Living Marxism

Bringing Marxism to life

Russia, China, and the Unfinished Permanent Revolution

with 3 comments

Facing a chronic global crisis of capitalism and intensifying inter-imperialist rivalry between the US and China blocs, the most urgent task facing revolutionaries today is to provide program for a new Trotskyist international that can lead workers in the struggle to defeat nationalism and imperialism and to the victorious socialist revolution. At a public meeting in London on 11 April 2015 the question of Russia and China as imperialist powers is being debated by the Liaison Committee for the Fourth International (LCFI) and the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT). We of the Liaison Committee of Communists (LCC) argue that the centrist method of both tendencies cannot provide the answers workers need. We argue that both the LCFI and RCIT revise Lenin on imperialism and nationalism. In summary, both turn Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution into a petty bourgeois program adapting to bourgeois democracy.

Centrism and Social Imperialism

Centrism as we understand it is a tendency on the revolutionary left that vacillates between the Marxist program and opportunist adaptation to the bourgeoisie. It functions to divert workers from revolutionary consciousness and action. In our view the material roots of post-war centrism in the Trotskyist movement are the petty bourgeoisie of the imperialist countries. This is what we define as social imperialism. While it originates in the imperialist countries, it becomes expressed in the semi-colonies as national Trotskyism. Social Imperialism is fundamentally the political program of the imperialist labour aristocracy adapting to imperialism on the material basis of relatively privileged living standards.  National Trotskyism is the reverse side of this coin, the political program of the semi-colonial petty bourgeoisie who adapt to bourgeois nationalism on the basis of material rewards flowing from the defence of the popular front regimes.

As Trotsky lamented in the years just before his death, the crisis of Marxism was reflected in the abandonment of dialectics, and its substitution by empiricism and pragmatism. These latter are idealist philosophies that reflect the surface reality of capitalism, the alienated exchange relations which in the imperialist countries are expressed as relatively high living standards. Both the LCFI and RCIT originated in tendencies that broke from Trotsky’s dialectic method as a result of their materialist roots in the imperialist petty bourgeoisie. Neither tendency has recognised nor completely broken with these historic roots as we will show.

In the case of Socialist Fight, its roots are in the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) under Healy. In reacting against Pabloism which liquidated the party into Stalinism, Healy liquidated the proletarian party into social democracy in the imperialist countries, and the radical parties of the national bourgeoisie in the semi-colonies. While the Pabloites adapted to the labour bureaucracy oriented to the Soviet Union, the Healyites adapted to the anti-communist Labour Parties and anti-communist ‘Third World’ populist leaders.

Below we show that Socialist Fight’s program today represents this particular brand of social imperialism, adapting to Bonapartist dictators such as Gaddafi, Assad and Putin as the enemies of US imperialism. It subordinates workers to Anti-imperialist United Fronts (AIUF) with bourgeois leaders in league with imperialism.[i] It is even worse when it regards Russia and China as oppressed states (semi-colonies or sub-imperialist) and calls for an AIUF against US imperialism! This for us explains why the LCIF social imperialist method continues to reinforce national Trotskyism upon the Latin American members of the LCFI and the Parity Committee so that popular front regimes like that of the PT in Brazil are defended as part of an AIUF with Russia and China against US imperialism.

In the case of the Austrian Revolutionary Communist Organisation for Liberation (RKOB) the mother section of the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), its historical roots were in a factional split from the state capitalist Cliffite tendency in Britain in 1975. In summary, our position is that the factional split with the Cliffites in 1975 which led to the formation of the LRCI in 1989 was an incomplete break with Cliffism. Its programmatic statement on the workers states The Degenerated Revolution in 1982 defined degenerated workers states as a “dual state” with workers property relations in contradiction with bourgeois norms of distribution which were the basis of the bureaucracy’s privileges.

This meant that when put to the test by Yeltsin in 1991, the League for the Revolutionary Communist International (LRCI) backed bourgeois democracy represented by Yeltsin against the Stalinist dictatorship opposed to Yeltsin. According to The Degenerated Revolution, political revolution was a struggle against the bureaucracy’s defence of bourgeois distribution relations leading to overthrow of workers production relations. Under the pressure of imperialist public opinion against the Stalinist bureaucracy the LRCI blocked with the pro-imperialist restorationist Yeltsin against the Stalinist military command instead of blocking with workers in the defence of workers property against both Yeltsin and the military.[ii]

While coming from different traditions, in breaking from Trotskyism and the transitional (or dialectic) method, both tendencies, in adapting to social imperialism, end up in the camp of imperialism. This is evident because the revolutionary agency of the working class is always subordinated to the petty bourgeois program. It is always conditioned by the mechanistic or schematic method of the popular front in which sections of the petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie guide workers through the struggles for bourgeois democracy, in particular national self-determination. For both tendencies national self-determination as a bourgeois democratic right is always ‘progressive’ even if it is a counter-revolutionary ‘democratic dictatorship’ of imperialism.

National Self-Determination

We see social imperialist adaptation as a fundamental break from permanent revolution which states that in the epoch of imperialism bourgeois democratic rights can only be won and defended by proletarian revolution – that is by ‘workers’ democracy’. In other words the democratic revolution in the epoch of imperialism can no longer be spoken of as the ‘bourgeois national democratic’ revolution. The formation of new capitalist nation states can only serve the interests of bourgeois imperialism and the unfinished tasks of that revolution cannot be realised other than by the proletarian revolution.[iii]

So the LCFI regarded Gaddafi’s rule in Libya as a genuine expression of self-determination against imperialism despite Gaddafi’s role in serving US imperialism and emerging Chinese imperialism. The LCFI denied the agency of the rebels fighting Gaddafi as an agent of imperialism by painting them as CIA agents or jihadists. Today the rebels are fighting both the US puppet Hefter and the newly branded Islamic State (IS) in Libya. The logic of this has escaped the LCFI because it cannot imagine that Arab and other masses in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) are capable of carrying through permanent revolution against both imperialism and against the reactionary Islamic jihadists who are the agents of imperialism. One key aspect of social imperialism is its Eurocentrism, expressed today as Islamophobia.

The RCIT was on the right side in Libya in supporting the revolutionary agency of the rebels. They called for the defense of Gaddafi from NATO, like the LCFI, but did not call for the rebels to form an AIUF with Gaddafi against NATO, unlike the LCFI, since Gaddafi was attacking the revolution. Only the revolutionary brigades can open the permanent revolution against both imperialism and its national dictator. Like the LCC they called for the revolution to fight on two fronts, against Gaddafi, and against NATO and its stooge the National Transitional Council. The permanent revolution has since stalled in Libya but so has imperialism which is unable to defeat the resistance and find a new bourgeois regime that can replace Gaddafi. This stalemate can only be overcome and the permanent revolution completed in Libya with the revival of the Arab revolution led by the workers’ and poor peasants’ armed resistance in Syria and Palestine, supported by internationalist workers.

However, the RCIT’s slavish application of the bourgeois democratic schema as progressive can be seen in Egypt when the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces (SCAF) dismissed the Muslim Brotherhood, elected to power on a reactionary constitution that defended the military regime. The Muslim Brotherhood was a weak Islamic bourgeoisie of the bazaar seeking to replace the dominant military fraction. The RCIT called this dispute between two fractions of the bourgeoisie a coup against ‘bourgeois democracy’ and an ‘historic defeat’ for the working class when the election of the Muslim Brotherhood did nothing to advance the interests of the working class. This was proven by the millions of workers who marched against it. Such ‘bourgeois democracy’ was in reality a reactionary bourgeois regime seeking to appease imperialism and imposing a theocratic barrier to revolution. Its removal meant that the SCAF was now seen openly as the power base behind the Mubarak regime and that it had always been the dominant fraction of the national bourgeoisie.

What the national revolution in MENA proves beyond question is that democratic rights are only in the interest of the working class if they actually advance the struggle for proletarian revolution. In the current crisis of imperialism there is no bourgeois democratic halfway house that workers must defend since the very act of doing so is to take the side of the counter-revolution. The same applies to the semi-colonial struggles elsewhere in the world. We will concentrate here on the struggles in Latin America since in this continent, in our view, Trotskyism is in a much stronger position against Stalinism and Social Democracy than in Asia and Africa. The barrier to revolution on this continent is renegade Trotskyism!

Latin America

In Latin America the permanent revolution was subordinated to national self-determination. The fate of permanent revolution can be captured in one word – populism. The impact of the social imperialism on the 4th International after Trotsky’s death was to abandon permanent revolution and lock ‘national Trotskyism’ into the left wing of the popular front. The IEC sent SWP member Sherry Mangan to Argentina in 1941 to unify the different Trotskyists groups. He succeeded in creating a united organisation but his ‘eclectic’ method of downplaying national oppression as a ‘secondary question’ only confused the understanding of the program of permanent revolution. The Argentine Trotskyists continued to be split between those reducing the national question to socialist revolution, and those succumbing to national Trotskyism and joining popular fronts with bourgeois nationalists like Peron.[iv] This explains why most Latin American Trotskyists put the national struggle against US imperialism before class politics. In one country after another, the working class has entered popular fronts with alien classes to fight imperialism, inevitably facing defeat at the hands of military, usually inspired or backed by the US. The Trotskyist program of the working class leading the struggle for national independence requires class independence from those classes that are in alliance with imperialism.

Most of the Latin American tendencies remain more or less trapped in national Trotskyism insofar as the main enemy is not capitalism but the United States. We discovered this first hand in the internal fight we had in the Fraccion Leninista Trotskista Internacional (FLTI) in 2009-10 over the question of Chinese imperialism. While we proved that China was accumulating capital despite its semi-colonial exploitation by the established imperialist powers we could not convince the FLTI that it was possible for an ex-workers state to become imperialist. We put this down to the incomplete break of the FLTI in its founding section the Democracia Obrera (LOI-CI) of Argentina with the national Trotskyism of Moreno. This was the inverted social imperialism of US pseudo Trotskyism which presents a unipolar world in which US hegemony is an insuperable barrier to semi-colonies emerging as rival imperialist powers.

We can see why it is easy for the LCFI to form a Liaison Committee with groups that see the world as dominated by only one imperialist power, and are blinded to the huge impact that Russian and Chinese imperialism is having on Latin America, in particular the restoration of capitalism in Cuba. The LCFI continues the tradition of social imperialism in ‘colonising’ Latin American groups that adapt the semi-Pabloite version of the AIUF in which a section of the semi-colonial national bourgeoisie is defended as the ‘lesser evil’ against US imperialism. Permanent Revolution for these groups means an alliance with the ‘progressive’ bourgeoisie and running left cover for the popular front.

LCFI in Latin America

The LCFI has recently formed a Parity Committee (PACO) with a number of left groups in Brazil. The LCFI plays the leading role as its positions on Libya, Syria, Ukraine, etc., are adopted by the PACO. We are proposing here that the social imperialism of the LCFI is finding a corresponding echo in the incomplete break with national Trotskyism of these groups. Let us quote the Coletivo Lenin (CL) on the members of the PACO who are now producing a common journal. We will then run through the positions on the important questions that relate to permanent revolution vs national Trotskyism.

“The FDT, Press organ until then the comrades of the Communist League, comes to 22 and five years of existence, it is now journal Joint Committee, an international alliance of organizations and militant communist workers, composed of the Communist League, Lenin Collective, Resistance Revolutionary People, Marxist space and also by the Liaison Committee for the Fourth International, which comprises the Socialist Fight (Socialist Struggle), the UK, and the Militant Tendency Bolshevik, Argentina.”

The Communist League is a founding member with Socialist Fight of the LCFI. It leads the PACO in Latin America. The statement put out by the PACO on the mobilisation of the March 15th pro-coup demonstration against the PT states:

“As signaled since 2014, there is a coup movement in all Latin American countries that make up commercial and political alliance with the Russian-Chinese bloc. The Yankee and European imperialism are on the offensive over the resumption of spheres of influence and territory lost in the 2008-2009 crisis to the Eurasian block; and to resume its market positions and prevent the political and economic rise of China, has been focusing on manufacturing coup d’états and civil wars, as seen in Ukraine, Middle East, Paraguay and Honduras. In this context, the coup in Brazil would be a way to resume the geopolitical space in Latin America.”

We can see here clearly that the PACO is endorsing the line of the LCFI that Russia and China are sub-imperialist states, yet at the same time the US and EU is prepared to unleash coup d’états to regain “spheres of interest and territory lost …to the Eurasian bloc.” With the current threats of coups in Venezuela and Brazil we can see how easily the default position of social imperialism and national Trotskyism pressures workers back into supporting the popular front.

But how does imperialism lose spheres of interest to the “Eurasian bloc” without Russia and China emerging as imperialist rivals?

The short answer from the LCFI seems to be that the threat to the US is not coming from newly emerging imperialist states, but a global anti-imperialist bloc of states commonly referred to as the BRICS but clearly centred on the “Eurasian Bloc” of Russia and China. The US is determined to impose its hegemony totally in the spheres where this bloc has some influence. Politically, since the leading BRICS are “sub-imperialist” they must be defended against the US bloc. This leads to a position of defense of Russia and China in wars with the US – the basic LCFI line.

This global AIUF leads to a return to national Trotskyist popular front politics nationally as a ‘lesser evil’ to US imperialism. This is confirmed by the Joint Statement of the Communist League (LCFI) and Coletivo Lenin (PACO) calling for a vote for the PT in the second round of the Presidential Elections. The LCFI justified this position in a recent article about the defection of one of its members, Laurence Humphries, to the RCIT:

“Laurence’s final complaint is that the Liga Comunista and the Coletivo Lenin (whom he does not mention) advocated a vote for Dilma Rousseff, the Workers Party leader, against Aécio Neves in the Presidential election and the RCIT man in Brazil wanted us to cast a null vote. Considering that the masses would have faced a direct agent of US imperialism if Neves had won as opposed to a victory for Dilma which maintained at least a measure of national independence and defence of workers’ rights (as in the Yeltsin, Putin dichotomy above) it is criminally irresponsible not to take the principled anti-imperialist united front stance that they did.”

Furthermore, on the question of the threatened coup d’état, the PACO statement calling for mobilising on the streets on March 13th (against March 15th) says the power of workers in the streets is necessary because the PT and PCdoB Government do not have the power to resist further austerity or to defeat a coup. There is no statement that in this ‘united front’ against a coup d’état revolutionaries have a duty to condemn the popular front for trapping workers in parliament and preparing the way for fascism. For example it accuses the fake left of Unified Socialist Workers Party (PSTU), Socialism and Freedom Party (PSOL,) etc. for a ‘political error’ in its ‘third way’ policy of abstaining from the March 13th protest against the coup. Yet in protesting the coup threat it fails to call on those with illusions in the PT to demand that it break from the popular front. It is waiting for the “conditions to mature” for those with illusions in the “bourgeois and manipulative” policies of the government to break from the PT. The danger is that “mature conditions” may not arrive before the popular front death trap springs on the workers. Thus the popular front is depicted as the ‘lesser evil’ and not a trap that must be ‘sprung’ by the proletariat before it can be snap shut by a fascist coup d’état.

How is it that other groups have joined the LCFI in the PACO around this line which adapts to the popular front? Let’s take the example of the Coletivo Lenin which began its life in 2007 with the Manifesto of the Collective Luiza Mahim. It became the Coletivo Lenin in 2009 when it produced a program under the influence of the IBT.[v] The Coletivo Lenin’s new program (2011 to today) reflects a break from the IBT’s ultra-left position on the national question but runs the risk of an opportunist swing back to national Trotskyism. As we have seen the concept of “sub-imperialism” extended from Brazil, India, etc., to Russia and China by the LCFI means calls for revolutionary defence of the BRICS in wars with US imperialism.

This leads to an adaptation to the popular front at home in defence of BRICS and/or Bolivarian ‘socialism’. Thus as noted above, the Coletivo Lenin advocated a vote for the PT in the second round because it was the lesser evil to the Brazilian right backed by the US against the BRICS and Bolivarian bloc. We conclude that because Coletivo Lenin refuses to accept the reality that Russia and China are, or can be, imperialist rivals to the US led bloc, the LCFI is continuing to ‘colonise’ Latin American comrades as national Trotskyists – today in a worldwide popular front with the BRICS bloc against US imperialist hegemony. The LCC began its existence in a split with the FLTI precisely over this question in 2009/10 and we have continued to argue that unless Latin American comrades recognise Russia and China as imperialist, they will remain trapped in national Trotskyism as the subordinate inversion of pseudo Trotskyist social imperialism.

RCIT in Latin America

In Latin America what we see is the method of the LRCI/LFI inherited by the RCIT. We argued above that this semi-Cliffite method fetishises ‘bourgeois democracy’ so that the concept of permanent revolution becomes stageist in practice. It defends popular front parties against military dictatorship in Egypt and Thailand. The workers must go through the democratic stage in preparation for the socialist stage. The Workers States still have a ‘dual state’ state form of bourgeois distribution relations on top of workers property! Therefore political revolution in defence of workers property requires the overthrow of Stalinism by bourgeois democracy! The LRCI held that the counter-revolution was not complete in the ‘Moribund’ workers states until workers property was replaced by capitalist market relations. Imperialism bombs Yugoslavia and creates new nation states in Bosnia and Kosovo!

This is social imperialism. The workers lead the fight against feudalism and imperialism but they do so by reproducing the fetishised social relations of bourgeois democracy as a precondition for socialist revolution.

We define ‘democracy’ today as concerned only with ‘workers democracy’. Lenin talked of the epoch of the bourgeois ‘national democratic’ revolution as the formation of states unifying national markets. In the epoch of imperialism where monopoly capital dominates, nations and the ideology of nationalism are reactionary forces that divide the international proletariat. National oppression in the imperialist epoch has only one historic solution, the socialist republic within a world-wide union of socialist republics. This was the goal of the Bolsheviks before the Russian Revolution was isolated and bureaucratised. It was the program of the healthy Fourth International while Trotsky lived. Unconditional defence of the Soviet Union as part of the world revolution would usher in the epoch of the ‘international proletarian revolution’.

In Latin America the RCIT method is for the AIUF against the US bloc and the Russia/China bloc against the default national Trotskyists position of a continental popular front with the Bolivarians and the BRICS against US imperialism. However, because of its social imperialist method of fetishising bourgeois democracy, the RCIT is pressured to adapt to the national Trotskyist popular front. So in its recent statement on the threatened coup d’état the RCIT Brazilian section did not call for opposition to the coup to defend bourgeois democracy to advance workers democracy.

