they developed a sectarian attitude. The latter, in particular was written of as “bourgeois” or being “bypassed” in action.
The present ferment in the Labour Party was has, therefore hit them hard. The party that was written of as “moribund” has, surprisingly for them at least, not only been brought back to life but has become the central arena for discussion – and initiating the fightback against the Tories.
This has forced many of them, to “ditch” their old policies and begin a process of orientating to that party.
ADAPTATION.
The dangers, of course, that – lacking any clear strategy towards the Labour Party – the old ultra-left “zig” will become an opportunist “zag”. One can already begin to see danger signals.
Instead of arguing honestly for their policies in the Labour Party, with the aim of winning broad support for them, they become preoccupied with “getting posts”, with “outflanking” the right-wing on the various GMCs and other committees.
It needs to be pointed out that the type of practice is typical not only of the right-wing but also the old social democratic “left” who tried to combat the right not with policies but often with organisational manoeuvres.
For Marxists to get sucked into such bureaucratic methods reflects an opportunist adaptation, a mirror-image of their previous sectarian position on the Labour Party.
Marxists are not in the Labour Party for “take-overs”. They are there, as a viable current in the labour movement, to honestly argue for their policies and to win the widest support.
Getting involved in fake caucuses to arrange “takeovers” of GMCs is merely to repeat the discredited practices of the right-wing which puts manoeuvres before politics. Let us hope the left does not repeat these mistakes.
Revolutionary Marxists since the Labour Party was formed in 1900 main strategy and tactics has been how to break millions of workers from Social Democracy and over to revolutionary politics. Engels explained during the 19th century that due to the dominance of British Capitalism and Imperialism the price has been Opportunism and Ultra-Leftism. Lenin and Trotsky both opposed dismissing battles within Social Democracy which involves millions of workers and at the same rejecting utopian Strategic Entryist policy of old Militant Tendency of turning Labour into a revolutionary party. Against such illusions both Lenin and Trotsky stressed that the Social Democratic Bureaucracy would attempt to exclude forces which threatened their hegemony over workers.
The relevance of this letter is that Ultra-Left Centrists are in crisis as they were during the early 1980s as Blarism is losing the Labour Party and Social Democracy is trying to regain their hegemony in this party. In the period that Swart wrote this letter Tariq Ali attempted to liquidate into this party. Ultra-Left currents still dominated the International Marxist Group (IMG) by not joining Labour to have a united front with the Bennite left against right wing Social Democracy.
Trotskyists should have entered Labour with that united front tactic in order to relate with millions of workers who were radicalising in a Socialist direction despite limitations of its Left Social Democratic leadership. They should have used the Transitional method to bridge the gap between their embryonic Socialist consciousnesses to take them towards revolutionary answers.
Eventually the IMG enter Labour and renamed themselves as supporters of Socialist Action. John Ross did a zig-zag from opposing entry to extreme opportunism. He opposed Tony Benn running for leader of Labour in 1988 because it hindered Livingstone’s chance to be leader at a later stage.
For a whole number of reasons the Social Democratic left was seriously weakened by 1994. Blairism did represent something new in that he attempted to Bourgeoisifly it. He failed. The radicalisation by millions of workers and middle class elements with the landslide weakened his coalition plans with the Liberal Democrats. Those Ultra-Lefts who prematurely wrote off battles between Social Democracy and Blairism broke with law of Uneven and Combined Development with the Blairite manoeuvres to Bourgeoisifly Labour and the resistance of Social Democracy.
Labour is still has a contradictory and dual character as a Social Democratic party which Blairsm has not destroyed. Trade Unions affiliated to Labour alongside thousands of Labour Party activists with some being councillors; and a sizeable layer of Social Democratic MPs sponsored by Trade Unions (even the unaffiliated RMT has 24 sponsored Labour MPs). Blarism still has a base among layers of MPs and in some of the constituencies.
This Social Democratic layer has to be taken into account when Trotskyists determine our tactics. For example when Labour lost councils, those who replaced them were Conservative and Liberal Democratic ones which soon afterwards moved secondary schools out of LEA control.
There is a big danger of a Conservative majority or Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition government at the next general election. This would speed up the privatisation of the NHS; increase selection in secondary schools; and launch an even more vicious attack on workers and oppressed more than Blarism can get away with. Sensing this danger there is a whole layer of Social Democrats who are organising for John McDonnell in order to appeal towards millions of workers disaffected with Blairism. Trotskyists should have a united front with these forces in order to keep Conservatives/Liberal Democrats out of government and to take advantage of 95 Labour MPs against Trident to mobilise millions of workers; middle class elements; and oppressed against Imperialism and Capitalism. Upturn in class struggles e.g. strikes against low pay by Nurses could expose the reality of Cameron’s politics behind his demagogy on the NHS crisis by revealing his true class character.