Revolutionaries had to call for workers to mobilise against the coup, and against the popular front government. The clarion call of Trotsky in the Transitional Program was “break with the bourgeoisie!” The only way for workers to take advantage of bourgeois parliament in the epoch of imperialism is to use it as a revolutionary forum to break reformist workers from bourgeois parliament. This cannot be done while reformist parties are part of popular fronts with the bourgeoisie. There is no way to smash fascism without breaking workers from the popular front that strangles the workers struggle against fascism. This cannot be done in stages, first defending bourgeois democracy against the coup, and then second, smashing the popular front.

According to the RCIT:

“For workers, what is of least importance is the supposedly democratic formality; but what is essential for them is the political struggle and the class interests hiding behind appearances. From this perspective, what is at stake here and now is the replacement of a reformist Popular Front government with a government of bourgeois sectors most directly linked to the US and European imperialism. Thus, these sectors are, by their very nature, freer to abrogate more workers’ rights than the PT could possibly do. Among the objectives of the more right-wing sector are to: increase the profits from surplus value; lower workers’ pensions; privatize the only still partially state-owned banks (Bank of Brazil and Caixa Economica); lower the measly minimum wage of just 300 dollars; increase privatization of oil reserves in Pré-Sal Petróleo and consequently fully privatize Petrobras; deepen the anti-worker reforms of social security; cancel the major- and medium-importance rights achieved by organized labor (such as abolishing or decreasing the thirteenth salary paid in December as a Christmas bonus, unemployment insurance, maternity leave, etc.).”[Our Emphasis]

While the RCIT calls for independent workers mobilisation without giving any “political support” to the Government or appealing to the institutions of the state it does not insist that workers break from the popular front to build their independent struggle. It states that workers cannot remain neutral in a fight between the popular front and a right wing coup on the basis that the popular front is the ‘lesser evil’ because the program of the rightwing coup would be much worse than that of the austerity attacks of the Government on workers. Workers therefore must form a “united front” within an AIUF (actually ‘popular front’ of the Bolivarians and BRICS against US imperialism) against a coup before they can free themselves from the PT bloc and break with the bourgeoisie!

This position breaks with Trotsky’s permanent revolution where workers fight independently to defeat both imperialism and the treacherous national bourgeoisie that acts as its agent. The weapons of workers facing an imperialist backed coup are the workers councils, militias, the general strike and the insurrection. A military bloc with a popular front government against a right wing coup such as the Provisional Government in Russia 1917 must be based on the armed independence of the soviets only for the purpose of breaking the popular front because it was a death trap not merely a ‘lesser evil’.[vi]

Thus at the same time it is adapting to the practical defence of a “reformist popular front”, the RCIT tries to theoretically break the popular front by convincing Latin American comrades that Russia and China are imperialist powers. This is difficult, as the almost universal objection is that Russia and China are not, and cannot become, imperialist. Following Lenin they say that in the epoch of imperialism, no semi-colony can become imperialist. Today they now generalise that position in a non-Leninist fashion to include former workers states which have been defeated and restored as capitalist semi-colonies, or have perhaps become ‘sub-imperialist’ at most.

In a recent exchange with the Corriente Socialista Revolucionaria – El Topo Obrero –CSR (Venezuela) and Partido de la Causa Obrera PCO (Argentina) the RCIT argued the evidence that Russia and China were imperialist, and that there was no universal law against capitalist semi-colonies becoming imperialist. There were special conditions under which Russia and China were able to make a transition from former workers states to new imperialist state, but this was nothing exceptional. We commented on the RCIT letter:

…the argument loses clarity and force when you try to show that any country under special circumstances can become imperialist. This has the effect of over-riding the lawful necessity that a country must be ‘independent’ from imperialism to emerge as a new imperialist country. Of course ‘independence’ must mean ‘economic independence’ from semi-colonial exploitation. This is the sticking point for the LA [Ed.: Latin American] comrades who see that Japan was always independent and the other countries who were not, like the US had to fight wars of national liberation, or emerged like Norway and Czechoslovakia as small imperialists as fallout from the re-partition of the imperialist world then under way. But since WW1 no oppressed country has become imperialist except via the sui generis route of Russia and China.

The LA [Ed.: Latin American] comrades are correct therefore to say that with the onset of the imperialist epoch when the world is divided that countries without economic independence can only become so via permanent revolution. And this is our strongest argument. Since in both Russia and China the bourgeoisie was overthrown and independence from imperialism won (albeit that was not the Maoist’s intention) and this independence was not sacrificed by the capitalist counter-revolution.” [Personal communication]

In other words the Leninist theoretical objection of the comrades of the CSR and PCO (and also of the FLTI who made the same argument against us in 2009) is correct, that once the world economy is divided between imperialist powers, there is no prospect that any colony or semi-colony can break out of its dependent status except through permanent revolution. The last time any new imperialist powers emerged was during WW1 as the result of the military re-partitioning of the world. Japan was already imperialist before the war and increased its sphere of interest as a result of the war while Czechoslovakia declared its independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, both as allies of the victorious imperialist powers.

The RCIT is therefore wrong to deduce that new imperialist powers could emerge since WW1 on the basis of:

“…an important shift in the production of capitalist value from the old imperialist countries of the North to the South. We have seen the economic as well as political and military decline of the leading imperialist power, the US, as well as that of Japan and the EU. Under such conditions, is it so surprising that new imperialist powers emerge and fill the void?”

This is fundamentally wrong on two counts. First, the shift in value production from North to South in the post WW2 period is a totally non-Marxist and non-Leninist conception of the world economy. This ignores that from the onset of the imperialist epoch value production in the ‘South’ was and still is largely owned by the finance capital of the ‘old’ imperialist powers of the ‘North’. Second, with the concentration and centralisation of capital in this epoch, it does not follow that the decline of some existing imperialist powers must call forth new ones. The imperialist powers will contest one another and the pecking order will change during and after wars, but no new imperialist powers have made the transition from capitalist semi-colony since WW1. We have argued this is the reason that the so-called ‘sub-imperialist’ powers in the BRICS such as India, Brazil and South Africa can never be more than privileged semi-colonies.

The point being missed here is that imperialism sets up relations between oppressor and oppressed states and that the extraction of super-profits does not allow the oppressed states to accumulate sufficient value to conduct anti-imperialist wars to assert their economic independence from the oppressor states except by means of permanent revolution.

Therefore, the rise of China and Russia as new imperialist powers does not break the rule of permanent revolution –it proves the rule! It is consistent with what Lenin and Trotsky wrote about both imperialism and workers states. Thus the Latin American comrades (not only them!) will only be convinced of this if they can be shown that Russia and China have become imperialist powers precisely because they opened the permanent revolution, through wars of independence from imperialism, and the overthrow of the national bourgeoisie to become ‘workers states’, albeit with incomplete permanent revolutions. The degeneration of the Russian revolution and the creation of bureaucratically degenerated states at birth after WW2 halted the permanent revolution, preventing it from completing its task of building healthy workers states. The failure to complete the permanent revolution led directly to the counter-revolutionary restoration of capitalism.

Russian and Chinese imperialism

The position of the LCFI on Russia and China is that they are sub-imperialist and must be defended against the US imperialist bloc. If you read the article by Socialist Fight on Russia it’s clear that it falls back on empirical evidence of who owns the flows of surplus value in and out of Russia. Its argument is that Russia (and by extension China) has not accumulated sufficient capital to require massive export of capital because US finance capital dominates these economies. This is a bald reference to Lenin’s theory where export of capital is the key feature of imperialism. On the other hand for the RCIT, Russia and China are imperialist on the same criteria, because Russian and Chinese state capitalism dominates the economy, not US finance capital. And, moreover, there is nothing stopping other states from following Russia and China providing the necessary conditions are present.

By the same token there is nothing in the LCFI method to prevent Russia and China becoming imperialist if the facts of ownership of surplus value change. It seems that the LCFI shares a similar analysis with the RCIT despite disagreeing over the results. Nations can become imperialist if conditions allow an over-accumulation and export of capital. The fact that they disagree on their conclusions come down to which empirical facts they select as critical in the outcome. This empiricist method is a feature of petty bourgeois Marxism and ignores the deeper dialectic and transitional method of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky.

Most importantly they are empiricist readings of Lenin’s theory of imperialism. We will show here how Lenin’s theory, correctly understood, allows us to claim that new imperialist countries cannot arise unless they have been able to escape the semi-colonial oppression of the existing imperialist countries to become economically independent. We will then prove that it is consistent with Lenin’s theory that only countries that have been able to meet those conditions since the First Imperialist War (WW1) are those that went through permanent revolution to become workers states.

In his Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin drew heavily on Marx to theorise the transition from competitive capitalism to the epoch of imperialism in which the major developed capitalist economies were forced to counter the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall (TRPF) by exporting capital to the colonial and semi-colonial world. This created a new form of state monopoly capitalism – or imperialism –that was parasitic upon the world economy growing at the expense of other nations, creating relations of dominance between oppressor and oppressed states, and ultimately acting to destroy the forces of production in depressions and wars.

This was the ‘iron law’ of Capital’s unwritten volumes on international relations and the world market as summarised as a “popular outline” 50 years later by Lenin. By this point, imperialism could only cannibalise itself through economic and military wars so that the oppressor states grew more centralised and concentrated and the oppressed states grew relatively weaker and deprived. The question of whether oppressed states could become imperialist therefore did not arise. The divided capitalist world could be re-divided but only among the strong, never the weak. Unless, of course, permanent revolutions forced the ‘redivision’ of the capitalist world by the creation of a socialist “sphere of influence.”

As we know, victorious socialist revolutions did overthrow the national bourgeoisies and break from imperialist economic control though not from imperialist political and economic encirclement and warfare. Isolated from the world market and the law of value, the workers states developed the forces of production beyond that possible for capitalist semi-colonies. However, because the workers states were forced to rely on their own resources and the resulting bureaucratic caste failed to plan efficiently, they did not develop the forces of production to the level possible with workers control of the socialist plans. Economic stagnation forced the parasitic caste to reintroduce the market and restore capitalism. But conversion of the bureaucracy into a state capitalist class did not allow Western imperialism to overturn all the gains of the workers state. Despite opening up to imperialist finance capital the ‘red bourgeoisie’ retained control over the economy and took advantage of investment and new technology to launch domestic capitalist production.

Thus there was no re-colonisation of the ex-Workers States to force them back to semi-colonial status. Not because like Russia they were never colonies, or were imperialist before the revolution, or like both Russia and China inherited strong centralised states and dominated former soviet republics or internal colonies, or because of the decline of the US, and so on. None of these conditions (or all of them together) is sufficient to allow new imperialist powers to emerge. They could equally have created the perfect conditions for the parasitic re-colonisation and breaking up of the former workers states by the existing imperialist powers! This indeed was the imperialists’ goal in numerous wars, hot and cold, to defeat the workers states from the 1917 Revolution until their collapse in the 1990s. And they succeeded with a vengeance in the former Yugoslavia.

No. The necessary condition was and is the unfinished permanent revolution that broke from imperialism to create a socialist ‘sphere of interest’ but which could not prevent the bureaucracy from staging a counter-revolution and turning itself into a class of state capitalists to exploit the developed forces of production (raw materials, technology, labour, etc.,) under the law of value and compete successfully in the world market. Now functioning as independent capitalist countries the accumulation of capital unleashed the laws of capitalist development including the overaccumulation of capital that required capital export and the emergence of new imperialist powers.


It is our view that the conditions that led to the emergence of Russia and China as new imperialist powers in the last two decades are consistent with Lenin’s analysis of imperialism 100 years ago. Lenin’s method was that of Marx’s Capital, completing the unfinished volumes made concrete in the heat of the First Imperialist War. Second, it is consistent with the fact that the Russian Revolution opened the revolutionary 20th century, ‘repartitioning’ the world economy by opening the permanent revolution, and creating a ‘Soviet’ sphere of influence. The ‘economic independence’ of the workers states that followed during the 20th century allowed them to survive the counter-revolutionary defeat of capitalist restoration so that the new bourgeoisies were able to transform Russia and China into new imperialist powers forming a counter-hegemonic bloc to the US hegemonic bloc. To repeat, not as a bloc of semi-colonies and sub-imperialist states that are a progressive alternative to US imperialism, but a rival imperialist bloc that in challenging US hegemony, conditions the course of revolution and counter-revolutionary struggles today.

The unfinished permanent revolution that succumbed to capitalist counter-revolution must be reopened on the basis of the historic gains that were not destroyed. In the workers states the forces of production leapt beyond those of capitalist semi-colonies before being halted by bureaucratically planned stagnation and the capitalist counter-revolution. The gains of the new forces of production have been forced back into the shell of the old decrepit capitalist relations driving an explosive contradiction today manifested in the heating up of the global rivalry between the two major imperialist blocs.

Permanent revolution against imperialism today must be led by the international proletariat capable of making the revolution to smash the imperialist powers and create a united states of socialist republics of the world. In the process our most important task is the formation of a new Leninist Trotskyist international that revives the dialectic method and program of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky and eliminates the barriers of social imperialism and national Trotskyism and so advances to the victorious socialist revolution! Back to dialectics! Break with social imperialism and national Trotskyism!

March, 2015

Liaison Committee of Communists




[i] The Fourth Congress interpreted the AIUF as a temporary military alliance between communists and ‘national-revolutionary’ (bourgeois) forces in the colonies and semi-colonies. Trotsky argued that ‘national-revolutionary’ forces could include national dictators or fascists, provided they were in a military struggle against imperialism. However, to call for an AIUF with Gaddafi when he was attacking the popular revolution and appealing for peace with imperialism is a criminal travesty of revolutionary communism.


[ii] As we have been at pains to point out to the RCIT for some years now, this flaw in its method is reproduced in its program today. While revolutionary workers defend bourgeois democratic rights they do so only when that defence advances the interests of the socialist revolution. Yet the RCIT has a tendency to turn the permanent revolution into a slavish defence of bourgeois democratic rights, when that defence is clearly not in the interests of workers but serves the bourgeois counter-revolution. Defending bourgeois democracy against the Stalinist military was not an unconditional defence of workers property in Soviet Russia, nor in Yugoslavia. Today the RCIT regards Bosnia and Kosovo as expressing the national rights of national minorities when in reality these ‘nations’ were the creations of imperialism (NATO and the UN) in the enforced break-up of Yugoslavia. Here the Leninist support for national self-determination is turned on its head as the support for the creation of new NATO capitalist protectorates! (See the LCC letter to RCIT of June 2012)


[iii] Lenin’s position on the National Question was a tactic to break workers from nationalism to socialism. National oppression is a reality that must be overthrown on the way to socialism. Revolutionaries must defend the right to national self-determination to prove to nationally oppressed workers that national oppression is ultimately class oppression. It is a democratic demand in the Transitional Program that can only be realised by Permanent Revolution.


[iv] A similar thing happened in Indo-China when the IEC during WW2 did not insist that the Trotskyists break with the Stalinists and their popular front politics. The revolution would only happen in the colonies or semi-colonies if it first went through a democratic national revolution in which the Stalinist model of the ‘bloc of four classes’ would ensure a break from imperialism. The lesson of China where the proletarian vanguard was destroyed by the Kuomintang was lost. One could adapt to this Stalinist stageism by either tailing the Stalinists or by tailing the anti-communist national bourgeoisies.


[v] This program was an ultraleft swing away from the popular front to an ultra-left version of national Trotskyism. The Coletivo Lenin adopted the IBT position of dual defeatism in the Malvinas wars; Brazil as sub-imperialist; and dual defeatism in the Arab-Israeli wars; all reducing the national question (and national Trotskyism) to the schematic proletarian revolution. This was the IBT loyally applying its 1941 SWP-US social imperialism to Brazil. Against national Trotskyism and the popular front its answer was do not fight for national independence from US imperialism and challenge the US labor aristocracy to take sides, but have a proletarian revolution now.


[vi] The Bolsheviks offered to fight alongside the Kerensky popular front Provisional Government against Kornilov in August 1917 (Trotsky’s phrase was “use them as a gun rest”) only on the basis of their armed independence since they knew that Kerensky would prove himself to be in league with Kornilov. The Bolsheviks were already calling for all power to the soviets and there was no reference to the Provisional Government as ‘the lesser evil’ to Kornilov.


Written by raved

April 4, 2015 at 5:01 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Declaration of the Proletarian Faction

with 2 comments

This statement contains the main arguments of the Proletarian Faction formed within Workers Power NZ, a section of the League for a Revolutionary Communist International (LRCI), in July 1995. It documents the development an a factional struggle over the reversion to right-centrism of the LRCI on the question of capitalist restoration, Bosnia etc. Fundamentally the struggle revealed a divergence in method between our conception of dialectics and the League’s impressionism.


Like the rest of the post-war Trotskyist left, the LRCI has failed to break decisively from centrism. “Centrism is the name applied to that policy which is opportunist in substance and which seeks to appear as revolutionary in form. Opportunism consists of a passive adaptation to the ruling class and its regime, to that which already exists, including, or course, the state boundaries. Centrism shares completely this fundamental trait of opportunism, but in adapting itself to the dissatisfied workers, centrism veils it by means of radical commentaries”. [“Independence of the Ukraine and Sectarian Muddleheads” Trotsky, Writings, 39-40. p.54.]It moved left from centrism in the 1970’s to produce an apparently Trotskyist analysis of the degeneration of the Fourth International [FI] and the Degenerate(d) Workers’ States [dws] in the early 1980’s.Specifically The Death Agony of the FI and The Degenerated Revolution published in 1981 and the Trotskyist Manifesto published in 1989. However, by the late 1980’s, as a small international tendency of around 100, it along with the rest of the left was subjected to the massive reactionary pressures of imperialist crisis and the collapse of the DWS’s. The LRCI’s Trotskyist “orthodoxy” was shown to be hollow.Its method is devoid of dialectics. Its failure to learn the lessons of the collapse of the FI meant that its break from the Cliffites was incomplete and that rather than developing a revolutionary response to the crisis of Stalinism, the LRCI collapsed back into centrism.