Ultra-Leftism and Popular Frontist projects such as Respect is passing as a major danger. Social Democratic pressures of what Swart analysed could be the next danger for revolutionaries. There are such groups such as Workers Action and Permanent Revolution who have broken from Trotskyism and making major concessions to Social Democracy. Workers Action has called for building Social Democratic parties with revolutionaries not organising as a distinct faction.
Permanent Revolution thinks we have been in a boom but don’t mention the depression in the last ten years in the Tiger Economies and Japan. They think that the Chinese Workers’ State is Capitalist and concludes from that analysis that China is prospering indicating a new wave of Capitalist boom based on the Chinese model. This is an echo of the Cliffite line during 1948- 1973 period that Capitalism for a whole period has resolved its internal contradictions. It represents also adaptationism to Bernsteinite Social Democracy who argued in 1898-9 that Capitalism had overcome its internal contradictions. Rosa Luxemburg wrote defending Marxism in her work “Reform or Revolution” against Bernstein’s revisionism.
REPRINT OF BOB SWART’S LETTER TO BRITISH LEAGUE OF SOCIALIST ACTION’S PAPER SOCIALIST ACTION MAY 1981 EDITION ENTITLED: ”HOW NOT TO FIGHT FOR SOCIALISM IN THE LABOUR PARTY”.
In the March issue of Socialist Action, a review article attacked the sectarian attitude of groups such as the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) towards the Labour Party.
While correct, I think it is important to balance this out by setting the danger of adaptation within the Labour Party as well. Over the coming years, as ferment grows in the CLPs, I feel this will become a much more pressing problem.
This is particularly true for currents and individuals – which developed outside the labour movement and have no strategy towards it.
Most of the present Marxist left grew out of the youth radicalisation of the late 1960s. While showing a healthy hostility to the bureaucratic leaders of the labour movement, they are tended to identify these leaders with the unions and Labour Party to which they developed a sectarian attitude. The latter, in particular was written of as “bourgeois” or being “bypassed” in action.
The present ferment in the Labour Party was has, therefore hit them hard. The party that was written of as “moribund” has, surprisingly for them at least, not only been brought back to life but has become the central arena for discussion – and initiating the fightback against the Tories.
This has forced many of them, to “ditch” their old policies and begin a process of orientating to that party.
ADAPTATION.
The dangers, of course, that – lacking any clear strategy towards the Labour Party – the old ultra-left “zig” will become an opportunist “zag”. One can already begin to see danger signals.
Instead of arguing honestly for their policies in the Labour Party, with the aim of winning broad support for them, they become preoccupied with “getting posts”, with “outflanking” the right-wing on the various GMCs and other committees.
It needs to be pointed out that the type of practice is typical not only of the right-wing but also the old social democratic “left” who tried to combat the right not with policies but often with organisational manoeuvres.
For Marxists to get sucked into such bureaucratic methods reflects an opportunist adaptation, a mirror-image of their previous sectarian position on the Labour Party.
Marxists are not in the Labour Party for “take-overs”. They are there, as a viable current in the labour movement, to honestly argue for their policies and to win the widest support.
Getting involved in fake caucuses to arrange “takeovers” of GMCs is merely to repeat the discredited practices of the right-wing which puts manoeuvres before politics. Let us hope the left does not repeat these mistakes.
Sunday, 11 February 2007
Review of Engels's "Progress of Social Reform on the Continent" (Europe)
REVIEW OF ENGEL’S OCTOBER 1843 ARTICLES “PROGRESS OF SOCIAL REFORM ON THE CONTINENT”. ONLY REVIEW OF PART 1 ON “FRANCE”. (AVAILABLE ON MARXIST INTERNET ARCHIVE).
1. WHY COMMUNISM GREW IN CERTAIN PARTS OF WESTERN EUROPE.
This work by Engels is situated with class conflicts between workers and Capitalists breaking out in Britain and France. In the German states there were a failed Bourgeois revolution against Feudalism and a tiny working class created by beginnings of Industrialisation.
Communism was being accepted by certain radical middle class elements within those German states in the mid-1840s due to them seeing workers struggles in England and prospects of a workers-led revolution in France. This was the atmosphere which led Marx and Engels to come towards Communism. Their importance was that from the late 1840s gave the struggle for workers power and entering ultimately Socialism a scientific (Historical Materialist) basis.
In Britain middle and working class elements were coming to Socialist ideas due to British industrial Capitalism going through periodoric crises. Contradictions within French Capitalism led to sharp class conflicts. This led to Communism gaining a sizeable base among workers. Engels stated in this work that Communism would grow in Western Europe as Capitalism’s contradictions deepened and workers began to assert themselves.