Succumbing to its isolation from the class struggle, and the pressure of democratic counter-revolution, a growing gap between theory and practice has arisen. While the LRCI pronounces orthodox Trotskyist positions on method, political economy and the restoration of capitalism in the DWS’s, in reality it has a one-sided abstracted Trotskyism which argues for a “revolutionary period” since 1989 and still-existing “moribund workers states”. These upbeat historical abstractions coexist with and cover a passive propaganda role in the class struggle which is evidenced by the League’s capitulation to the “progressive” nature of democratic imperialism.

The events of this period are every bit as momentous as those after WW2, if not more so. According to the LRCI the collapse of the workers’ states would be every bit at catastrophic as the events of the 1930’s. As such the end of the workers’ states would constitute the supreme test of Marx’s dialectical method. But the LRCI has failed to survive the test. Like the centrist FI after the Second World War, the League’s inability to recognise the end of the Workers’s states and the nature of the period as counter-revolutionary, demonstrates that it has become disoriented by events and liquidated its role as a revolutionary vanguard. That this should have happened comes as no surprise to us, given the history of our relations with the LRCI.

Method and the Fourth International

We base our analysis on:

[a] The Revolutionary Communist Party analysis: “The Question of the International” in Revolutionary Communist, No 2. 1975.  The RCP took the view that the FI collapsed during the war and was incapable of overcoming its deficiencies of theory and method after the war because of the loss of Trotsky and inability of others to rethink Trotsky’s predictions. This was explained not as a lack of theorists of Trotsky’s calibre, but the result of a chain of events going back to the “epoch of the universal liquidation of Marxism” in the ’30’s which saw the FI isolated from the mass working class struggles and lacking in both Marxist method and theory. Could the post-war fatalist parroting of Trotsky’s predictions be corrected? Possibly, but unlikely because in “1947..the FI did not set itself the task of developing perspectives based on a materialist analysis of changing events.” (p.24). Subsequent events proved that this breakdown of method lead to a breakdown in theory on the post-war boom and Stalinism.

[b] the 1975 Communist Left Australian programme Section 12

” The Fourth Communist International after the death of Trotsky ceased to function as a democratic centralist organisation…The breakdown of the FI derives not from the death of Trotsky but from the failure of the International, with its links between its sections largely severed by the war, to turn the second imperialist war into civil war…The International then re-established after 1945 was not centred in Asia where Trotsky’s anti-war strategy had its greatest successes, but in Europe where it had its fewest. The post-1945 leaderships broke down on the crucial question of the characterisation of the states in which the Stalinists came to power – a failure of characterisation which was an extension of the failure of leadership vis a vis the Stalinists in the war period”. (see 1978 program)

[c] Owen Gager’s article “James P Cannonism” [Spartacist, 1973] shows that by 1946 the US SWP had compounded its chauvinist “centrist deviation” on the imperialist war, to adopt a position on the ongoing post-war revolution which gave the US working class the leading role in the world revolution. This interpretation is consistent with that of the breakdown of democent in which the strongest section had by 1946 consolidated is adaptation to US chauvinism. The LRCI rejects this saying that this is the same position as that advocated by Trotsky. [see p 7 para 32 of IEC Resolution on the Proletarian Faction]. We reject this.Trotsky’s perspective was invalidated by the end of the war. The “American Theses” failed to recognise this and succumbed further to US chauvinism by making the US the centre of the ongoing world war/revolution, as Gager correctly argues.

[d] But were there opposition movements inside the FI that could have corrected this breakdown of method and theory, or these “centrist deviations” as the LRCI claims? The short answer is no, because despite the existence of oppositional currents within sections, they were also theoretically weak, or state capitalist, and since the FI was not democratic centralist, they were not able to correct the breakdown/deviation. As other sources [Revolutionary History (Vols 1/3 & 4; 2/2; 3/2; 3/4); The FI in Danger’  and Bornstein and Richardson’s War and the International] make clear, the FI was refounded in 1946 in a way which refused to apply democent, either in the representation of all sections, or in the agenda. The Goldman-Morrow faction and the Haston-Grant faction both challenged the post-war fatalist perspective but were bureaucratically shut-up. [see notes below]. The semi-colonial sections critical of the collapse into centrism during the war were under represented [The FI in Danger].

When WPNZ(A) had its first discussions with the LRCI in 1990 a number of differences existed. The most important were on the question of Marxist method. This was reflected in two areas of difference. The first was a difference over the causes of the collapse of the FI. It was clear to us in 1990 that the LRCI did not see any necessary connection between class composition, method and programme, in causing the collapse of the FI. It did not understand these elementary lessons of history. For this reason we thought it possible that the League too might become a victim of isolation, bad class composition and Euro-centrism and meet the same fate as the FI. The IS claims that we did not make this a big issue when we joined. Yet we made it very clear that we took this question seriously, and that the purpose of our joining was to win the League to our positions on Marx’s method. The subsequent failure of the League to develop dialectics and to confront the collapse of Stalinism with a revolutionary programme, has confirmed our worst fears.

On the question of the FI we argued that as the result of material conditions of isolation, class composition and European and US chauvinism, serious programmatic lapses during the war caused the collapse of the FI into centrism by 1946. In our discussions, the League took the view that the FI was healthy until 1948 and collapsed and died in 1951. The LRCI regarded the adaptation to chauvinism during the war as a “centrist deviation” which could have been corrected in 1948. [See “The History of the Fourth International in the War – the Leagues analysis of the Factions criticisms”, in Background Documents of the Positions of the Proletarian Faction.] As we have shown Trotsky did not regard the failure to implement the PMP – turn imperialist war into civil war – as a “deviation”. He already took the Palestinian section to task for their “step towards social patriotism”. It wasn’t a mere deviation, but represented “bankruptcy”, a matter on which the “international stands or falls”. [“A step towards social patriotism”. Writings, 38/39 207]. Were the “deviations” of the US and European sections any less serious?

But why judge these programmatic “deviations” i.e. politics, in isolation from everything else? Because the LRCI lacking dialectics cannot make the right connections. Its most common explanation for bad politics is bad people. We are offered a rogues gallery of deviationists and centrists:Cannon was a “national exceptionalist”; Cannon “went beyond pedagogic adaptation to political adaptation”; “young and inexperienced cadres strove to preserve as much of the letter of Trotsky’s old perspective as possible but in doing so altered its entire spirit”; Trotsky’s “followers lacked the confidence” to correct Trotsky’s perspective; “Under the leadership of Michel Pablo, Ernest Mandel supported by James P. Cannon and the SWP, the Second World Congress in 1948 systematised and deepened the errors in the perspectives of 1946”; “the Yugoslav partisan war was now analysed, post facto, as a “proletarian revolution” (initially only by Pablo)..” ; “Pablo was driven on by his capitulation to Titoism to undermine and revise the key positions of the Trotskyist movement: on the counter-revolutionary nature of Stalinism, on the necessity of a revolutionary party in a revolutionary crisis, the nature of the permanent revolution in the colonial and semi-colonial countries and on the tactic of entrism.” ” [i.e.Pablo] required that the revolutionary nucleus should hide its revolutionary programme and principles…”; Michel Pablo and the FI leadership stood up to the pressure of imperialism, unlike the “state capitalist theoreticians like Tony Cliffe who adopted the Shachtmanite “third camp” slogan…But… Pablo “succumbed to Stalinophilia”. Trotsky sums up: “We know that political tendencies do not exist “in the air”: deviations and mistakes, if persistent and prolonged, must be rooted in a class basis” [Trotsky, “Preface to the Polish Edition of Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism…” Writings 1932. p222.]

Would Trotsky have viewed these lapses as mere “centrist deviations”?

Trotsky made it clear that the war was the ultimate test of the health and hence future of the new international: “Our programme on war is our tactics, our programme on the socialist revolution, our propaganda”… “All the fundamental rules of proletarian “defeatist” policy in relation to imperialist war retain their full force today. This is our point of departure, and all the conclusions that follow are determined by it” … “The fundamental strategic question is our attitude toward war, which it is impermissible to subordinate to episodic tactical considerations and speculations” …

“Should the proletariat attempt at the expense of the clarity and irreconcilability of its fundamental policy to chase after each episodic danger separately, it will unfailingly prove itself bankrupt.” … “defeatism is the class policy of the proletariat, which even during a war sees the main enemy is at home, within its particular imperialist countries. Patriotism, on the other hand is a policy that locates the main enemy outside one’s own ountry”…”should revolutionary defeatism be renounced in relation to nonfascist countries? Herein is the crux of the question; upon this issue, revolutionary internationalism stands or falls”.[See ” A step towards social patriotism” in Writings, 38/39, 207-213.]

“Marxist intransigence, obligatory when realising the united front in general, becomes doubly or trebly so when it is a question of a problem as acute as war”.[“Preface to the Polish Edition of Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism.. Writings, 1932. p 226.] “The future destiny of our organisation, like the development of the FI will depend above all on the existence of an international cadre that understands how to answer the questions of revolution and counter-revolution – especially in their fascist and bonapartist guises – and that understands the question of the war threat and how to implement our slogans and put them into practice.” [Trotsky, “Tasks of the ICL” Writings, Supplement, 34-40. p509.]

Trotsky is clear. Under conditions of imperialist war, the failure to fulfil the tasks of the FI programme on war would amount to “bankruptcy”. To renounce “defeatism” in countries which are at war with fascist countries is an “obvious lapse into social patriotism”.[“A step towards social patriotism” Writings, 1938/39. 208-209.]

During the war the FI proclaimed its orthodoxy in theory, but in practice several of its leading sections “lapsed into social patriotism”. Objectively, despite the fact that the war threw up revolutionary situations, the FI failed to become the revolutionary leadership. Its small size, isolation from the mass movements,and exposure to Stalinist assassinations, contributed most to its collapse in Europe (Over 800 executed in Greece alone). “Imperialist War and National Resistance:Trotskyism and the Second World War” Revolutionary History, Vol.3 (4) 1991 p. 5-8 (for rebellion) . For Stalinist persecution in Greece, see Revolutionary History, Vol. 3 (3) Spring, 1991. [Go to Revolutionary History Index] The Greek Army rebellion in Egypt proved that war did create the conditions for revolution. The combined forces of the British Army and the Stalinists were necessary to destroy the revolution. Subjective lapses into social patriotism in the US and Europe, combined with the objective factors to contribute to the “bankruptcy” of the international. [See Revolutionary History, Vol 3, Nos 3 and 4.] We conclude that Trotsky would have taken the view that the new international failed the test of the war and collapsed into centrism.

The resulting centrist split between “revolutionary” theory and reformist practice put an end to democratic centralism. The IS became a “postbox” only. The European conference (1943) renewed some organisational links. [see War and the International, p 172 on the October Plenum of the SWP; p. 176 for “outlawing of Morrow”; and pps 172-185 for closing down on the opposition in Britain]. The post-war pre-conference (1946) was undemocratic because it did not represent all the sections and their experiences of struggle, and failed to put on the agenda the need for a balance sheet of the war-time breaks from the FI programme. [See Munis The Fourth International in Danger;  p. 14 letter of the Spanish Group to the IS; p. 15, and p. 16-18 for undemocratic nature of 1946 conference; p. 19-30; and p. 31-41. See also War and the International, p.209-234.]

This prevented any possibility of the correction of the FI political disorientation after the war. That is why in our view the FI was not salvageable by 1946. Neither the British Haston-Grant or the US Goldman-Morrow oppositions were capable of correcting the collapse into centrism. Even if these oppositions had won, the FI would have reverted to an equally one-sided fatalism in which post-war capitalist stabilisation included the victory of state capitalism in the Soviet Union. Both oppositions though critical of the one-sided post-war fatalist perspectives dogmatically carried over from Trotsky, but they adapted in an equally one-sided way to the stabilisation of capitalism and argued that the USSR was state capitalist. [War and the International p. 182-187.] The only possibility of refounding the FI on a healthy basis in 1946 would have been the democratic centralist “overrepresentation” of the FI in the semi-colonies in those sections which did not adapt to chauvinism and where democratic norms still allowed programmatic criticisms to raised.[See The FI in Danger Natalia Trotsky, G. Munis, B. Peret.]

We argue that this was prevented by the bureaucratic measures of the European and US sections which deliberately under-represented the semi-colonial sections at the post-war congresses and suppressed their criticisms of the collapse into centrism during the war. This was the position of the Communist Left of New Zealand after 1975. It was based on the view that the semi-colonial sections were healthier than the US and European sections in the way they responded to the war and in their organisation.See details of critique of US section by Mexican section, and of US etc application of the PMP by the Indian section  in The FI in Danger, and Revolutionary History, Vol 3 (3)].

Against this view the IS/IEC resolution rejects the view that the colonial and semi-colonial sections were healthier than the European and US sections. It argues that the rebuilding of the FI in Europe was necessary because of war-time conditions, and that Trotsky shared the perspective that Europe was the centre of the world revolution. We think that this is a Eurocentric perspective and not one shared by Trotsky. It uses Trotsky’s perspective as an excuse for not fronting up to the post-war chauvinism of the dominant imperialist sections.

What would we have done at the time? Because of the collapse of the FI into centrism we would have formed a faction to refound the FI on a democratic centralist basis as a precondition for; [1]the full participation of the semi-colonial sections; [2] an honest critique of the collapse into centrism, and [3] the re-forging of the Marxist method and theory of the pre-war period, in order to lay the basis for a correct understanding of the post-war period. Today the charge is made against the Proletarian Faction that in 1946 we would have abandoned the FI in 1946 as centrist, and the LRCI (and MRCI before it as well). This is as absurd as a second charge that in a counter-revolutionary period such as the present, we would turn our backs on the class struggle. Quite the opposite, we entered the LRCI to fight for our positions in 1990, warning of the danger of LRCI repeating the collapse of the FI, and prescribing lessons in method and political economy. We would have done the same in 1946.

In our view, in 1990 the LRCI did not understand the historic roots of the collapse of the Fourth International into centrism, and its response to us on the FI shows that it has not learned anything in the past five years. To claim, as it does today, that the degeneration of the FI was “ultimately caused not by class composition, but by politics” is not a Marxist explanation, and worse than that blames the degeneration on the death of Trotsky. Stalin knew that the FI was to a large extent Trotsky. The FI was totally reliant on Trotsky for Marxist guidance. He was responsible for all the main programmatic documents. He alone was capable of correcting the petty bourgeois tendency towards pragmatism on the SWP leadership. Trotsky characterised the period in the 30’s thus” “We live in the epoch of the universal liquidation of Marxism in the ruling summits of the labour movement. The most vulgar prejudices now serve as the official doctrine of the political and trades union leaders of the French working class” . [Wither France, p5-6 Merit]. Trotsky had no collaborators of his stature, and few who could learn his lessons. He was forced to work with bourgeois experts “Comrade Field” for want of expertise in “economical and statistical data”. His isolation was the direct result of the “universal liquidation of Marxism” and the hegemony of Stalinism over the working class and the intellectuals. It was therefore to be expected that the leaders of the FI would not be able to live up to Trotsky’s example during and after the war. Hence the collapse into centrism. To that extent Trotsky’s death played a decisive part in this collapse. [See RCP document “The Question of the International”.] But what are politics if not “concentrated economics”? What are economics but contradiction? What are contradictions but dialectics? What is contradiction but class struggle? How do we understand this?

Marx’s method!

In its reply to the Faction the IEC Resolution of July 1995 states that the degeneration of the FI was “ultimately caused by politics” rather than isolation, class composition, failure of method, theory or democratic centralism.This argument is not based on dialectics. If politics and not class composition caused the collapse,what is politics but concentrated economics which in turn presupposes the use-value, exchange-value contradiction [class struggle] and in turn dialectics? Is not a centrist “deviation” based on personalities and politics, the result of profound problems of organisation [this is as far as the LRCI goes with its fetishised view of rebuilding the FI in Europe after the war] which for Marxists don’t float on the surface but are the result of material causes, isolation, class composition and imperialist chauvinism? [See Trotsky, In Defence of Marxism on “concentrated economics” p. 154.] In the “Leagues analysis” [see note above] the personalities of FI leaders, Pablo and Mandel, are credited with explaining the collapse. We would suggest that the League stands firmly on Cannon’s not Trotsky’s method when it comes to analysing the reasons that lay behind the collapse of the FI, i.e. the organisational question, and bad or young people or “deviant” personalities are credited with the collapse rather than the failure of dialectics. Better to have “stolen” from Trotsky’s In Defence of Marxism, that to ignore it as the LRCI does.

With Marx’s method it is not possible to separate politics from class composition. It is obviously true that an ideal working class composition of the FI would not have been a guarantee of a correct method and programme. But only logic-choppers look for black and white guarantees? There is ample evidence that Trotsky [and Cannon] saw very clearly the dangers of petty-bourgeois influences on the SWP. The IS/IEC in its reply to the Faction, does a body count of cadres in an attempt to disprove our argument that the FI or the LRCI suffers from poor class composition. But class composition is not a statistical matter, or an organisational question. Rather it is a matter of class orientation. There is no direct causal relationship between class composition, method and programme. We understand method to be a quality of leadership which must be tested by means of a proletarian orientation towards the working class in struggle, constantly testing theory in practice. There may be plenty of industrial workers in a party but no proletarian orientation, but you can be sure that if there is a firm proletarian orientation, the petty-bourgeois influences will be minimal.

The IS/IEC says that the SWP had many workers. Yes but that doesn’t mean much in itself. Why did Trotsky constantly warn against the influence of the petty-bourgeoisie? Why did he value 100 proletarians as worth 1000 intellectuals? “It is not a question of numbers, but of giving correct expression to the ideas and policies of the truly revolutionary proletariat. The thing is not to proclaim internationalism, [SWP] but to be able to be an internationalist in deed when times are most trying”. [Lenin, ‘Tasks of the Proletariat in our Revolution’ CW, Vol. 24. p. 82.] “Insofar as our party membership consists in part of petty bourgeois elements completely disconnected from the proletarian class struggle, the crisis … It is noteworthy that the crisis struck the New York organisation of the party, thanks to its unfavourable social composition, with exceptional force and virulence, while the proletarian centres of the party remained virtually unaffected”.[Cannon, Struggle for a Proletarian Party. p. 7]. “We judge all people coming to us from another class by the extent of their real identification with our class, and the contributions they can make which aid the proletariat in its struggle against the capitalist class” (ibid p.19). The IS/IEC argues that there is no necessary correlation between method and programme because what “ultimately” counts is “politics”.