2. MATERIAL BASIS FOR UTOPIAN SOCIALISM (OWENISM) IN BRITAIN.
Bourgeois elements attempting to salvage Capitalism promoted an ideology like Owenism which coned workers that improvements in their conditions could be made by investing in Capitalist firms and by setting up their own companies. The Co-operative movement has been organised along Owenite lines for approximately 200 years.
Churchill in the late 1890s/early1900s argued that the Conservative Party should support workers owning shares in companies they work for. Thatcherism won layers of the Middle Class and Aristocrats of Labour to privatise electricity and gas by gaining certain amounts of money in shares through that process of privatisation. Thatcher called this privatisation process “creating a property owning democracy”.
Blair in the run up to the 1997 General Election tried to continue Thatcherism by calling it “stakeholder society”. Before Labour won that landslide due to the Social Democratic nature of this Party which is in contradiction to his Bourgeois political character, he had to oppose excesses of Thatcherism. This is where the Ultra-Lefts go wrong when they argue Blair has successfully Bourgeoisfied Labour. They in practice reject the Marxist method which sees every process containing internal contradictions. Trotsky’s method of Law of Uneven Combined Development can be applied to Blair which sees his aim to Bourgeoisifly the Labour Party but has not accomplished that.
There is great disappointment with Blairism continuing Thatcherism. Due to this disillusionment with the Labour Party there are dangers of a Tory/Liberal-Democrats coalition government when the next general election is held. Additionally there has been the growth of right wing Populist parties such as the United Kingdom Independence Party (U.K.I.P). The Fascist British National Party (BNP) has been able to make limited electoral gains. This drift to the right in these forms can only be stopped by the Trade Unions fighting in the Labour Party for them to champion more workers interests.
The shift to the left in Latin America and general upturn in world revolution could strengthen the left wing within the Labour Movement and revolutionary forces. One factor which makes a left shift most likely in Britain is that workers won’t tolerate for long Thatcherite policies of Blairism or Tory/Lib Dem coalition government. Workers are at the end of their teather. This is why the mass radicalisation is most likely to deepen and there are great possibilities of pre-revolutionary crises breaking out.
3. ENGELS ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BRITAIN AND FRANCE WITH ITS TACTICAL IMPLICATIONS.
One of the important points Engels make in this work is due to the instability of French class relations questions are resolved many times by revolution or counter-revolution. Britain in contrast had a long continuity of legal governments without revolution.
There were of course class conflicts and elements of revolutionary upheaval. The British Bourgeoisie managed to stop revolution by staying ahead of the game; and trying to create a mystique of rule by saying that the masses don’t determine anything. This ideology would not have worked on its own. They had to make concessions to elements within the middle and working class. Due to the crisis of Capitalism the British Ruling Class need an assault on previous concessions made to workers and middle class elements.
Apart from Greece; Spain to 1975; and Portugal until 1974 there has been a long period of Bourgeois Democratic rule within Western Europe since the end of World War 2. This democratic space allows revolutionaries to organise workers. Only when Capitalism is seriously threatened in Western Europe will they resort to other forms of rule e.g. military dictatorship or Fascism.
There were oddballs within the British Ruling Class considering a coup against Wilson during the late 1960s/mid-late 1970s. This was a dangerous gamble because Bourgeois rule would have lost its democratic façade. A pre-revolutionary crisis could have broken out due to workers resisting moves to quickly slash their wages and making conditions worse.
In France Engels argued that their attitude to political and social ideas was determined how it influenced political oppression of them by the French ruling class. French workers in his opinion had seen largely through the façade of Bourgeois Democracy and seen its true class character.
Britain in contrast there were large numbers of workers who had tremendous illusions in Bourgeois Democracy; believed conditions could be improved by reform; and looked to Owenism. There were however revolutionary traditions even during that period with upheavals in Oldham and elements of Chartism which were revolutionary. The difference with France was that the class conflict did not reach the pitch of revolution. Revolution, like war clarifies and reveals everything.
The tactical implication of this for Engels was that in France it was easier to make a Socialist revolution. In Britain before a Socialist Revolution workers were more likely have to go through an experience of Bourgeois Democracy and concessions that Capitalists made to workers. Communists would agitate by arguing to workers they can only make gains by organising independently as a class. By taking workers through an experience Communists would show that they could only end their exploitation was through a Socialist revolution.
Engels in this work argues it was best to organise Communists in France through legal organisation. He was in favour of organising underground only as a last resort. This shows that Lenin and Trotsky were correct in fighting Ultra-Lefts within the American Communist Party (CP) who wanted to be underground even when legal conditions were possible. James P. Cannon the American Trotskyist led a fight against such Ultra-Lefts. Lenin and Trotsky finally argued for Cannon’s position. (For further information see Cannon’s (History of American Trotskyism” and “First ten years of American Communism”).