For Trotsky, and for us, making such a claim is to junk dialectics. Trotsky was very clear on the link between method, theory, programme and practice. In his polemic with Shachtman who claimed that there was no necessary connection between method and politics citing the cases of Plekhanov and Liebknecht. Trotsky replies: “This argument if it means anything at all signifies that dialectical materialism is of no use whatsoever to a revolutionist. With these examples of Leibknecht and Plekhanov artificially torn out of history, Shachtman reinforces and deepens the idea…that politics does not depend on method, inasmuch as method is divorced from politics by the divine gift of inconsistency. By falsely interpreting two `exceptions’, Shachtman seeks to overthrow the rule. If this is the argument of a `supporter’ of Marxism, what can we expect from an opponent? The revision of Marxism passes here into its downright liquidation; more than that, into the liquidation of every doctrine and every method.” [In Defence of Marxism, p. 96.]

Method and Political Economy.

The second area of difference was over the related area of the method of political economy. The LRCI and its leading section, British Workers Power group, had come out of the Cliffite IS in 1975. The LRCI recognised that its position on political economy was deficient, and that it still had to complete its analysis of the nature of Stalinist economies. In particular those of Leo and Goldman which argue, after Trotsky, that the contradiction in the DWS’s was between workers property in the means [forces] of production and bureaucratically planned relations of production. By comparison the LRCI document on “Economic reform and Economic Crises in the USSR” identified the contradiction as between the law of value and Stalinist planning. This failure to understand the nature of the contradiction in the DWS cannot produce a theory of the laws of motion, the dynamics of the Stalinist economy, and therefore its limits and necessary crisis. This failure also makes a nonsense of Trotsky’s concept of the dual state which cannot resolve the contradiction between workers property and bureaucratic planning. Both of these areas of difference between the LRCI and us ultimately come back to Marx’s method as applied to the understanding of capitalism. Both come back to dialectics.[See Trotsky on dialectics especially Appendix B on “Philosophical Tendencies of Bureaucratism” Challenge of the Left Opposition (1928-29) which makes the connections between the dialectical method, historical materialism and method of political economy in Capital. In particular Trotsky defends Marx’s method as a form of “monism” as opposed to the bureaucrats “multifactor” theory.]

The LRCI at that time had an understanding of Marxist political economy derived from Fine and Harris’ book Rereading Capital. [See the review of Rereading Capital, by Tony Allen. Also the article on the “World in Recession: Revolutionary Communist Papers, No 7 July 1981, which gives a fundamentalist” analysis of the crisis, and Leo “Fear of Fundamentalism” in the CWG archive]. We characterised this method of political economy as ultimately neo-Ricardian. This is a non-Marxist method which does not locate a necessary contradiction at the point of production motivating the `development’ of capitalism and determining its surface appearances including the state. Failure to understand this leads to neo-Ricardian positions on the state which credit the state with considerable “autonomy” in moderating if not managing the economy. [For an excellent account of neo-Ricardian economics and politics see D. Yaffe, “Value and Price in Marx’s Capital” in Revolutionary Communist, No 1, January 1975.] Because neo-Ricardians have an ahistorical technical view of relations of production they are either ignored or abstracted from the historical process. This leads in effect to a separation of production from distribution, and society from the state. The class struggle is reduced to a distributional struggle for control of the state to manage the economy.

The LRCI had broken with the Cliffite economics of the Permanent Arms Economy and state capitalism, but in effect they retained the underlying method of political economy. While they rejected the PAE as underconsumptionist, their account of the end of the post-war boom and the crisis of overaccumulation in the Trotskyist Manifesto showed that it had not broken with neo-Ricardianism. For example their explanation of crisis recognises the fact that “contradictions surface again”… Yet they confuse a cause of crisis with one of its effects. “US capital exports lead to underinvestment at home, which resulted in low productivity and hence to a decline in the of profit” [Trotskyist Manifesto. p 13]. This is to reverse the cause-effect sequence. Capital export is an effect of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, not its cause! In our fusion talks we characterised the LRCI’s method as “more analytical and descriptive than dialectical”. As a result the LRCI did not have a clear conception of the causes of the post-war boom, the crisis which brought it to an end, nor the necessary conditions for a world-wide revival of capital accumulation. Instead there was an impressionistic method which took each cycle and its distributional effects on class struggle in isolation of the deeper processes. This led to the LRCI overestimating the extent of the “world-wide recovery” in the mid 1980’s.[See WPNZ to LRCI 24 December 1990. p 4-9; WPNZ/A reply to LRCI December 1991, “The Revolutionary 90’s: Ten points in response to the LRCI Draft International Perspectives for the 1990’s”; and “Fear of Fundamentalism”.]

An impressionist method, therefore, leads to a revisionist political economy which has very dangerous consequences for workers in struggle. If world capitalism can “recover” without the necessity of re-establishing the conditions for renewed profitability by means of further massive destruction, including war and depression, this leads to a reformist perspective. It means that “democratic” imperialist states can collaborate and resolve their economic problems short of war and revolution. While the LRCI formally rejects this type of revisionism, recognising the “New World Disorder”, its method of political economy does not reject the possibility of such a relatively “peaceful” re-stabilisation of the world economy.The LRCI rejected the view that each cyclic recession must get deeper until the conditions for capital accumulation were renewed. This view clashed with that put forward by Dobbs in his document The World Economy, which showed that the “recovery” of the 1980’s failed to restore profitability in production, profits being made largely from speculation, and that each recession has been deeper than the previous one. Brian Green claims in his resignation letter that the IS made it difficult for him to complete this project and never got around to publishing it. [See our position in ” WPNZ/A Report to LRCI June-August 1991.]

Method, Crisis and Programme

The second related problem we identified in our fusion talks, was the failure to apply Marx’s method to the analysis of the degenerate(d) workers states. The LRCI’s understanding was that the contradiction in the DWSs was between the law of value and the bureaucratic state. A second contradiction between workers property and the bureaucratic state, which was the contradiction identified by Trotsky, was also recognised. But this contradiction is trivialised as one between workers production relations in society and bourgeois distributional relations in the state. This negates the importance of the contradiction internal to the dual state (between workers production relations and bourgeois distribution relations) and its class struggle resolution within the state by political revolution or bourgeois counter-revolution.”The contradiction at the heart of the Soviet Union is the contradiction between the system of property relations and a layer of administrators and distributors (the bureaucracy) who stand in the way of the working class dynamically developing the productive forces in its own i.e. socialist interests”. [The Degenerated Revolution.p30.] The neo-Ricardian echo shows up here when this contradiction is excluded from the state itself. Workers property in society is separated from the bourgeois state form. The contradiction as it is manifested in the state is therefore negated and the dynamic factor becomes reduced to the bureaucratic state and its capacity to develop or retard the economy. [Compare our criticism in “Workers Power NZ/A Report to LRCI June/August 1991 “The Analysis of Stalinism.”]

As we will see, this meant that the LRCI was unable to apply a dialectical understanding to the relationship between the forces and relations of production in the DWSs. This was to have serious consequences when, from 1989 onwards its position on the Stalinist state led directly to a theoretical and programmatic disorientation over the collapse of the Stalinist states and the restoration of capitalism.

Ultimately on these questions, theory and method must be judged against programme. The LRCI characterised our positions as “reductionist” and “catastrophist”, taking insufficient notice of “mediating effects of politics and ideology.” These differences are on Marx’s method as demonstrated in Capital etc. CLNZ based itself on Yaffe, Mattick, Grossman, Rosdolsky, characterised as “fundamentalists” by Lynch. Lynch rejects this view. The main arguments are found in “CLNZ to LRCI, 24/12/90” and Lynch’s reply “The WPNZ and the crisis in the world economy”. 18/10/91; and “Fear of Fundamentalism” March 8, 1993. The main point of contention was the so-called “recovery” of the mid-1980’s. Our position is that during a period crisis of overaccumulation,each recession gets worse and each “recovery” gets weaker until sufficient value is destroyed by depressions and wars to enable a new period of accumulation to begin. We found the LRCI position “impressionistic” because this recovery was largely “speculative” [a point we thought proven by Brian Greens’s World Economy document] and therefore not a recovery of conditions of capital accumulation. Lynch’s method allows for each cycle during a periodic crisis to be independent of any downward trend in devaluation. Its severity cannot be predicted and can only be determined by reference to empirical facts which includes the operation of counter-tendencies and the role of states in economic management. Therefore our position was viewed as “reductionist”, failing to recognise the factual significance of the recovery in profitability. This difference in method reappears consistently through to the debate over the “Perspectives” at the 3rd Congress.

Trotsky states that the conjunctural crisis is the `pulse’ of capitalism and cannot be used to explain crisis!

“In actuality, conjunctural cycles in the life of capitalism play the same role as, for example, cycles of blood circulation in the life of the organism. The inevitability of revolution flows just as little from the periodicity of crises as the inevitability of death from a rhythmic pulse”. [Writings, 1930, p 36.]

Compare Lynch’s method which sees the conjuncture as crisis and solution to crisis ie he misreads Grossman’s point that crisis is a “cure” to overaccumulation to attribute this mechanism to each conjunctural downturn. On prediction Trotsky states that:

“…revolutionary perspectives must be deduced from “real contradictory processes” not “false schemata”..(p 38).”It is necessary to foresee the inevitability of crisis after an upturn. It is necessary to warn the masses of a coming crisis. But the masses will be better prepared for the crisis the more that they, with correct leadership, utilise the period of the upturn” (p. 47)…”Combining subjective and objective data, it is possible to establish a tentative perspective of the movement, that is, a scientifically based prediction, without which a serious revolutionary struggle is in general inconceivable. But a prediction in politics does not have the character of a perfect blueprint: it is a working hypothesis.” (p.50).

On “catastrophism”. Lynch equates our method with that of the post-war Trotskyist dogma of war/revolution. Because we predict each downturn will be worse than the previous one to fulfil the necessary task of destroying value, our predictions can be proven wrong when premature ie. predicting pre-revolutionary crises, when the defeats of workers allowed the bourgeoisie impose neo-liberal solutions by means of democracy. These were predictions certainly anticipated more working class resistance to these neo-liberal attacks. In NZ, we responded to these attacks by predicting a pre-revolutionary crisis. But while we admit we were wrong, we were wrong not in predicting the severity of the attacks on workers, but in their ability to fight back. This method of prediction has much more in common with Trotsky’s prewar predictions than with the post-war epigones who pronounced a revolutionary period in the face of counter-revolutionary stabilisation. We are in good company in predicting pre-revolutionary situations in advance of their time. This method does not contradict our analysis of the period as counter-revolutionary.

Yet on the most important political question of the period, it is the LRCI’s method and theory which fails to recognise the end of the workers’ states and the world historic counter-revolutionary defeat. It is the LRCI’s disorientation on the question of the current period that calls into question its method and theory, not ours. The LRCI’s impressionistic method means that it cannot theoretically link the fundamental laws of motion of capitalism to everyday surface events. When surface events contradict its blind optimism in objective forces it forgoes reality as in the case of its conception of the “moribund workers’ states” and the “revolutionary period”.

It is certainly true that world capitalism cannot restabilise itself without depression and war, but these tendencies present in the structural crisis do not yet manifest themselves in the current balance of class forces in the form of revolutionary situations. On the contrary, the collapse of the Stalinist states has shifted the balance of class forces towards counterrevolution, and the character of the period has become that of democratic counter-revolution. The major pre-revolutionary crises are still ahead of us, as is the potential for revolution and counter-revolution, which are the defining conditions of a periodic crisis in the epoch of imperialism. We come back to the question of period below.

WPNZ(A) agreed to join the LRCI in early 1992 on the basis of general agreement with the programmatic positions in The Trotskyist Manifesto and on the understanding that we would fight to overcome our “major” differences by arriving at a common understanding of Marx’s method. We were impressed by the second Congress debate, and the way in which the Latin American comrades were treated. This allayed our fears that the LRCI was Euro-centrist in its practice.

In discussions since then the League began serious work on Marxist political economy, including crisis theory, imperialism and the nature of planning and the Stalinist states. However, at the same time the LRCI became immersed in the dramatic events surrounding the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern European DWSs. These events as it turned out were to become the decisive test of the LRCI’s ability to develop and apply its marxist method in practice i.e. of the political economy of the stalinist states and their collapse in practice. As a result of these tests the underlying weakness of the LRCI’s method and programme fully revealed itself. It became clear that because the LRCI did not have good analysis of the dws’s, it could not predict or intersect the restoration crisis in the USSR. The strategic line of political revolution got submerged in the tactic of critical support for bourgeois democracy on the basis of workers illusions in bourgeois democracy.[For our differences on these questions see; WPNZ/A to LRCI June-August 1991 [c] The Analysis of Stalinism; see LRCI May 1992 also.]

For responses to these revisions see Leo “”Where is the LRCI Going?” of July 1993 which reported good progress on political economy discussion; reservations on bourgeois democracy in the DWS’s, and sounds alarm about “a return to centrism or Reformism” with the revival of the minority position on the Stalinist state, and Johnson’s treatment on the IS. See “Observations on the last IEC” Jan ’94 which raises a number of concerns about bourgeois democracy in the DWS’s, the minority position on the state; the Bolivian “strategic defeat” and the “Anglo” and “Eurocentric” IS. And Leo “Why we need a Good Third Congress. p.2 on Democratic Centralism.

The Yeltsin Coup

The first major test was the Yeltsin coup. The LRCI’s position was confused. On the one hand it recognised correctly that neither those behind the coup nor Yeltsin intended to defend state property. On the other it said, against those who claimed that the coup makers should be supported because they were defending state property, that their reason for defending it, namely their caste privilege, was insufficient. [See “Revolution and Counter-Revolution in the Soviet Union” Trotskyist International No 7, Sept/Jan1991/92. “The [conservative faction of the old nomenclature] hoped by their actions on 19 August to defend their privileges on the basis of post-capitalist property relations and sought political legitimacy in the Supreme Soviet….In what sense could it be said that the SCSE “defended the planned property relations”? Only in this: that it resisted their abolition to the extent that they were the “host” off which it was parasitic. However, this massive social parasite was the principle cause of the sickness unto death of the bureaucratically centrally planned economy, of the consequent disillusion of the masses in it”.[ p7-9.]

So according to the LRCI to the extent that the “parasites” still defended “post-capitalist” property, they should not be supported because they caused the collapse of the “planned economy” in the first place. This was a clear break from Trotsky who argued that notwithstanding the Stalinists reasons for supporting state property, workers must bloc with them in this defence. What this break revealed was a residual Stalinophobia present in the LRCI.

This was further revealed in the nature of the support given Yeltsin during the coup. Both sides were restorationist and both posed a threat to workers. It is wrong to say that Yeltsin’s “democratic” method of restoration allowed a “democratic breathing space” for workers to mobilise a political revolution. Yeltsin’s method was that of a restorationist “popular front”. He wanted to use the widespread illusions in bourgeois democracy as the cover for his restoration. So while the conservatives were against Yeltsin, this did not mean that Yeltsin was for the workers. The point is that a fight between the enemies of the workers should have been used by workers to arm themselves against all their enemies. This required a workers united front against Yeltsin’s popular front of democrats, would-be exploiters, nationalists, and more privileged workers. The workers who supported Yeltsin were mainly privileged miners whose union leaders were supporters of restoration. Their leaders were composed of petty bourgeois graduates etc strongly influenced by marketising ideology. [See Trotskyist International April-July 1992 p27 “suicide of the Bureaucracy” p. 31.] Yeltsin flew to mines to call off strike. [p. 34.] The LRCI having argued against the WRP “stalinophobia” that the miners were “influenced by imperialism” [IIB 37 May 1991] turns around and claims in a polemic against the RTT [TI April-July 1992] that the miners led the workers defence of democratic rights. In the space of several months the miners go from being a new labour aristocracy to being the vanguard of workers struggles.

The miners got sucked into the popular front which is proven by Yeltsin calling off their strike! Yeltsin as agent of imperialist restoration tells workers they are going too far [and his supporters disarm the soviets!]. Not all workers got sucked into the popular front. Most stayed at home, but others armed themselves and defended the soviets. They were the vanguard workers who mobilised as a working class united front against the coup, and who also regarded Yeltsin as their enemy. In “Suicide of a Bureaucracy” [Trotskyist International April-July 1992] the LRCI makes light of the socialists who went to defend the “Red House”. Kagarlitsky was clearly a social democrat, but he is committed to “market socialism”, not rapid restoration. The thousands of workers who wanted to defend “socialism” were the obvious vanguard to be mobilised against the Yeltsinites. Those few who did go to the White House, they went to “support their enemies”. [See Interview with Kagarlitsky, IIB 44. November 1991.]

It was necessary for revolutionaries to expose Yeltsin as the enemy of the political revolution.The correct position was to mobilise workers independently of Yeltsin, an open restorationist. If Yeltsin was serious in opposing the coup we could offer a military bloc with him, but only if he “broke with the bourgeoisie”. Kagarlitsky is reported to have claimed that Yeltsin was not serious about opposing the coup since its purpose “was to pull Yeltsin and Gorbachev together into the government of national reconciliation, with emergency powers”. Yeltsin became serious and betrayed the coup when he realised that he could take emergency powers and have his own coup. So by the time Yeltsin got serious he was already taking more emergency powers than the Committee of Emergency, justifying this in the name of “democracy”. According to this view, Yeltsin usurped the coup to strengthen his relationship with the bourgeoisie. [Adams “Interview with Kagarlitsky” in ‘Report on visit to Moscow’ IIB 44, November 1991.

Revolutionaries would have demanded that Yeltsin not only called for and supported a general strike, but called on the army to defect and arm the workers.We would not have defended the White House during the coup [except in the unlikely event that it became part of the defence of workers democracy.] The correct place for revolutionaries was the armed defence of the Soviets. Kagarlistsky also claims that there was no attack on the Moscow or Leningrad soviets by the Emergency Committee. It was the members of the Soviets, members of the “democratic” bodies, not the coup plotters, that attempted to disarm the Moscow and Leningrad soviets. [Kagarlitsky interview cited above.] Against Yeltsin calling off the strike we would have called on the miners to break from Yeltsin. This would have helped Yeltsin to expose himself to those layers of workers who saw the need to build an independent, armed workers movement.