4. ENGELS ON FRENCH WORKERS CLASS INDEPENDENCE WHICH EMERGED OUT OF 1830 REVOLUTION AND ROOTS OF PERMANENT REVOLUTION THEORY.
Engels stated when he wrote this article in October 1843 that in France considerable numbers of workers were looking at ways to end their political oppression. Due to sharpness of class struggles all political currents were tested very quickly. This is why workers broke with forms of Utopian Communism and became more Communist. After the 1830 revolution certain middle class elements desert the workers. This led to a growth of certain class consciousness that they could only have political rights if they organised independently as a class. Engels wrote:
” During this time (1834 or 1835) a new doctrine sprang up among the republican working men. They saw that even after having succeeded in their democratic plans, they would continue [to be] the dupes of their more gifted and better educated leaders, and that their social condition, the cause of their political discontent, would not be bettered by any political change whatsoever. They referred to the history of the great revolution, and eagerly seized upon Babeuf’s Communism. This is all that can, with safety, be asserted concerning the origin of modern Communism in France; the subject was first discussed in the dark lanes and crowded alleys of the Parisian suburb, Saint-Antoine, and soon after in the secret assemblies of conspirators. Those who know more about its origin are very careful to keep their knowledge to themselves, in order to avoid the “strong arm of the law”. However, Communism spread rapidly over Paris, Lyons, Toulouse, and the other large and manufacturing towns of the realm; various secret associations followed each other, among which the “Travailleurs Egalitaires”, or Equalitarian Working Men, and the Humanitarians,"” were the most considerable. The Equalitarians were rather a “rough set”, like the Babouvists of the great revolution; they purposed making the world a working-man’s community, putting down every refinement of civilisation, science, the fine arts, etc., as useless, dangerous, and aristocratic luxuries, a prejudice necessarily arising from their total ignorance of history and political economy. The Humanitarians [158], were known particularly for their attacks on marriage, family, and other similar institutions. Both these, as well as two or three other parties, were very short-lived, and the great bulk of the French working classes adopted, very soon, the tenets propounded by M. Cabet, “Père Cabet” (Father C.), as he is called, and which are known on the continent under the name of Icarian Communism.
This sketch of the History of Communism in France shows, in some measure, what the difference of French and English Communism must be. The origin of Social reform, in France, is a political one; it is found, that democracy cannot give real equality, and therefore the Community scheme is called to its aid. The bulk of the French Communists are, therefore, republicans besides; they want a community state of society, under a republican form of government”
Marxism developed by drawing the lessons of past class struggles. It is also the bridge between theory and practice of class battles; and organises the leadership of workers to overthrow Capitalism. Before a rounded Marxist programme was developed Marxists by developing their theories and strategies were an anticipation of what workers would fight for when they went into struggle in actual practice.
The theory of Permanent Revolution flows from the fact that workers have to rely on their strength; that middle class elements can go over to the Bourgeoisie; and as the population becomes more Proletarian Bourgeois elements fear mobilising the masses. Marx drew the lesson of 1848 when the Bourgeoisie feared mobilising the workers. Due to this they did a deal with the Aristocrats. Marx argued in 1850:
“Although the German workers cannot come to power and achieve the realization of their class interests without passing through a protracted revolutionary development, this time they can at least be certain that the first act of the approaching revolutionary drama will coincide with the direct victory of their own class in France and will thereby be accelerated. But they themselves must contribute most to their final victory, by informing themselves of their own class interests, by taking up their independent political position as soon as possible, by not allowing themselves to be misled by the hypocritical phrases of the democratic petty bourgeoisie into doubting for one minute the necessity of an independently organized party of the proletariat. Their battle-cry must be: The Permanent Revolution.
Marx thought the French workers were strong enough to overthrow Capitalism. In the German states he concluded that Capitalism was not exhausted and would take time for Capitalism’s contradictions to explode into a Socialist revolution.
Trotsky developed the theory further by pointing how Imperialism was dominating Russia back and the only force capable of breaking that stranglehold was the working class. He also drew the same conclusion as Marx that the Bourgeoisie recoiled from mobilising the masses due to the workers weight. Trotsky wrote:
“From the experience of the Hungarian and German revolutions Lassalle drew the conclusion that from now on revolutions could only find support in the class struggle of the proletariat. In a letter to Marx dated 24th October, 1849, Lassalle writes: ‘Hungary had more chances than any other country of bringing its struggle to a successful outcome. Among other reasons this was because the party there was not in a state of division and sharp antagonism as it was in Western Europe; because the revolution, to a high degree, had taken the form of a struggle for national independence. Nevertheless, Hungary was defeated, and precisely as a consequence of the treachery of the national party.’