The LRCI called for a “united front” with Yeltsin without conditions. They were prepared to stand side by side with Yeltsin defending the Russian “White House” the symbol of bourgeois parliament. This was capitulating to the illusions in bourgeois democracy by claiming that such “democratic rights” empowered the working class. But talking about democracy in the abstract confuses bourgeois and workers democracy in a degenerated workers state. The LRCI had strongly argued some months earlier against any concessions to bourgeois democracy, although it was never “against democracy” but rather “in favour of workers democracy”. It now abandoned its formally correct position on the grounds that the struggle for bourgeois democratic rights could advance the political revolution .

Trotsky rejected the concept of democracy in the abstract. [See Trotsky, “Is Parliamentary Democracy likely?”. p55. “Defence of Soviet Republic and the Opposition” p291; “Does SU follow principles etc” p37/38.] The LRCI too, formally rejected bourgeois democracy up until the coup: “An extension of parliamentary democracy in the Stalinist states will prove a cruel deception for the masses. This “separation of power” between the apparent equality of parliament and the hidden but real inequality within society is not possible within the degenerate(d) workers states because the economy is not privately owned (p.17); “A freely elected parliament would sound the death-knell of Stalinist control – but it would not herald the victory of the proletariat. This does not mean that revolutionary Marxists are against democracy. It means that we are in favour of working class democracy. A five yearly election of a few hundred Mps is not vehicle for the exercise of such democracy (p.17).; “It is not surprising that in the Stalinist states today the “soviets” – a grotesque parody of the original workers’ and peasants’ councils are hated by the masses. But the alternative is not to turn the clock back to capitalist “democracy”. It is to build completely new councils as the basis for completely new workers’ democracy, a democracy that can and must triumph through a political revolution against bureaucracy”.[ Stalinism in Crisis.p 18].

The LRCI changed its mind when the extent of popular illusions in bourgeois democracy became clear. See the debate over bourgeois democracy at 3rd Congress. .Section on “Changes to Chapter 5” in “Why we need a good 3rd Congress”, and reply “once again on August 1991” “A Backward looking opposition: A Reply to Comrade Leo”.  The reason the LRCI thinks that bourgeois democratic rights are progressive in a DWS is that it regards the Stalinist states as “Bourgeois” in form, and therefore, during the August coup it was progressive to bloc with the bourgeois “democrat” Yeltsin against the bourgeois [Stalinist] dictators.

But how is the working class empowered by its illusions in the “freedoms” offered by glasnost and perestroika? This is the path of “democratic counter-revolution” in which workers voted for the end of workers property in the false hope that it would bring real freedom and economic salvation. Again this showed the tendency to succumb to popular pressure to defend the democratic rights of workers by appealing to Yeltsin’s restorationist friends including the imperialists. On the question of “democratic counter-revolution” see Dobbs “Twenty-one weeks is a very long time in politics” and Brian Green’s Resignation letter.

What Green argues is that you cannot view the process of “democratic counter-revolution” as a “political revolutionary crisis”. It is the false perspective of the LRCI which held out hope that bourgeois democratic rights could provide a “breathing space” for political revolution which leads to the false characterisation of this phase of struggle as a political revolutionary crisis. A political revolution must involve the overthrow of the bureaucracy in defence of workers property. The “democratic” aspects of the process resulted from elements of the bureaucracy coopting layers of the working class in support of a “democratic” restoration. A similar weakness had already become apparent in the defence of the Baltic states from Soviet invasion. The LRCI correctly called for the unconditional right to self-determination of the Baltic states from the USSR i.e. in the case of Lithuania calling for independent workers state, and opposed the invasion of the Red Army. Yet at the same time it called on aid from imperialist states [without strings!] to defend these states.

Comrade Johnson in relation to Bosnia says that Imperialists are not “Santa Claus” to prove that there is no way that imperialism can intervene without strings. [“From a Revolutionary to an Eclectic Line on Bosnia” IIB 86] To argue otherwise is to capitulate to democratic imperialism, or social imperialism, the UN and other “fronts” for imperialist interests. We call on workers in all states to send arms and themselves to fight for an independent workers council state. This is saying that democratic imperialism is better than the Stalinist dictatorship of the proletariat!

The correct position for revolutionaries was to organise an armed struggle for a workers council state independent of both the Red Army bureaucrats and the nationalists, calling on the Red Army [like Trotsky did on Poland] to turn their guns on the Kremlin. Siding with one set of restorationists against the other does not advance the demand for an independent workers council state. It was also necessary to call on workers everywhere to support the struggle, including the mobilisation of arms and volunteers from outside Lithuania.

United Fronts with Imperialism

We see here a common problem. With the collapse of the USSR, the defence of workers property becomes subordinated to the defence of bourgeois democracy. This is justified as necessary to enable the working class to mobilise against decades of Stalinist repression and to overthrow the bureaucracy. But where elements of the bureaucracy are busy becoming would-be bourgeois, posing as democrats and competing to attract imperialist backing, how does “democracy” in the abstract advance the political revolution? The LRCI conducted a polemic against Socialist Organiser [in Stalinism in Crisis, published in 1991] on the question of “democracy”. “Socialist Organiser points out that “Everywhere the rallying cry of the revolution has been democracy” (SO, 18-1-90).

For revolutionary Marxists democracy is never classless. It can be, like bourgeois democracy, the disguised dictatorship of the capitalist class. Or it can be, like Soviet Power, the undisguised dictatorship of the working class. It is always the means of one class to rule over another. Parliamentary democracy holds two dangers for the working class of Eastern Europe. It can be the means of demobilising mass action… Secondly, parliamentary democracy can become the vehicle through which the Stalinists carry out and legitimate the sell off of state property etc.” … “For SO neither danger is relevant. There are no Soviets at present, it argues, so any parliamentary system is a step forward. And the restoration of capitalism is not a problem either since Stalinism is only as “backward parallel” to capitalism. Consequently, SOs immediate programme limits itself to the most radical form of parliamentary democracy” [p.39].

On the question of freedom of bourgeois parties. “The Leninist norm on party legality was for freedom to form parties committed to its overthrow. Mandel and the USFI never explain what unique contribution to the political revolutionary process open restorationist and neo-fascist parties could make.” [p35] “The whole political method of the USFI is based on finding unconscious revolutionaries, Stalinist or petty bourgeois nationalist parties which become the instrument of an historic process, alleviating the need for the conscious intervention of a revolutionary Trotskyist party” [p.35].

The problem is that is it not democracy in the abstract but bourgeois democracy which reflects at the level of state power and ideology, bourgeois social relations. Here “bourgeois right” already existing in the form of unequal relations of distribution, are extended to represent the “rights” of private property, ownership of the means of production, contract etc. ie. bourgeois relations of production.Trotsky said:

“Things must be called by their right names. What is involved here is not the introduction of some disembodied democracy but returning Russia to the capitalist road”… “But the masses do not want the landowner, the official, or the boss back. One must not overlook these “trifles” in intoxicating oneself with commonplaces about democracy”. [Trotsky “Is Parliamentary Democracy Likely?” [Writings, 1929.p. 55.]  “When people counterpose democracy to the Soviets, what they usually have in mind is simply the parliamentary system.They forget about the other side of the question, the decisive one at that – namely that the October Revolution cleared the path for the greatest democratic revolution in human history… The Soviet system is not simply a form of government that can be compared abstractly with the parliamentary form. Above all it is a new form of property relations. What is involved at bottom is the ownership of land, the banks, the mines, the factories, the railroads.” [p.54]

Democratic demands such as the calling for `constituent assemblies’ where bourgeois-type parliaments are already in existence are necessary, not because they endorse such parliaments, but because they make it possible to replace parliaments with workers councils. However the LRCI goes much further than this. Workers are invited by the LRCI not to oppose openly restorationist parties; not to oppose open restorationists – Yeltsin and co – who are openly grabbing more powers and suppressing workers armed resistance; to bloc with national restorationists against the Red Army and to call on aid without strings from imperialism! Are these not united fronts with imperialism? Or is this to slander the LRCI as it claims? [See IEC resolution p. 5 para 21.]

In the case of the UF with Yeltsin, it was his nominal defence of the White House which allowed him to take emergency powers, including those against the soviets and the communist party, and firming up his imperialist ties, which made him victorious and sped up his seizure of power and the onset of the economic shock therapy. To claim that it was the threat of mass working class support behind the 100’s of miners who supported Yeltsin that caused the coup to collapse is false given that it was the “democrats” not the plotters who had most to fear from the armed and organised working class.

The LRCI claims that: “The tens or hundreds of thousands who gathered around the Russian Federation Parliament and the Leningrad Soviet were hardly sufficient to halt the plotters, but the forces of society which stood behind them were much more formidable. The threat of general strike by the miners and other independent unions, actual strikes in the Kuzbas and Vorkuta and threats of strikes in the Donbas, strikes by industrial workers in Leningrad and Sverdlovsk, the certainty of meeting armed resistance in the republics -all these factors paralysed the armed forces and the KGB. Utilising the unconstitutional nature of the SCSE, the great bulk of the armed forces refused to obey its instructions. Even large sections of the KGB refused to do so and defected to Yeltsin.” [Trotskyist International, April-July, 1992.] In the case of the Baltics, it was the promise of imperialist support for independence that aided the victory of the nationalists and rapid privatisation. In both cases the ability of workers to independently fight for the defence of democracy as the means of defending workers property and of creating independent workers states was undermined by a popular front with imperialism.

In other words, the democracy that was being defended here was already bourgeois democracy and not workers democracy. Bourgeois democracy was that defended by the would-be bourgeois Stalinists in the USSR or the openly bourgeois leaders in the Baltics. [The same could be said for Eastern Europe]]. The political rights won under bourgeois democracy, the right for individuals to vote, freedom of speech and assembly etc. were not rights that enabled workers to mobilise for political revolution. On the contrary they were “rights” that represented the “freedom” of workers to vote for a democratic counter-revolution. To the extent that the League gave political support to bourgeois democracy it was strengthening the arms of capitalist restorationists at the expense of workers democracy. Workers democracy, on the other hand, was and is the ability to fight to overthrow the bureaucracy by arming the workers, winning over the Red Army and revolutionising the soviets from the ground up.

This the only possible meaning that can be attached to workers democracy in a degenerated workers state.

“It would be quixotic, not to say idiotic, to fight for democracy in a party which is realising the rule of a class hostile to us. In such a case, one couldn’t speak of a class democracy in the party and in the soviets, but of “general” (that is, bourgeois) democracy in the country – against the ruling party and its dictatorship…we are fighting for proletarian democracy precisely in order to shield the country of the October Revolution from the “liberties” of bourgeois democracy, that is, from capitalism…All these freedoms are unthinkable outside the regime of democracy, that is, outside of capitalism. One must learn to think one’s thoughts out to the end”. [Trotsky, ‘Defence of the Soviet Republic and the Opposition’, in Writings, 1929.p29].

Writing in 1936 on the impact of the new constitution, Trotsky states that it is a return to the “system of bourgeois democracy based upon the so-called “universal, equal and direct vote of an atomized population. This is a matter, to put it briefly, of juridically liquidating the dictatorship of the proletariat”.[Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed. P261.] And just as these “freedoms” were bogus and served only to “further reinforce the dictatorship” of the bonapartist bureaucracy, why should the attempts by the collapsing bureaucracy to further such “freedoms” under 1980’s glasnost, or of Yeltsin’s “democracy”, be any less bogus? Yeltsin like Stalin was concerned to liquidate the “dictatorship of the proletariat” in the name of… “democracy”.

The state debate.

We have seen that under the impact of the collapse of the Stalinist states, the LRCI had abandoned its formally correct Trotskyist positions on the DWSs, and begun to justify its support for bourgeois democracy by saying that it was more progressive than the stalinist dictatorship. But this left an embarrassing gap between the LRCI’s theory and practice. By 1993 this embarrassment motivated an attack on the League’s formally correct Trotskyist position to remove the source of embarrassment. The suppression of the contradiction in the stalinist state present in the Degenerated Revolution was now taken to its logical conclusion. A minority in the League wanted the possibility of any contradiction to be theoretically removed. According to this revision, DWS’s consist of workers property in contradiction with a bourgeois state in the form of a stalinist dictatorship. While that position was defeated in 1981, its revival was intended to provide a theoretical revision to justify the League’s adaptation to bourgeois democracy in the crisis of the collapse of the stalinist states.[See “Twelve years On” by Lynch in IIB 61 and replies from Sparkes, Van and Johnson in IIB 62]

The revisionist position on the state can be seen to be one mid-way between the Cliffite position of state capitalism and that of Trotsky.The state capitalist position is very popular in the light of the Stalinist collapses because it never held out any prospect that the Stalinist states were “socialist” or “workers states” of any sort. Their collapse did not signify a defeat for the world’s workers. The state capitalist theory began as an opportunist adaptation to the popular consciousness that Stalinism was totally reactionary, it remains even more popular today because it fits in with the bourgeois claim that reactionary Stalinism was the cause of its own downfall.

The LRCI formally broke with State Capitalism in 1981 and as such could not immediately revert to that position. It could not openly revive the junked political economy of state capitalism. But because the League’s method separates society from the state, it could revise Marxism to allow workers property to coexist with a bourgeois state. This was the thrust of the 1981 minority position on the Stalinist state. If adopted, this position would allow the League to explain the relatively peaceful transformation of the state without “winding the film of reformism back”. If it was already a bourgeois state, it need change only in its personnel and not its class nature. While empirically very neat in accounting for the apparently peaceful transfer of power from bureaucrat to bourgeoisie in the collapsed Stalinist states, this revision went too far. It argued that the post-war overturns in which the bourgeoisie were expropriated was performed by a bourgeois state! [See “The state debate – back to basics” and “Reply to Leo”.]

The majority could not accept this and the revision was defeated at the 3rd Congress in July 1994. But the state debate revealed that the majority in the League also had an understanding of the Stalinist state as predominantly bourgeois in form. This meant that already in the 1981 document The Degenerated Revolution there was a weakness on the question of the Stalinist state. Although the nature of the basic contradiction “the contradiction between a system of property relations and a layer of administrators (the bureaucracy)” (p.30) is formally correct, the way this contradiction is expressed in the dual state becomes subordinated to a fixation on the “bourgeois form” of the state. In Eastern Europe, “The Stalinists moved against the bourgeoisie, having already destroyed their armed power, with the full intention of maintaining a state profoundly similar to that of the old bourgeois type, not replacing it with a state of the new soviet type” (p.51) “We describe the dws as one what has a dual contradictory character, it defends proletarian property forms but it does so with coercive instruments normally associated with capitalist states.” [p.50The Degenerated Revolution.]

In all of this there is a fetishising of the bourgeois form of the state at the expense of its class content  ie. the class nature of the state. This ultimately goes back to the suppression of the contradiction in the dual state itself. [See  “The State Debate- back to basics”]. This is shown by the fact that the class character of the workers state is submerged into its bourgeois form. This means that the state becomes a mechanical reflection of the social relations of production defined economistically as the suppression of the law of value by means of nationalisation, central planning, and the monopoly of foreign trade. The workers state only comes into existence once the law of value is suppressed, and goes out of existence when the law of value has reasserted itself as “dominant”. Left out of this analysis is the dialectical relationship between the state and the economy in which the state overturn must precede the transformation of social relations in any revolutionary transition. The consequences for programme are obvious. There can be no revolutionary transformations in which political struggle plays a part! History is the result of objective “economistic” laws of change in which the state is a passive partner.[See The Leninist-Trotskyist Tendencies argument “The Marxist theory of the state and the collapse of Stalinism” In Defence of Marxism, June 1995 No 10-6.]

If the Stalinist states were in reality bourgeois dictatorships, then it logically follows that they could be defended with bourgeois democracy, and that open bourgeois parties could be tolerated and united fronts with nationalist restorationists in breakaway republics could be made. United fronts with democratic imperialism could be justified against the Stalinist dictatorship. This shows why the LRCI, while an objective, economist process of restoration was under way in the economy, entrusted the defence of workers property not to workers democracy, but to bourgeois democracy – that “juridical liquidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat”. Which ultimately means no defence at all! [See the revised Chapter 5 of the Trotskyist Manifesto which means the LRCI no longer “opposes” openly restorationist parties: “we are not in favour of them”!” We do not oppose any parties, short of fascist, [why only fascist?] that have working class support”. This is the tactic of critical support appropriate for capitalism, introduced into a dictatorship of the proletariat! “Such thoughts are unthinkable” said Trotsky.]

Revising Trotsky on the class character of the state.

The only way the LRCI could characterise the Stalinist states as bourgeois in form was to revise Trotsky’s analysis of the class character of the workers’ states.

According to Trotsky:

“The class nature of the state is, consequently determined not by its political forms but by its social content; i.e. by the character of the forms of property and productive relations which the given state guards and defends”… only the intrusion of a revolutionary or a counter-revolutionary force in property relations can change the class nature of the state”…But does not history really know of cases of class conflict between the economy and the state? It does! After the “third estate” seized power, society for several years still remained feudal. In the first months of Soviet rule the proletariat reigned on the basis of a bourgeois economy. In the field of agriculture the dictatorship of the proletariat operated for a number of years on the basis of a petty-bourgeois economy (to a considerable degree it does so even now). Should a bourgeois counter-revolution succeed in the USSR, the new government for a lengthy period would have to base itself upon the nationalised economy. But what does such a type of temporary conflict between the economy and the state mean? It means a revolution or a counterrevolution. The victory of one class over another signifies that it will reconstruct the economy in the interests of the victors. But such a dichotomous conditions, which is a necessary stage in every social overturn, has nothing in common with the theory of a classless state which in the absence of any real boss is being exploited by a clerk, i.e. by the bureaucracy.” [Trotsky, Not a Workers, Not a Bourgeois State, Writings. (37-38) pps 63-64.]

Trotsky understood the workers’ states as contradictory formations in which workers property was in contradiction with bureaucratic state power. This contradiction would lead to a crisis of underproduction because while the bureaucracy used its state power to extract surplus it could not plan the development of the forces of production efficiently. The state therefore expressed this contradiction between production and distribution. It had a proletarian character so long as it protected workers property, and a bourgeois character so long it appropriated a surplus to maintain bureaucratic privilege.