‘This, and the history of Germany during 1848-49,’ continues Lassalle, ‘brings me to the conclusion that no revolution can be successful in Europe, unless it is from the very first proclaimed to be purely socialistic. No struggle can be successful if social questions enter into it only as a sort of hazy element, and remain in the background, and if it is carried on under the banner of national regeneration or bourgeois republicanism.’
We shall not stop to criticise these very decided conclusions. It is undoubtedly true, however, that already in the middle of the nineteenth century the problem of political emancipation could not be solved by the unanimous and concerted tactics of the pressure of the whole nation. Only the independent tactics of the proletariat, gathering strength for the struggle from its class position, and only from its class position, could have secured victory for the revolution.
The Russian working class of 1906 in no way resembles the workers of Vienna of 1848. The best evidence of this is the springing up all over Russia of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies. These were not previously-prepared conspirative organizations for the purpose of seizure of power by the workers at the moment of revolt. No, these were organs created in a planned way by the masses themselves for the purpose of co-ordinating their revolutionary struggle. And these Soviets, elected by the masses and responsible to the masses, are unquestionably democratic institutions, conducting a most determined class policy in the spirit of revolutionary socialism.
The social peculiarities of the Russian revolution are particularly evident in the question of the arming of the nation. A militia, the National Guard, was the first demand and the first gain of every revolution, in 1789 and in 1848, in Paris, in all the states of Italy, in Vienna and in Berlin. In 1848 the National Guard, i.e., the arming of the propertied and the ‘educated’ classes, was the demand of the whole of the bourgeois opposition, even of the most moderate, and its object was not only to safeguard the liberties won, or rather, subject to ‘conferment’, against reversals from above, but also to protect bourgeois private property from attacks by the proletariat. Thus the demand for a militia was clearly a class demand of the bourgeoisie. ‘The Italians very well understood’, says the English liberal historian of united Italy, ‘that an armed civil militia would make the further existence of despotism impossible. Besides this it was a guarantee for the propertied classes against possible anarchy and any sort of disorder from below.’[1] And the ruling reaction, not having a sufficient number of troops in the centre of operations to deal with ‘anarchy’, that is with the revolutionary masses, armed the bourgeoisie. Absolutism first allowed the burghers to suppress and pacify the workers and then it disarmed and pacified the burghers.
In Russia the demand for a militia found no support in the bourgeois parties. The liberals cannot help understanding the serious significance of arms; absolutism has given them some object-lessons in this respect. But they also understand the absolute impossibility of creating a militia in Russia apart from or against the proletariat. The Russian workers do not resemble the workers of 1848 who filled their pockets with stones and armed themselves with picks while the shopkeepers, students and lawyers had royal muskets on their shoulders and swords at their sides.
Arming the revolution, in Russia, means first and foremost arming the workers. Knowing and fearing this, the liberals altogether eschew a militia. They even surrender their position to absolutism without a fight just as the bourgeois Thiers surrendered Paris and France to Bismarck simply to avoid arming the workers.
In that manifesto of the liberal-democratic coalition, the symposium called The Constitutional State, Mr. Dzhivelegov, discussing the possibility of revolutions, quite rightly says that ‘Society itself, at the necessary moment, must be prepared to stand up in defence of its Constitution’. But as the logical conclusion from this is the demand for the arming of the people, this liberal philosopher finds it ‘necessary to add’ that ‘it is not at all necessary for everyone to bear arms’[2] in order to prevent reversals. It is only necessary that society itself shall be prepared to offer resistance—in what manner is not indicated. If any conclusion at all can be drawn from this, it is that in the hearts of our democrats the fear of the armed proletariat is greater than the fear of the soldiery of the autocracy.
For that reason the task of arming the revolution falls with all its weight upon the proletariat. The civil militia, the class demand of the bourgeoisie in 1848 is, in Russia, from the very first a demand for the arming of the people and above all for the arming of the proletariat. The fate of the Russian Revolution is bound up with this question”.
Trotskyists recognise that in all revolutions or counter-revolutions the middle class can determine who wins. It is a law of history that the middle class will only support the workers when they stage a decisive struggle for power. In a crisis unless that happens they will fall under Bourgeois leadership.
1. WHY COMMUNISM GREW IN CERTAIN PARTS OF WESTERN EUROPE.
This work by Engels is situated with class conflicts between workers and Capitalists breaking out in Britain and France. In the German states there were a failed Bourgeois revolution against Feudalism and a tiny working class created by beginnings of Industrialisation.
Communism was being accepted by certain radical middle class elements within those German states in the mid-1840s due to them seeing workers struggles in England and prospects of a workers-led revolution in France. This was the atmosphere which led Marx and Engels to come towards Communism. Their importance was that from the late 1840s gave the struggle for workers power and entering ultimately Socialism a scientific (Historical Materialist) basis.