Trotsky clearly saw the existence of a workers’ state as necessary:

“because the bourgeois norms of distribution still remain in force”…”This means that even the most revolutionary bureaucracy is to a certain degree a bourgeois organ in the workers state. Of course the degree of this bourgeoisification and the general tendency of development bears decisive significance. If the workers state loses its bureaucratization and gradually falls away, this means that its development marches along the road of socialism. On the contrary, if the bureaucracy becomes ever more powerful, authoritative, privileged, and conservative, this means that in the workers state, the bourgeois tendencies grow at the expense of the socialist; in other words that inner contradiction which to a certain degree is lodged in the workers state from the first days of its rise does not diminish, as the “norm” demands, but increases. However, so long as that contradiction has not passed from the sphere of distribution into the sphere of production, and has not blown up nationalised property and the planned economy, the state remains a workers state.” [Trotsky, “Not a workers, not a bourgeois state”. [Writings (37-38) p 67.]

The state therefore has a dual contradictory character. The contradiction would be resolved progressively if workers overthrew the bureaucrats state power; reactively if the bureaucracy destroyed the plan, the monopoly of foreign trade and state property. Here’s Trotsky on the dual power aspect of the dual state in 1928:

” What do we have in reality? We have a strongly advanced process of dual power in the country. Has power passed into the hands of the bourgeoisie? Obviously not. Has power slipped out of the hands of the proletariat? To a certain degree, to a considerable degree, but still far from decisively. This is what explains the monstrous predominance of the bureaucratic apparatus oscillating between the classes…A condition of dual power is unstable, by its very essence. Sooner or later, it most go one way or the other. But as the situation is now, the bourgeoisie could seize power only by the road of counterrevolutionary upheaval. As for the proletariat, it can regain full power, overhaul the bureaucracy, and put it under its control by the road of reform of the party and the soviets.” [“Our differences with the Democratic Centralists” in Challenge of the Left Opposition (1928-29), 294-5.]

Trotsky retains this view in 1936, [pps 52-56 The Revolution Betrayed]. And in 1937:

“The function of Stalin has a dual character. Stalin serves the bureaucracy and thus the world bourgeoisie; but he cannot serve the bureaucracy without defending the social foundation which the bureaucracy exploits in its own interests. To this extent does Stalin defend nationalised property from imperialist attacks and from the too impatient and avaricious layers of the bureaucracy itself. However, he carries through this defence with methods that prepare the general destruction of Soviet society.” [“Not a Workers’and Not a Bourgeois State?” Writings, 37©38, p.65.] 

And in 1940 in the Manifesto of the FI, Trotsky wrote:

“..the Soviet Union by virtue of the social foundations laid down by the October Revolution, upon which the existence of the bureaucracy itself is dependent in the last analysis, still remains a workers’ state, terrifying to the bourgeoisie of the whole world…the class conscious worker knows that a successful struggle for complete emancipation is unthinkable without the defense of the conquests already gained, however modest these may be. All the more obligatory therefore is the defense of so colossal a conquest as planned economy against the restoration of capitalist relations. Those who cannot defend old positions will never conquer new ones.” [Writings, 39-40, p.199.]

As the mechanical materialism of The Degenerated Revolution shows, the LRCI never fully adopted Trotsky’s position on the state. This was because it could not apply a dialectical method to the relationship of the state and the economy, since it falsely conceived of the contradiction in the dws’s as between the law of value and the bureaucratic state, with a second contradiction between workers property and the bureaucracy. By making the main contradiction between that of the law of value and the bureaucracy, the LRCI minimises one side of the contradiction – workers property. This means that the main contradiction is not internal to the dws. It negates the internal contradiction between workers property and bureaucratic power as it manifests itself in the dual state. In turn it fails to recognise that the class struggle mediated by the Bonapartist bureaucracy takes place over control of the state.

For Marxists the law of value and the bureaucratic state are not the two poles of the main contradiction. The main contradiction is ultimately between workers property [socialism] and the law of value [capitalism]. But inside the DWSs this is mediated by the bureaucracy, in the form of the bonapartist dictatorship, that balances between the two classes. This means that the contradiction can only be resolved by one or other class taking state power out of the hands of the bureaucracy. Either the working class takes state power and the law of value is suppressed, or the bourgeoisie takes state power and workers property [plan, monopoly of foreign trade] is suppressed:

“The organ of the rule of the proletariat – the state- becomes an organ for pressure from imperialism (diplomacy, foreign trade, ideas, and customs). The struggle for domination, considered on a historical scale, is not between the proletariat and the bureaucracy, but between the proletariat and the world bourgeoisie. The bureaucracy is only the transmitting mechanism in this struggle”. [Trotsky, “Not a Workers’ and Not a Bourgeois state” in Writings. 37-38, p 70.]

The LRCI therefore cannot understand the dialectics of revolutionary /counterrevolutionary social overturns in which: “The victory of one class over another signifies that it will reconstruct the economy in the interests of the victors”.[“Not a Workers, Not a Bourgeois state”. Writings 37-38, p.64.] Instead it views the dynamics of both revolutionary and counterrevolutionary overturns as an objective process at the level of the economy in which the state plays a passive role in determining the class nature of society. On this point the LTT criticism of the LRCI is valid. The failure to understand the role of the state in social overturns leaves a gaping hole in the LRCI’s programme. It places a “question mark” over the USSR up to 1928 when the law of value was finally subordinated to the plan; over the post-war overturns between 1948 and 1950 when the plans came into existence in the EE workers’ states; in Cuba between 1960-62 before the introduction of the first five year plan. In each of these cases, between the workers’ seizure of power, and the subordination of the law of value, what was the class nature of the state? [see the LTT’s “The Marxist Theory of the State and the Collapse of Stalinism” In Defence of Marxism. No 3 1995 p12-13].

By 1993 the consequences of this failure became obvious to us. In response to the collapse of the DWSs, the LRCI rejected Trotsky’s analysis of the DWS, and separating property relations from the state, found that there was no part of the workers state [Red army] that defended state property. The workers state was already a bourgeois state and would need to be smashed. It therefore abandoned the most advanced workers defending the “Red house” in preference for the “most advanced” miners who came to the “White house” to join those who supported bourgeois rights of distribution becoming bourgeois relations of production. The LRCI’s tactic for political revolution fell prey to the bourgeoisies’ strategy of bourgeois democratic counter-revolution which saw bourgeois state overturns after 1990. It now denies that these overturns have occurred still entrusting the defence of state property to some objective process: a combination of worker resistance to the restoration of capitalist social relations, and the development of bourgeois democratic rights which will help facilitate political revolution, and which will hinder the completion of the restoration of the market.

In this way the LRCI adapts to Stalinophobia by making united fronts with democratic capitalist regimes in practice, while at the same time it invokes a formal “Trotskyism” in opposing the restoration of capitalist social relations in the abstract. In giving up the fight for political revolution, it relies on some fundamental economic process delaying restoration to rescue it from the charge of welcoming capitalist restoration. This political capitulation before an objective process has a name in the history of Marxism – it is economism or fatalism. In the history of Trotskyism it has another name – Pabloism. Lets see how the current position of the LRCI on the crucial question of restoration is. [‘The Restoration Debate: When is a workers’ state not a workers’ state?’]

The crunch test for Trotskyism today is the understanding of the restoration process following the collapse of the Stalinist states. It is a supreme test of Marxist method because it involves the counter-revolutionary destruction of the workers states at the hands of world capitalism. By any conception of Marxism, let alone Trotskyism, the restoration of capitalism in these states represent a world-historic defeat for the working class. [Trotsky referred to the prospect of the collapse of the Soviet Union as an “historical catastrophe”. “International Left Opposition” Documents of the Fourth International (33-40) p.26.]

The failure to recognise this and its consequences for programme is disastrous for workers everywhere.The LRCI’s inability to deal theoretically with this question is clear. It is the rewinding of the film of the “classless” state in reverse. While the `form’ of the state is bourgeois, it has no actual class `content’. “It is a bourgeois state form whose social content remains undecided”. [LTT “The Marxist Theory of the State…” p 15.] In April 1991 Lynch stated that Poland was state capitalist (IIB 34); One month later, Lynch has revised the method and declared Poland to still be a workers state, but that it would be state capitalist by the end of 1991 (IIB 36). [See also Permanent Revolution, 9, 1991. p. 84.] Two years later, when the new criteria for the end of the workers state had not been reached, and Dobbs’ alternative analysis had been sidelined, the LRCI invented the concept of the “moribund workers state”.

The LRCI’s current position [i.e. mid1995 ] on restoration, is that only in the former DDR was restoration completed, and that by means of the physical assimilation of DDR in the re-united Germany. In all the other states, despite the existence of “bourgeois regimes”, the economies have not yet seen the law of value dominant. Therefore capitalism has not been restored. Here we have two things. On the one hand the famililar separation of state and economy allows the LRCI to talk of bourgeois regimes in the absence of bourgeois social relations.The Mazowiecki government, formed in August 1989, well before “big bang”, and clearly “intending” to restore capitalism, is termed by Keith Harvey a “bourgeois workers government” according to Lenin’s definition i.e. “a government resting on the working class and its organisations but thoroughly bourgeois and pro-capitalist in its programme.” [Note 4. p.87 “Poland’s transition to Capitalism” Permanent Revolution, 9, 1991,p. 54.] On the other hand, planned social relations still exist because the law of value is not dominant, so therefore a workers state, albeit degenerated to the point of being moribund, still exists. [ibid p 59.]

The LRCI rejects the mere purging of the state being sufficient for the introduction of capitalism. Of the three features that define the workers state “it is the negation of the law of value via some system of bureaucratic planning that is decisive, the other two having a fundamentally technical character in that they are measures that allow planning”. But when is planning planning. According to the LRCI, quoting the World Bank, the situation at the end of 1990 was as follows: “The old planning system has broken down but has not yet been dismantled; meanwhile the structures vital to the functioning of the market have yet to be put in place”. [ibid (note 90, p 94)]. As Dobbs argues the LRCI position on restoration is normative. It seems that their norms are those of the World Bank and the Journal the Economist. What does “commercialisation” of relationships between banks, enterprises and the state mean? It can only mean “free market” capitalism. The LRCI position parallels that of the new right “civic” society theorists who do not accept that capitalism has been restored until the market is fully developed and as a result the conditions for democracy also created. [see Ivan Bernik “Politics and Society in Postsocialism” Journal of Communist and post-communist studies, 24, (2-3), 1994]

The absurdity of this position is clear enough. While the state is clearly smashing the plan and recreating the conditions for capitalist property, and is considered a “bourgeois regime”, it cannot be termed a bourgeois state because it has not succeeded in completely restoring capitalist social relations. This flies in the face of everything that Marx, Lenin and Trotsky wrote about the state, and Trotsky wrote about the Stalinist state. Logically, while acknowledging that the transition to capitalism will take the form of state capitalism, the LRCI’s position makes this impossible. In denying its existence as the “actually existing” capitalism in the ex-workers states, it excludes the possibility of state capitalist stage occurring. Ironically, this may prove a self-fulfilling prophesy if the “completion” of restoration in these state never achieves the abstract “free market” criteria set by the LRCI’s normative method.

“But such a counterposing of norm to fact, that is to say, of the generalised expression of the development to the particular manifestation of this same development – such a formal, ultimatistic, nondialectical counterposing of programme to reality is absolutely lifeless and does not open the road for the intervention of the revolutionary party.” [Trotsky, “Not a Workers’ not a Bourgeois State” Writings 37-38.p68.]

Again the problem goes back to method. How is the capitalist state understood? At the most abstract level, Marxists understand the capitalist state as a superstructural reproducer of capitalist social relations. But this does not mean that the social relations to be reproduced have to be in existence before the state. As we have seen, in concrete historical conditions, the state plays the revolutionary role of creating new social relations as a result of the seizure of state power. In the case of the collapsed worker states as they actually exist historically, [as the result of complex determinations], how would we expect the state to behave in the social overturn which sees capitalist social relations restored? The IS/IEC claims that our method of determining the point at which quantity becomes quality and the end of the workers state is based on exchange and not production relations.

Of course we are only talking of the beginning of the restoration of capitalism not the end of the process. As Trotsky made clear, once the bourgeoisie have state power they must reintroduce capitalism via the agency of the state which retains the form of state property but alters its content releasing the law of value. Once this is achieved by ending the monopoly of foreign trade and the reintroduction of a convertible currency, planning is over and the law of value is not longer suppressed. So it is not just money that plays the key role, but the state itself. How does the LRCI square its normative criteria lifted from Volume 1 of CAPITAL with the reality that it is the state which transforms the social relations from above? Marx abstracted the state from his analysis of capital in Vol. 1 for the purpose of exposition, the LRCI is under no such obligation today. Trotsky had an answer. In the first instance, the state would transform the content while maintaining the form of state property.

Here we deliberately refer to “concrete determinations” to contrast Marx’s method of abstraction which is used to derive an understanding of the “concrete complexity” of the mediations of the state in an historic overturn such as the collapse of the Stalinist states, in contrast to the LRCI’s normative method of proceeding directly from an abstraction “the law of value” and its operation “free labour” to the concrete. “Even under capitalism, the proposition that the value of commodities is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour time required to produce them does not operate according to as set of ideal norms (free competition) but within living contradictions. What is `normal’, in fact, is that capitalism `violates’ the law of value at the particular level so as to realise it at a general level.” [LTT “The Marxist Theory of the State and the Collapse of Stalinism” In Defence of Marxism. No 3, 1995. p.14.]

Its content would be expressed as state capitalism. But the state would precede capitalism: “The inevitable collapse of Stalinist Bonapartism would immediately call into question the character of the USSR as a workers’ state. A socialist economy cannot be constructed without a socialist power. The fate of the USSR as a socialist state depends upon that political regime that will arise to replace Stalinist Bonapartism.”[Trotsky, “The Workers’ State, Thermidor and Bonapartism” Writings, 34-35, p182.]

Because the property relations are “indivisibly bound up with the state” this would require first the “replacement of a workers’ government by a bourgeois or petty-bourgeois government [which] would inevitably lead to the liquidation of the planned economy and, subsequently, the restoration of private property. In contradistinction to capitalism, socialism is built not automatically but consciously. Progress towards socialism is inseparable from that state power that is desirous of socialism or that is constrained to desire it.” [Trotsky, “The Workers’ state, Thermidor and Bonapartism” Writings, 34-35, p 179.] Nor did Trotsky insist that the overthrow of the bureaucracy must be by bourgeois or petty-bourgeois. “Nobody has ever denied the possibility – especially in case of prolonged world decay – of the restoration of anew possessing class springing from the bureaucracy.” [Once Again: The USSR and its Defence”. Writings, 37-38, p 38.]

In case it may be said that this is consistent with the LRCI position, it is not: “the property relations which issued from the socialist revolution are indivisibly bound up with the new state as their repository. The predominance of socialist over petty bourgeois tendencies is guaranteed, not by the automatism of the economy – we are still far from that – but by political measures taken by the dictatorship. The character of the economy as a whole thus depends upon the character of state power… The collapse of the Soviet regime would lead inevitably to the collapse of the planned economy, and thus to the abolition of state property”. [Trotsky,The Revolution Betrayed, P 250.] The new bourgeois state would cease to plan state property, but by retaining state ownership subject it to the gradual influence of the law of value.[“Nationalised property stands or falls with the planned economy” Trotsky, Writings, 35-36, p.224.] It would have to do this by opening-up the economy to world capitalism and by introducing world money i.e. a convertible currency. At this point the law of value as it operates internationally would impact on the former workers state and begin to convert output into commodities i.e. having a socially necessary labour-time determined by the world market.

Why the crucial role of real money? As Dobbs points out, it is the only commodity capable of implementing the law of value by which all goods become revalued in terms of socially necessary labour time, whether or not they are produced capitalistically. Because the dws’s have collapsed back into the world capitalist economy and the state plays the key role of restoring capital, real money is the key agent.

“Once the cash based economy had been established no longer could it be said that any aspect of the workers state economy was left. Any remnants of planning was now swept away by the chase after the highest price. Evidence of this was not long in coming. Within months of the establishment of a cash based economy, scarcity gave way to glut. Whereas in the past we saw long queues of shoppers chasing few goods in the shops, we now saw few shoppers and shops bulging with unsold goods”.[Dobbs, “Money and the Restoration of Capitalism” p.4].

Refusal to recognise this point is a handing a win by default to the Cliffites who cannot explain the shift from crises of underproduction to crises of overproduction!

The reintroduction of real money does not mean the instant privatisation of land, property, or labour-power. Why should it? The law of value operates destructively at first, using world money to set values, and then constructively to set up increasing levels of competition. As it devalues and revalues commodities, it also creates a bourgeoisie. In a period of world capitalist structural crisis, restoration in the former workers state must ultimately move towards full privatisation, as these states sink into semi-colonial capitalist positions in the world economy. This unfettered reign of the law of value is the necessary mechanism by which capitalist production ‘in general’ is restructured to be profitable.

But this requirement is not set in concrete and it is not a necessary defining feature of restoration in any given state. There is no blueprint for the transition from DWS to state capitalism during a world capitalist periodic crisis. Clearly the state capitalist regimes that have re-emerged are crisis-ridden due to the massive devaluations necessary to create new semi-colonies amenable to the accumulation needs of imperialist powers. Even the bourgeois commentators recognise that one factor holding back rapid restoration is the social cost in disorder, and a possible re-emergence of “socialism”. [e.g. W. Wesolowski, “Postcommunist Transition to Democracy”. International Journal of Sociology, 24, (2-3) 1994.]