In Britain middle and working class elements were coming to Socialist ideas due to British industrial Capitalism going through periodoric crises. Contradictions within French Capitalism led to sharp class conflicts. This led to Communism gaining a sizeable base among workers. Engels stated in this work that Communism would grow in Western Europe as Capitalism’s contradictions deepened and workers began to assert themselves.
2. MATERIAL BASIS FOR UTOPIAN SOCIALISM (OWENISM) IN BRITAIN.
Bourgeois elements attempting to salvage Capitalism promoted an ideology like Owenism which coned workers that improvements in their conditions could be made by investing in Capitalist firms and by setting up their own companies. The Co-operative movement has been organised along Owenite lines for approximately 200 years.
Churchill in the late 1890s/early1900s argued that the Conservative Party should support workers owning shares in companies they work for. Thatcherism won layers of the Middle Class and Aristocrats of Labour to privatise electricity and gas by gaining certain amounts of money in shares through that process of privatisation. Thatcher called this privatisation process “creating a property owning democracy”.
Blair in the run up to the 1997 General Election tried to continue Thatcherism by calling it “stakeholder society”. Before Labour won that landslide due to the Social Democratic nature of this Party which is in contradiction to his Bourgeois political character, he had to oppose excesses of Thatcherism. This is where the Ultra-Lefts go wrong when they argue Blair has successfully Bourgeoisfied Labour. They in practice reject the Marxist method which sees every process containing internal contradictions. Trotsky’s method of Law of Uneven Combined Development can be applied to Blair which sees his aim to Bourgeoisifly the Labour Party but has not accomplished that.
There is great disappointment with Blairism continuing Thatcherism. Due to this disillusionment with the Labour Party there are dangers of a Tory/Liberal-Democrats coalition government when the next general election is held. Additionally there has been the growth of right wing Populist parties such as the United Kingdom Independence Party (U.K.I.P). The Fascist British National Party (BNP) has been able to make limited electoral gains. This drift to the right in these forms can only be stopped by the Trade Unions fighting in the Labour Party for them to champion more workers interests.
The shift to the left in Latin America and general upturn in world revolution could strengthen the left wing within the Labour Movement and revolutionary forces. One factor which makes a left shift most likely in Britain is that workers won’t tolerate for long Thatcherite policies of Blairism or Tory/Lib Dem coalition government. Workers are at the end of their teather. This is why the mass radicalisation is most likely to deepen and there are great possibilities of pre-revolutionary crises breaking out.
3. ENGELS ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BRITAIN AND FRANCE WITH ITS TACTICAL IMPLICATIONS.
One of the important points Engels make in this work is due to the instability of French class relations questions are resolved many times by revolution or counter-revolution. Britain in contrast had a long continuity of legal governments without revolution.
There were of course class conflicts and elements of revolutionary upheaval. The British Bourgeoisie managed to stop revolution by staying ahead of the game; and trying to create a mystique of rule by saying that the masses don’t determine anything. This ideology would not have worked on its own. They had to make concessions to elements within the middle and working class. Due to the crisis of Capitalism the British Ruling Class need an assault on previous concessions made to workers and middle class elements.
Apart from Greece; Spain to 1975; and Portugal until 1974 there has been a long period of Bourgeois Democratic rule within Western Europe since the end of World War 2. This democratic space allows revolutionaries to organise workers. Only when Capitalism is seriously threatened in Western Europe will they resort to other forms of rule e.g. military dictatorship or Fascism.
There were oddballs within the British Ruling Class considering a coup against Wilson during the late 1960s/mid-late 1970s. This was a dangerous gamble because Bourgeois rule would have lost its democratic façade. A pre-revolutionary crisis could have broken out due to workers resisting moves to quickly slash their wages and making conditions worse.
In France Engels argued that their attitude to political and social ideas was determined how it influenced political oppression of them by the French ruling class. French workers in his opinion had seen largely through the façade of Bourgeois Democracy and seen its true class character.
Britain in contrast there were large numbers of workers who had tremendous illusions in Bourgeois Democracy; believed conditions could be improved by reform; and looked to Owenism. There were however revolutionary traditions even during that period with upheavals in Oldham and elements of Chartism which were revolutionary. The difference with France was that the class conflict did not reach the pitch of revolution. Revolution, like war clarifies and reveals everything.
The tactical implication of this for Engels was that in France it was easier to make a Socialist revolution. In Britain before a Socialist Revolution workers were more likely have to go through an experience of Bourgeois Democracy and concessions that Capitalists made to workers. Communists would agitate by arguing to workers they can only make gains by organising independently as a class. By taking workers through an experience Communists would show that they could only end their exploitation was through a Socialist revolution.