By the most obvious criteria, namely the actions of bourgeois states in suppressing workers property and introducing a convertible currency, in all of the East European states, and the former states of the USSR, the transition to state capitalism is complete. This was obviously the case in the former DDR too. It was the convertibility of the Ostmark, not any proportion of privatised state corporations, or labour power, that constituted the decisive, qualitative point at which “A” the DDR, was no longer “A” but “B” integrated into an existing capitalist state. For Trotsky: “Vulgar thought operates with such concepts as capitalism, morals, freedom, workers’ state etc. as fixed abstractions, presuming that capitalism is equal to capitalism, morals are equal to morals etc. Dialectical thinking analyses all things and phenomena in their continuous change, while determining in the materials conditions of those changes that critical limit beyond which `A’ ceases to be `A’, a workers’ state ceases to be a workers’ state'”. [In Defence of Marxism.. p. 65]’

In this sense, bourgeois regimes become bourgeois states, not because they merely “intend” to establish capitalist social relations, but because they actively suppress worker social relations, and actively establish bourgeois social relations. But in none of these states, except the former DDR, by the LRCI’s current definition, have degenerated workers states been replaced by state capitalism. The LRCI attempts to overcome the contradiction between actually existing state capitalism, and its abstract economist criteria of the dominance of the law of value, by inventing the transitional category, the “moribund workers state”. But what is a moribund workers state? It is the LRCI’s confused conception of state capitalism! The LRCI defines “moribund workers states” as: “degenerate workers’ states that have restorationist governments in power which are actively demolishing the foundations of the planned economy. The objective of all governments inside the MWS is clear: the complete destruction of the system of command planning and the transformation of the economy into a functioning capitalist market economy”.[Trotskyist International,16, Jan-April, 1995.p.24.] According to the LRCI’s conception of MWS it can refer to a state such a Poland where at one point the economy has collapsed by 1/3 or 1/2 of its GDP, and at another it is growing at more than 2%. This difference is accounted for empirically as a slump, brought about by the end of Comecom, combined with growth originating from a very low level of activity attributed to small-scale capital. Neither the end of planning, nor the dominance of the law of value is admitted.

Democratic Counter-Revolution / Period

The consequences of this mechanical method for the LRCI’s programme are clear enough. Despite the current phase of democratic counter-revolution, its “revolutionary period” is kept alive by the historical schema of incomplete restoration held back by the objective process of “democratic” resistance to the neo-liberal package of free market reforms. This is the idealist shadow boxing of abstract categories in which the LRCI acts as an academic counsel for the working-class-in-general, rather than as a revolutionary vanguard of workers in the flesh.

In rejecting their method the LRCI accuses us of being pessimists and defeatists. Against Dobbs and other oppositionist currents who did not adapt to bourgeois democracy, their analysis of democratic counter-revolution in the Stalinist states is viewed as fatalism. But this is empiricist logic-chopping. To understand that the “cold stroke” restoration was achieved by “democratic” means, does not exclude the possibility of political revolution. It means precisely that our programme for political revolution makes no concessions to the democratic counter-revolution. It means realistically that political revolution would only have been possible by asserting a strong leadership of the best elements in the working class [not the labour-aristocratic leaders of the miners] behind a programme of armed class independence of the bourgeoisie, restorationists, and other agents of imperialism.

Since these conditions were not realised, and the counter-revolution prevailed, we cannot credit any stage in the DCR as pre-revolutionary or revolutionary. This does not mean that we see the DCR as “inevitable” but, given the objective (collapse of the economy) and subjective conditions (the appeal of the popular front for “democracy”) we saw it as very likely. Precisely because we always hold out the hope that revolutionary intervention can change events, our programme would have been to rally the vanguard to defend the gains of October. As it was workers rallied to the call to defend their “democratic” freedoms from Stalinism, but did not use these freedoms to fight the restorationists seizure of power due to the absence of revolutionary leadership. As a result the “democratic” aspect of the CR was limited to workers struggle to abolish stalinism when the stalinists were already abolishing themselves. Because such “democracy” resulted in the overthrow of the workers states it is necessarily a counter-revolutionary democracy. Workers peacefully voted for the overthrow of the gains of 1917.

Because the DCR led to the end of the workers states, and to a world historic defeat, we are forced to acknowledge that this opens a counter-revolutionary period in which capitalism is immeasurably strengthened relative to the world  proletariat. Why is there any question that the closing of the chapter of history opened in 1917, is a world historic defeat? Trotsky understood this clearly as an “historic catastrophe”.  [“1933 Pre-conference”. p 26. Documents of the FI Pathfinder]. In what way would such an “historic catastrophe” not open a counter-revolutionary period, “democratic” or not? The material gains of October have been largely demolished. The advances of the planned economies have been smashed by bourgeois states. Workers living standards, and workers rights, have been destroyed. The ex-workers states are being forced to become capitalist semi-colonies, and compete economically if not militarily with one another. This creates new sources of surplus-value, and divides workers into competing capitalist states. World capitalism can now claim an ideological victory over “communism” and further weaken the ideological basis for socialism in the working classes. The petty bourgeois left is reeling in retreat from “post-communism” and falling back into a defence of “market socialism”.

But this does not mean that in a counter-revolutionary period all is lost. It does not mean that the world working class has been historically, or strategically, defeated as a class. The destruction of the DWSs represents a huge victory for international capitalism, but it cannot solve its fundamental economic crisis. The collapse of the workers states is part of the world wide offensive of capitalism against workers and peasants to destroy more value and so restore the conditions for profits. In that sense, the collapse of Stalinism is part of the world crisis which cannot avoid further “stagnation and decay” and which can only be overcome by all out “class war” on workers in order to smash their resistance to further destruction of jobs and living standards.

The LRCI draws a straight line from this necessary ongoing “class war” to “revolution”, and claims that we are in a revolutionary period. But to claim this we have to have real revolutions, not imaginary ones. The LRCI claims that its programme is one which leads this revolution? Where? In the ex-workers states, the LRCI fights with a programme to defend and smash the moribund workers states. It demands: defend state property, but smash the state! In the single most important struggle to defend the workers states it imagines still exist, the LRCI offers only confusion, disorientation, demoralisation. Elsewhere, as we shall see, the LRCI abandons the class line to fight alongside bourgeois restorationists, and imperialist agents, for …. “democracy”! Against the LRCI’s charge that those who say we are in a counter-revolutionary period have no programme, and are passive and fatalistic, we say it is your programme that is passive and fatalistic, in a word – bankrupt.

Let us quote Trotsky on the question of tailing “democratic” imperialism:

“As regards the petty bourgeois democrats – conservative and cowardly – they in general cannot imagine any possible role that of toadying to the liberal bourgeoisie or the reaction. This is why to them it is absolutely indisputable that anyone who does not go with them tailing imperialist democracy is ipso facto an accomplice of fascism. In other words they start from the total denial of the possibility of an independent proletarian politics – in this lies the entire secret. The rejection of independent proletarian politics is now pressing upon the petty bourgeoisie with particular force as result of the degeneration of the Soviet Union, the defeat of workers in Italy, Germany and Austria, Spain, Czechoslovakia, and so on ..and in view of the fact that the working class of the world has been thrown backward into a totally defensive position. But precisely in such a period, the revolutionary vanguard has the duty with special vigor and implacability to uphold the independent historical truth of the proletarian vanguard. Here opens the unbridgeable gulf between Marxists and the conservative petty-bourgeois democrats who once a week recall that they are socialists. [Trotsky, Supplement. 1934-40, p. 868.]

Objectivist vs dialectic Method.

Objectivism has a class content. It is not that of the working class which is engaged in class struggle constantly. Objectivism is bred in petty bourgeois intellectuals who do not immerse themselves in working class struggle. It is the product of an intelligentsia whose own interests depend upon their role in reconciling working class and capitalist class interests in capitalist society. They can therefore combine a theoretical or abstract anti-capitalism, with the promotion of democratic reforms as the means of opposing capitalism. This is why objectivism is a petty bourgeois disease inside the working class. This is why Trotsky was so insistent that intellectuals in the revolutionary movement be put on “probation for six to twelve months” so that they become “proletarianised”. [See In Defence of Marxism, p.140.] Ironically, having accused WPNZ/A comrades of “objectivism” for some years, it is the LRCI’s position that reflects this method. What do we find in common in the response to the collapse of Stalinism, in the restoration process, and indeed to the world crisis of capitalism expressed in the present “Revolutionary Period”? In one word- objectivism – the belief that theoretically abstract categories which are unmediated by class struggle, are automatically responsible for historic changes.

The LRCI claims that it is not objectivist because the process of restoration is “mediated by class struggle”.[IEC resolution on the Proletarian Faction, Para. 8] Yes, but what is the class struggle over in a Moribund Workers’ State, workers’ property, or capitalist property? It makes a difference to how the struggle is conducted. While there may be considerable common ground in fighting for workers control of industry etc. how is this to be won if not by the struggle for state power. What is the class character of the state? Workers or capitalist? Where the state has a bourgeois form, but a “classless ” content, what is the content of class struggle? The classic position in the history of Marxism is that of Plekhanov – the fatalism of evolutionary Marxism, later to become the doctrine of Menshevism and Stalinism. In essence, this is the belief that objective processes, including class consciousness, and class struggle, have a predetermined course, and are not subject to the intervention of the revolutionary vanguard.

Objectivism involves a rejection of Marxist dialectics.We base our understanding of dialectics on Marx, Lenin and Trotsky. Of Trotsky’s comments those in Defence of Marxism, and “Philosophical Tendencies of Bureaucratism”, Challenge of the Left Opposition.1928-29 are most useful. Dialectics requires us to understand the way reality is transformed as the result of contradictions. But these contradictions are not`evolutionary’ – outside subjective intervention. On the contrary knowledge allows us not merely to interpret reality, but to actively remake it.

Trotsky says:

“The life and death task of the proletariat now consists not in interpreting the world anew but in remaking it from top to bottom” [In Defence of Marxism. p97.] Further: “The revolutionary party is the essence of the fusion of theory and practice which makes revolutionary politics possible. ..theory – genuine theory or theory on a large scale- does not at all take shape in direct connection with the practical tasks of the day. Rather it is the consolidation and generalisation of all human practical activity and experience, embracing different historical periods in their materially determined sequence. It is only because theory is not inseparably linked with the practical tasks contemporary to it, but rises above them, that it has the gift of seeing ahead,l that is, is able to prepare to link itself with future practical activity and to train people who will be equal to the future practical tasks….Tactics are the practical application of theory to the specific conditions of class struggle. The link between theory and current practice is made through tactics. Theory, despite what Stalin says, does not take shape in inseparable connection with current practice. Not at all. It rises above it and only because of that has the capacity to direct tactics by indicating, in addition to the present tasks, points of orientation in the past and perspectives for the future. The complex line of tactics in the present – Marxist tactics, that is; not tail-endist ones – is determined not by a single point [in the present] but by a multiplicity of points in both past and future.” [Trotsky, Challenge of the Left Opposition. (1928-29).405-407.]

But if that knowledge is not based upon active intervention in the class struggle, then it becomes dried up [not succulent!], dogmatic and incapable of informing a revolutionary programme. “The fundamental flaw of vulgar thought lies in the fact that it wishes to content itself with motionless imprints of a reality which consists of eternal motion. Dialectical thinking gives concepts, by means of closer approximations, corrections, concretisation, a richness of content and flexibility; I would even say a succulence which to a certain extent brings them close to living phenomena.” [In Defence of Marxism. p 65.]

Programmatic Disorientation

Dried-up, dogmatic programme! Wrong diagnosis, wrong prognosis! The LRCI’s diagnosis on restoration is wrong and therefore its prognosis is wrong and its programme is disoriented. Its programme is also revisionist because it adapts to bourgeois democracy in the workers states; makes united fronts with restorationists and speeds up the process of social overturns; fails to recognise the overturns; and puts forward action programmes under state capitalism which call for political revolution.

Against this bankrupt programme revolutionaries counterpose a transitional programme of demands with the aim of stopping further privatisations by smashing the capitalist state. The state capitalist regimes are capitalist states, not “bourgeois regimes”. While the restoration process is incomplete, the content of state property is capitalist. Therefore we are for expropriating “state capitalist property” as well as private property under workers control. We are for reforging workers councils [soviets] as the basis of building independent working class organisations for the struggle for power. We also enter united fronts with workers in every arena of class struggle. We fight the capitalist reaction by defending bourgeois democratic rights, opposing pogroms and wars and call on workers of all states to unite and turn the weapons on their ruling classes. Our aim is to fight for a socialist republic as part of a larger federation of socialist states – a “socialist united states of Europe”!

The LRCI is also wrong to talk about a “revolutionary period” since 1989 in the face of a world-wide democratic counter-revolution. This DCR in many of the collapsed DWS and state capitalist states takes the form of reactionary nationalist wars and pogroms, inspired by imperialist states to facilitate the re-partition of the ex-Stalinist states as new capitalist semi-colonies. Where there is a clear national oppression of one state by another we are bound to call for independent socialist republics. Where imperialism is backing states and/or those states also engage in national oppression we do not support national independence. Instead we fight for the international unity of all workers in all states to arm themselves and turn their guns on their bourgeois politicians and defend workers property, or expropriate capitalist property, by a seizure of state power.

The case of Bosnia.

In the case of Bosnia we reject the LRCI line in defense of Bosnia as it is now in a bloc with Croatia and backed by the US and Germany. Bosnia is now clearly engaged in the oppression of other nationalities. We support the original defeatist line on Bosnia and for a workers revolution and the transformation of the inter-communal war into a war against bureaucracies, restorationists and all imperialist states. Instead of killing each other with the aim of creating ethnic semi-colonial capitalist micro-states the workers from all communities should unite and overthrow their rulers and create a socialist federation. Instead of calling more international volunteers to support Izetbegovic, we should be for the expulsion of all the Islamic and Croat chauvinists “volunteers”, as well as other nationalists, and communalist militia. We should be for workers in other countries to volunteer fighters and arms to build anti-imperialist multi-ethnic councils and militias that should expel all the great powers from the region. We support the analysis of Cde. Johnson in “From a Revolutionary Line to Eclectic Line” in IIB 84. We don’t agree with the IS Resolution on ‘The Croatian Seizure of Krajina’ of 8th August 1995, since it fails to recognise Imperialist/Bosnian involvement in the seizure and draw the necessary conclusion – a return to a defeatist position.

Once more we think that the LRCI is putting the tactic of the right of self-determination before strategy of political revolution. The whole thrust of the collapse of stalinism under the combined pressure of imperialism and the crisis of the plan, makes nationalism reactionary in all but extreme cases. In which Eastern European country are capitalist restorationist regimes promoting good relations between ethnic groups? Social counter-revolution produces inevitably ethnic chauvinism. The introduction of free market and capitalist laws means that capitalism’s main enemies are collectivism and working class consciousness, solidarity and internationalism. Individualism and the right to own private property is linked with the right to (re-)create ones own ethnic identity and statelet. Imperialism needs to destroy Comecon and the planned economy. World capitalism pressures companies, regions and republics to be profitable. The companies that in the past were under a common plan must now compete to destroy each other. The same competitive destruction is expressed at national/communal levels.

All nationalist/communalist bourgeois movements try to distract the working class. Instead of fighting against its class enemies (imperialism and capitalism), the workers are split according to national/communal lines. With this the proletariat is divided and workers support is won for national-capitalist interests. The Yugoslav wars were inter-communal wars in which the roots of it were the imperialist and capitalist penetration. Every side is trying to create a communalist bourgeois state ruled by a new class. The arm dealers and imperialist powers increase these rivalries as part of a game around who could have more power in the international arena.

The LRCI had a correct position at the beginning of the war. We were in favour of defending Sarajevo, Tuzla and any multi-ethnic community against the Serbs but without supporting the Bosnian government. We were in favour of defending every community against Muslim, Croat or Serb militia attack. We were for the transformation of the ethnic war into a civil war against bureaucracy and imperialism. We should return to that line. Under imperialist and reformist pressure the LRCI changed and adapted to “democratic” imperialism.

The Leagues’ retreat into centrism.

The structural crisis of the last 20 years has seen the balance of class forces shift in favour of capitalism. Most of the left has retreated from the defeat of “socialism” into some openly bourgeois fall-back position of market socialism. There is the associated fatalism of writing off the Bolshevik revolution as doomed from the start, or at least premature if not adventurist. This amounts to a writing off of revolutionary optimism and the role of the working class as revolutionary agent. For those like the LRCI who formally reject defeatism, it is extremely difficult to resist the rightward pressures of public opinion on the official labour movement. As we have said if the LRCI failed to understand the significance of class composition on the collapse of the FI during and after the war, it cannot be expected to recognise the class basis of the same pressures exerted on it today. ” More precisely we say the crisis is the result of the pressure of bourgeois-democratic public opinion upon a section of the party leadership. That is our class analysis of the unrestrained struggle between the proletarian and petty-bourgeois tendencies in our party”. [p 2 Cannon, The Struggle for a Proletarian Party.]

The temptation is to move to the right to keep pace with the retreating working class, or at least the centrist political groups in practice, meanwhile placing ones revolutionary hopes in inevitability of revolution. A separation between abstract revolutionary theory and increasingly centrist political practice has taken place within the LRCI. To some extent this is inevitable, because the League is cut off from active participation in the class struggle and as such it is left writing literary commentaries on struggles all around the world, increasingly supporting bourgeois democracy rather than independent working class struggles as the way forward.

Its remoteness from the class struggle is a reflection of the League’s structure and class composition. It is dominated by the British Workers Power group, about 50 strong. It has declined in numbers from about 100 around the miners strike in the mid-80’s and now has few industrial workers. Composed mainly of teachers other professionals and students its experience of class struggle is largely limited to the fightbacks in the public sector.

The IS rejects our claim that the LRCI is isolated from the class struggle. It points with pride to the anti-fascist work as evidence that the LRCI is not petty-bourgeois. But anti-fascist work may also be evidence of isolation from the working class, as in the case of the old R.C.P.: “It is interesting that the last public activity of the R.C.P. should have bee a drive against Nazism, admittedly more alarming straight after the Second World War than it has appeared since, for when more meaningful activity is beyond the reach of Trotskyist organisations today they tend to concentrate on this work if they lack support in the broad movement. In the case of the R.C.P. leaders, it was a full turn of the circle, for some of their first work on the fringes of the Labour movement in 1938 had been of this nature. It also admitted that they were back were they started”. [Bornstein and Richardson, War and the International. p 201.]This pattern is repeated in the other sections [except for Brazil] who are all predominantly students, middle-class or well paid workers. This in itself is not a necessary recipe for centrism, but unless corrected by an orientation towards the industrial working class, it will lead to more and more adaptation to petty bourgeois prejudices and positions.