Engels in this work argues it was best to organise Communists in France through legal organisation. He was in favour of organising underground only as a last resort. This shows that Lenin and Trotsky were correct in fighting Ultra-Lefts within the American Communist Party (CP) who wanted to be underground even when legal conditions were possible. James P. Cannon the American Trotskyist led a fight against such Ultra-Lefts. Lenin and Trotsky finally argued for Cannon’s position. (For further information see Cannon’s (History of American Trotskyism” and “First ten years of American Communism”).
4. ENGELS ON FRENCH WORKERS CLASS INDEPENDENCE WHICH EMERGED OUT OF 1830 REVOLUTION AND ROOTS OF PERMANENT REVOLUTION THEORY.
Engels stated when he wrote this article in October 1843 that in France considerable numbers of workers were looking at ways to end their political oppression. Due to sharpness of class struggles all political currents were tested very quickly. This is why workers broke with forms of Utopian Communism and became more Communist. After the 1830 revolution certain middle class elements desert the workers. This led to a growth of certain class consciousness that they could only have political rights if they organised independently as a class. Engels wrote:
” During this time (1834 or 1835) a new doctrine sprang up among the republican working men. They saw that even after having succeeded in their democratic plans, they would continue [to be] the dupes of their more gifted and better educated leaders, and that their social condition, the cause of their political discontent, would not be bettered by any political change whatsoever. They referred to the history of the great revolution, and eagerly seized upon Babeuf’s Communism. This is all that can, with safety, be asserted concerning the origin of modern Communism in France; the subject was first discussed in the dark lanes and crowded alleys of the Parisian suburb, Saint-Antoine, and soon after in the secret assemblies of conspirators. Those who know more about its origin are very careful to keep their knowledge to themselves, in order to avoid the “strong arm of the law”. However, Communism spread rapidly over Paris, Lyons, Toulouse, and the other large and manufacturing towns of the realm; various secret associations followed each other, among which the “Travailleurs Egalitaires”, or Equalitarian Working Men, and the Humanitarians,"” were the most considerable. The Equalitarians were rather a “rough set”, like the Babouvists of the great revolution; they purposed making the world a working-man’s community, putting down every refinement of civilisation, science, the fine arts, etc., as useless, dangerous, and aristocratic luxuries, a prejudice necessarily arising from their total ignorance of history and political economy. The Humanitarians [158], were known particularly for their attacks on marriage, family, and other similar institutions. Both these, as well as two or three other parties, were very short-lived, and the great bulk of the French working classes adopted, very soon, the tenets propounded by M. Cabet, “Père Cabet” (Father C.), as he is called, and which are known on the continent under the name of Icarian Communism.
This sketch of the History of Communism in France shows, in some measure, what the difference of French and English Communism must be. The origin of Social reform, in France, is a political one; it is found, that democracy cannot give real equality, and therefore the Community scheme is called to its aid. The bulk of the French Communists are, therefore, republicans besides; they want a community state of society, under a republican form of government”
Marxism developed by drawing the lessons of past class struggles. It is also the bridge between theory and practice of class battles; and organises the leadership of workers to overthrow Capitalism. Before a rounded Marxist programme was developed Marxists by developing their theories and strategies were an anticipation of what workers would fight for when they went into struggle in actual practice.
The theory of Permanent Revolution flows from the fact that workers have to rely on their strength; that middle class elements can go over to the Bourgeoisie; and as the population becomes more Proletarian Bourgeois elements fear mobilising the masses. Marx drew the lesson of 1848 when the Bourgeoisie feared mobilising the workers. Due to this they did a deal with the Aristocrats. Marx argued in 1850:
“Although the German workers cannot come to power and achieve the realization of their class interests without passing through a protracted revolutionary development, this time they can at least be certain that the first act of the approaching revolutionary drama will coincide with the direct victory of their own class in France and will thereby be accelerated. But they themselves must contribute most to their final victory, by informing themselves of their own class interests, by taking up their independent political position as soon as possible, by not allowing themselves to be misled by the hypocritical phrases of the democratic petty bourgeoisie into doubting for one minute the necessity of an independently organized party of the proletariat. Their battle-cry must be: The Permanent Revolution.
Marx thought the French workers were strong enough to overthrow Capitalism. In the German states he concluded that Capitalism was not exhausted and would take time for Capitalism’s contradictions to explode into a Socialist revolution.
Trotsky developed the theory further by pointing how Imperialism was dominating Russia back and the only force capable of breaking that stranglehold was the working class. He also drew the same conclusion as Marx that the Bourgeoisie recoiled from mobilising the masses due to the workers weight. Trotsky wrote:
“From the experience of the Hungarian and German revolutions Lassalle drew the conclusion that from now on revolutions could only find support in the class struggle of the proletariat. In a letter to Marx dated 24th October, 1849, Lassalle writes: ‘Hungary had more chances than any other country of bringing its struggle to a successful outcome. Among other reasons this was because the party there was not in a state of division and sharp antagonism as it was in Western Europe; because the revolution, to a high degree, had taken the form of a struggle for national independence. Nevertheless, Hungary was defeated, and precisely as a consequence of the treachery of the national party.’
‘This, and the history of Germany during 1848-49,’ continues Lassalle, ‘brings me to the conclusion that no revolution can be successful in Europe, unless it is from the very first proclaimed to be purely socialistic. No struggle can be successful if social questions enter into it only as a sort of hazy element, and remain in the background, and if it is carried on under the banner of national regeneration or bourgeois republicanism.’
We shall not stop to criticise these very decided conclusions. It is undoubtedly true, however, that already in the middle of the nineteenth century the problem of political emancipation could not be solved by the unanimous and concerted tactics of the pressure of the whole nation. Only the independent tactics of the proletariat, gathering strength for the struggle from its class position, and only from its class position, could have secured victory for the revolution.
The Russian working class of 1906 in no way resembles the workers of Vienna of 1848. The best evidence of this is the springing up all over Russia of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies. These were not previously-prepared conspirative organizations for the purpose of seizure of power by the workers at the moment of revolt. No, these were organs created in a planned way by the masses themselves for the purpose of co-ordinating their revolutionary struggle. And these Soviets, elected by the masses and responsible to the masses, are unquestionably democratic institutions, conducting a most determined class policy in the spirit of revolutionary socialism.
The social peculiarities of the Russian revolution are particularly evident in the question of the arming of the nation. A militia, the National Guard, was the first demand and the first gain of every revolution, in 1789 and in 1848, in Paris, in all the states of Italy, in Vienna and in Berlin. In 1848 the National Guard, i.e., the arming of the propertied and the ‘educated’ classes, was the demand of the whole of the bourgeois opposition, even of the most moderate, and its object was not only to safeguard the liberties won, or rather, subject to ‘conferment’, against reversals from above, but also to protect bourgeois private property from attacks by the proletariat. Thus the demand for a militia was clearly a class demand of the bourgeoisie. ‘The Italians very well understood’, says the English liberal historian of united Italy, ‘that an armed civil militia would make the further existence of despotism impossible. Besides this it was a guarantee for the propertied classes against possible anarchy and any sort of disorder from below.’[1] And the ruling reaction, not having a sufficient number of troops in the centre of operations to deal with ‘anarchy’, that is with the revolutionary masses, armed the bourgeoisie. Absolutism first allowed the burghers to suppress and pacify the workers and then it disarmed and pacified the burghers.
In Russia the demand for a militia found no support in the bourgeois parties. The liberals cannot help understanding the serious significance of arms; absolutism has given them some object-lessons in this respect. But they also understand the absolute impossibility of creating a militia in Russia apart from or against the proletariat. The Russian workers do not resemble the workers of 1848 who filled their pockets with stones and armed themselves with picks while the shopkeepers, students and lawyers had royal muskets on their shoulders and swords at their sides.
Arming the revolution, in Russia, means first and foremost arming the workers. Knowing and fearing this, the liberals altogether eschew a militia. They even surrender their position to absolutism without a fight just as the bourgeois Thiers surrendered Paris and France to Bismarck simply to avoid arming the workers.
In that manifesto of the liberal-democratic coalition, the symposium called The Constitutional State, Mr. Dzhivelegov, discussing the possibility of revolutions, quite rightly says that ‘Society itself, at the necessary moment, must be prepared to stand up in defence of its Constitution’. But as the logical conclusion from this is the demand for the arming of the people, this liberal philosopher finds it ‘necessary to add’ that ‘it is not at all necessary for everyone to bear arms’[2] in order to prevent reversals. It is only necessary that society itself shall be prepared to offer resistance—in what manner is not indicated. If any conclusion at all can be drawn from this, it is that in the hearts of our democrats the fear of the armed proletariat is greater than the fear of the soldiery of the autocracy.
For that reason the task of arming the revolution falls with all its weight upon the proletariat. The civil militia, the class demand of the bourgeoisie in 1848 is, in Russia, from the very first a demand for the arming of the people and above all for the arming of the proletariat. The fate of the Russian Revolution is bound up with this question”.
Trotskyists recognise that in all revolutions or counter-revolutions the middle class can determine who wins. It is a law of history that the middle class will only support the workers when they stage a decisive struggle for power. In a crisis unless that happens they will fall under Bourgeois leadership.
Sunday, 21 January 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