Trotsky on the need to proletarianise the petty-bourgeois in the party! :

“The party has only a minority of genuine factory workers. This is an inevitable beginning for every revolutionary workers’ party everywhere, and especially in the US. The non-proletarian elements represent the necessary yeast, and I believe that we can be proud of the good quality of these elements. But the danger is that we can receive in the next period too much “yeast” for the needs of the party…Our party can be inundated by non-proletarian elements and can even lose its revolutionary character. The task is naturally not to prevent the influx of intellectuals by artificial methods…but to orient in practice the whole organisation toward the factories, the strikes, the unions…The orientation of the whole party toward factory work is intimately connected with the question of the organisational structure of the party. I don’t believe that in view of the very small number of our members and the very short experience in mass work, we could establish emphatic rules for the party organisation now…Our local organisation can choose for its activity in the next period one, two, or three factories in its area and concentrate all its forces upon these factories…The unbreakable conditions should be: not to command the workers but only to help them, to give them suggestions, to arm them with the facts, factory papers, special leaflets, and so on. Such collaboration would have a tremendous educational importance from one side for the worker comrades, from the other side for the nonworkers who need a solid reduction…I believe that such an orientation would also assure a more healthy atmosphere inside the party…Only one general rule can we establish immediately: a party member who doesn’t win during three to six months a new worker for the party is not a good party member. If we seriously practised such a general orientation and if we verified the practical results every week, we would avoid a great danger: namely, that the intellectuals and white-collar workers might suppress the worker minority, condemn it to silence, transform the party into a very intelligent discussion club but absolutely no habitable for workers.” [“The Social Composition of the Party” [Writings 36ª37488©491.]

“If the movement toward us is rapid, especially from the Stalinists, we must have a period of probation of six to twelve months; for the workers no probation, but for the intellectuals, at least six to twelve months…They are the ones to be educated by our worker members…If we are to have a workers’ party we are to make the intellectuals feel that it is a great honour to be accepted by our party and that they will be accepted only if they are approved by the workers. Then they will understand that it is not an intellectual petty-bourgeois party but a workers’ movement, which for time to time can use them for its purpose. Otherwise we can be invaded by intellectuals, and if discussions begin with intellectuals coming from the Stalinists, then the workers will avoid the party.” [Discussions with Trotsky: 11.Writings 37©38 p 297.]

The problem is that the LRCI does not recognise the problem. This is rooted in the inability to understand the material basis of the collapse of the FI and a failure of dialectics.This failure also means the LRCI doesn’t understand the class basis of the difference with the Proletarian Faction. Trotsky had this to say about the opposition inside the SWP: “To certain intellectuals, anxious to indict `bureaucratic conservatism’ and to display their `dynamic spirit’, it might seem that questions concerning the dialectic, Marxism, the nature of the state, centralism are raised `artificially’ and that the discussion has taken a `false’ direction. The nub of the matter however consists in this, that discussion has its own objective logic which does not coincide at all with the subjective logic of individuals and groupings. The dialectic character of the discussion proceeds from the fact that its objective course is determined by the living conflict of opposing tendencies and not by a preconceived logical plan. The materialist basis of the discussion consists in its reflecting the pressure of different classes. Thus the present discussion in the SWP, like the historic process as a whole, develops – with or without your permission, comrade Burnham – according to the laws of dialectic materialism. There is not escape from these laws.”[ In Defence of Marxism p 102-103.]

Despite opposition inside the League in the period since 1989, it had compounded its errors by prematurely “homogenising” its method and driving out opposition. This meant that attempts to correct the League’s method were fruitless. Each mistake saw the League digging a deeper hole for its politics. Dobbs attempt to correct the wrong analysis of restoration saw his alternative analysis rejected on the grounds that it was limited to the level of exchange. Dobbs analysis of the “World Economy” never got the support needed to get published. Nor was his letter of resignation published in an IIB. Johnson’s longstanding critiques of the LRCI were often acknowledged by leading members as correcting the League’s line, while at the same time his “method” was characterised as “sectarian” by other leading members. [See the documents written by Johnson “One Year On” and “Points that was not answered…” ].

WPNZ/A’s criticisms, which over several years have led to the formation of the Proletarian Faction, have met with the standard response – “spartacist/sectarian”. Despite the attempts at opposition, theory and practice has degenerated into an “homogenised” i.e. dogmatic, dried-up, formally revolutionary theory, and a sterile, bankrupt, reformist practice.

Democratic Centralism.

The IS/IEC claims, because we reject the LRCI’s conception of Democratic Centralism, that we have abandoned democratic centralism altogether. It is true we have a different conception of democent from the LRCI. The League caricatures our position as one of rejecting democent in the early stages of party building because there are not enough workers. They say that we will have to wait to implant proletarian sections in every country before attempting to build an international tendency. Not at all. We start with the materialist understanding of what caused the FI to collapse and deliberately try to learn from those lessons. Whatever our size, we insist on the necessity to orient to the workers in order to compensate for the dangers of petty-bourgeois composition and of national narrowness [chauvinism]. The CLNZ came up against this problem in relation to the British RCP in the 1980’s.  Now we come up against it again in the LRCI.

Our experience is that small, isolated, petty-bourgeois dominated tendencies, geographically located in a major imperialist power, have yet to find a way to overcome these problems. They will not rise above national narrowness until they recognise that the “solution” is part of the problem. The LRCI instead of recognising the need to fight to overcome these dangers, makes a virtue of necessity. Of necessity revolutionaries have to start with “Fighting Propaganda Group’s” that are small, overwhelmingly petty bourgeois in composition, and which do not represent the major forces of struggle around the world. This was the situation faced by the FI in the early 1930’s. But this does not mean that we make a virtue of the propaganda stage of party building, minimising or even fetishising the fact of our narrow petty bourgeois composition and national narrowness.

A symptom of fetishising the early stage of party building, is the tactic of splits and fusions among the fragments of Trotskyist centrism with the aim of “rebuilding”, “reforging” etc the FI. We reject this tactic as the main orientation of any FPG because the FI is dead and cannot be revived. Such a project wears the history of the postwar FI as a stinking corpse around its neck. None of these fragments seeking to breath life into the corpse have survived the current crisis of Trotskyism. This is what we would expect. None of the trotskyist left currents was theoretically armed to cope with the crisis of “trotskyist centrism” posed by the world crisis of capitalism and the collapse of the Stalinist states. The permanent crisis of leadership was already acute by the 1940’s. In the 1990’s there is as yet no recognisable embryo of a revolutionary vanguard. To solve the crisis of revolutionary leadership we must turn our backs on the bankrupt method, theory and practice of post-war fake trotskyism.

Deja vu

The arguments above have shown that the question of the collapse of the 4I, and our fear of the LRCI repeating the same degenerative process, were justfied in 1990. It raises the question as to whether any attempt to build a new international based upon democent can work when an organisation is so small, based mainly in Europe, with few sections mainly of a petty bourgeois composition, and none of them engaged in any systematic direct work in the class struggle. Can democent work when the life of the League is mainly literary uninformed by direct links to the crucial areas of class struggle except in some isolated instances? How in this situation can the League insist that its programme is correct on Stalinism and restoration, [though it admits it is incomplete] in its debates with “centrist” groups? Surely what this amounts to is the building of a new international with a very high entry qualification. Does this not dispose the whole organisation to bureaucratic centralism? Is this the approach of Lenin and the Bolsheviks to building the Revolutionary Communist International? Was it the approach of Trotsky in building the IBO and the 4I?

We don’t think so. The way ahead for small revolutionary splinters is not to set down a new version of the Transitional Programme and expect everyone to agree. This is to beg a number of more fundamental questions about marxism, dialectical materialism, and the living links between theory and practice which need to be tested out in struggle. This is neither a recipe for passivity, nor for a retreat into the libraries as the LRCI claims. On the contrary, by facing reality squarely and calling things by their right name we can approach the task of rebuilding the revolutionary tradition all the more seriously. The crisis of stalinism and the breakup of the rotten centrist tendencies will create small left-moving splinters. It is necessary to develop a method of bringing these groups together as the embryo of a new revolutionary, Fifth, international.

We are opposed to all reasons for orienting towards the fragments of the FI, under the guise of “rebuilding” the FI, as a form of political necrophilia. It is necessary to get away from the entire rotten tradition of degenerate Trotskyism after WW2. But this does not mean that we rule out principled fusions based on theory and practice. Regroupment must flow from a reforging of Marxist method and theory tested in practice. Our main orientation must be to the working class in struggle, to youth, and other oppressed groups. Left-moving centrist splinters who get involved directly in class struggle can be won to a revolutionary programme. But only if our main orientation is to such struggles in the first place. In this way theory and practice are united even at the earliest stages of party building. This is the method on which regroupment can take place on a democratic centralist basis on a number of levels of joint work, leading ultimately to fusion, but only on the basis of a high level of programmatic agreement tested out in revolutionary praxis.

Trotsky set out some guidelines for the International Communist League to build a new party and new international in 1934;

” In this, we must take as our starting point the fact that the only way to convince broad masses of the correctness of our ideas is in action. This is the central point of our new orientation. There are no organisational measures that can get around this step and make it superfluous…Alongside independent propaganda and active work all means must be employed – always in keeping with the concrete situation – to link up with the masses, push them forward, and consolidate new revolutionary cadres from their ranks. Above all this includes:

a. Systematic fraction work in the trades unions…
b. Systematic fraction work in all workers parties and organisations…
c. Very special attention to promoting work among the youth in existing youth organisations as well as by building and broadening new youth organisations.
d. Forming alliances and blocs with organisations striving for a new communist party and International. These must be based on a clear principled basis and concrete formulation of goals.
e. Fusion with such organisations on the basis of a clear communist programme.
f. Under very exceptional circumstances, the entry of an entire section into a centrist organisation…

A correct understanding of the newly created situation and a carrying out of the measures noted above, combined with the revitalisation of the revolutionary forces in numerous countries, will make possible significant progress on the road to the Fourth International as well as effective preparation for the decisive confrontation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.” [“Tasks of the ICL” July 21 1934. Writings: Supplement 34-40 p 511-512.]

Proletarian Faction WPNZA July 1995.

Written by raved

January 12, 2015 at 5:45 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Historical Roots of the Degeneration of the Fourth International and the Centrism of the SWP: For a return to the Proletarian Road of Trotskyism.

leave a comment »

We reproduce this 1972-73 critique of the degeneration of the Fourth International after the death of Trotsky. It argues that the FI succumbed to national chauvinism during the war and failed to correct that deviation from revolutionary Marxism after the war.  It blames the increasingly petty bourgeois leadership and not the hostile conditions of the time, and calls for the founding a a ‘new’ International based on the FI program of 1938.

[reprinted from Vanguard Newsletter, Vol 4, nos 7-10 and Vol 5, nos 1-3]

 Introduction by David Fender

The following is the first part of the historical section of the Communist Tendency’s (CT) counter-resolution, Historical Roots of the Degeneration of the Fourth International and the Centrism of the SWP-For a Return to the Proletarian Road of Trotskyism.

This first section of the resolution sketches the history of the Fourth International to 1953 with particular regard to the role of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). The history goes only to 1953 not by design, but because time did not permit us to finish it –hence the short document “The International Situation –An Initial Assessment” published in a previous issue. Nevertheless, the period to 1953 was sufficient for our purposes during the struggle inside the SWP, since it adequately explained the roots of the SWP’s degeneration and of its present day centrist politics.

Today, however, a more complete historical sketch is necessary, especially in light of those groups like the Workers League which dissect history to fit the needs of their own Procrustean organizations.

Ever since the appearance of the CT’s document, the “Wohlforth” League has outdone itself in apologizing for those very things with which they rationalize their own existence. Suddenly the long overdue project of writing the “history” of the Fourth International before 1953 was taken up. Schools were held across the country to deal with this topic, and these were addressed by no less than Lucy St. John and Tim Wohlforth, whose speeches were subsequently printed in the Bulletin. And now the readers of the Bulletin are treated to a new series of four-page center-spreads against those who would “vilify” Wohlforth’s (and Healy’s) history. Being one of the principle targets of these excursions into fantasy by Wohlforth and his camarilla, I claim no intention to or plaudit for “vilifying” anyone. If Healy or Wohlforth feel vilified then they must take all the credit.

Why all the commotion by Wohlforth and Co.? The answer is clear. They are feeling the heat of the revolutionary “idea”, which Trotsky discussed in his letter to the French youth in 1937. The idea, said he, which “corresponds to the exigencies of historical development, is more powerful than the most powerful organization.” Face to face with the revolutionary idea Wohlforth takes refuge in a pseudo- methodological argument, accusing its proponents of idealism, vilification and distortion and –with the clear intention of erecting an impenetrable shield of hostility to safeguard his “flock” –attacks them as a “vicious anti-Marxist tendency hostile to the Workers movement.” Using a similar phraseology, the Stalinists of the 1930’s prepared the physical attacks on and the murders of the “Trotskyites.”

In future introductions to this series and in the series on the history after 1953 which will follow, we will show concretely that it is comrade Wohlforth who has done the vilifying, the distorting and, worst of all, made a mockery of dialectics. We will do this because we believe “with the help of pitiless criticism, of constant propaganda, and bold agitation” that we “will destroy the old organizations, internally rotten, which have become the principle obstacles on the road of the revolutionary movement.”

The major contradiction expressing itself inside the party today is the discrepancy between the party’s claim to represent the heritage of Lenin and Trotsky, i. e., Marxism on the one hand, and the crass opportunism represented in its day to day political program on the other.

While the party still dresses itself in orthodoxy on some questions, it has openly discarded –especially in those areas in which the party has been most active –whole portions of the transitional program. Garments have been hastily torn off at the seams, laying bare the party’s revisionism, justified by simplistic observations –in lieu of analysis –such as “times have changed.” In their stead the party has substituted a reformist and pacifist garb decorated with radical sounding phrases and trimmed in a call to action for action’s sake.

The ever increasing rapidity with which the party impatiently tears itself away from even any formal adherence to its traditional proletarian program is an admission of the party’s writing off of the American proletariat as the fundamental force for a socialist change, and is an attempt by those thoroughly imbued with such scepticism toward the proletariat to completely immerse the party in the petty bourgeois milieu. The fundamental task of assuring the proletarian character of the party has long ago been discarded for the tasks of “building” the party of poly-vanguardism. Politics and building the party today are judged in terms of numbers devoid of any class analysis, class basis, or class perspective.

Every political activity the party enters into is done on a multi-class basis, be it the women’s liberation movement under the guise of “sisterhood”, the Black liberation movement under the guise of “nationalism”, the antiwar movement under the guise of “non-exclusion”, the struggle of the Chicanos and other minorities under the guise of “third-worldism”, etc. These non-class categories have nothing in common with Marxism. When the party does turn to the, proletariat –and eventually it will to round out its poly-vanguard perspective –the multi-class approach will be no different, as has so clearly been indicated from our past activity and from, what is outlined in the present NC political resolution. We will be blocking from the inside or from the outside with capital’s lieutenants in the labor movement under the guise of fighting the bosses “first” in the “objective” struggle against capitalism.

The present day politics of the SWP have nothing in common with the revolutionary heritage of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. The heritage of the party’s theoretical analysis and political activity is Social Democracy, Stalinism and Centrism of all varieties, and the party can only be characterized as being right-centrist quickly on its way to outright reformism. The burden of preventing this eventuality rests on the cadres of the party.

The present party crisis is not the result of an overnight occurrence which has just popped up like a mushroom after a warm spring rain, nor can it be resolved by merely doing work among the proletariat. The party crisis, on the contrary, is the result of a combination of factors: the party’s historical weaknesses, the historical weakness of the Left Opposition and the Fourth International and external circumstances.

Up to the present the generally accepted reason for the weakness and isolation of the Trotskyist movement has been the exceptionally hard conditions under which we were forced to work owing to unfavourable circumstances beyond our control. There can be no doubt as to the great amount of truth contained in the above reasoning, and that even the best organization cannot keep from becoming isolated to one degree or another during periods of reaction. But to continually blame the unfavorable external conditions without any critical evaluation of our own conscious intervention is to only beg the question and adopt a fatalistic attitude.

In the first place we cannot expect that someday the turbulent waters will separate and we will be able to walk freely and unmolested into the promised land of socialism –neither the bourgeoisie nor the Stalinist bureaucracies are going to roll over and play dead. In one very important sense, it is the revolutionary party itself which creates its own favorable circumstances as well as unfavorable ones.

Furthermore, it is just not true that we have had to continually operate under unfavorable circumstances. During and after World War II there was a revolutionary upsurge of the working class, peasants and oppressed nationalities on a world scale. How is it that the world Trotskyist movement wasn’t able to take advantage of such favorable circumstances? It was during this very same period that the French and Italian Communist parties became mass parties leading behind them not only the mass of working class, but also some of its most conscious layers. But even more revealing are those instances where the Trotskyist movement has verged on becoming the mass party of the proletariat, specifically in Bolivia where the question of power was actually posed. In Vietnam the Trotskyist movement had gained a certain hegemony in the Saigon proletariat before and after World War II, only to be wiped out almost overnight by the Stalinist henchmen of Ho Chi Minh.

In Ceylon the Lanka Sama Samaja Party emerged as the leadership in crucial areas of the proletariat with as many as 14 MPs in 1956, only to be blocked today with the bourgeois Sri Lanka Freedom Party in a coalition government which is now slaughtering the revolutionary youth in the country. In Bolivia, the Partido Obrero Revolutionario was founded long before the Communist Party and firmly established its leadership position among the important sections of the Bolivian proletariat with as many as 8 MPs in 1949, only in the 1952 revolution –under conditions almost identical to those in Russia in 1917 –to end up supporting the Bolivian Kerensky, Pas Estenssoro. This plus many other opportunities, such as in France and Algeria during the struggle in Algeria, the Belgian general strike, etc., have given the Fourth International numerous opportunities.

No, the opportunities for the Trotskyists have not been lacking. The Fourth International must now take full responsibility for its own failures to provide a valid alternative to the crisis in leadership which was the basis for the founding of the organization. The crisis in leadership of the proletariat during the past 30 years since the founding of the international has ultimately been the crisis of leadership of the Fourth International itself.

The crisis in leadership has resulted in the complete fragmentation of the world Trotskyist movement. After the death of Trotsky the international Trotskyist movement failed to develop a competent leadership which could command the confidence and respect of the international cadres. The inability of the different Trotskyist leaderships, especially the international leadership, to provide a consistent Trotskyist analysis and program, resulted in a good many zigs and zags as events took them by surprise. In certain countries where the Trotskyist parties did manage to accumulate a certain number of cadres, in spite of their program –a natural occurrence under favorable objective conditions –these parties were ruined beyond recognition or washed away completely like sandcastles after the first (adverse) wave. Such circumstances could not help but disorient even the best of comrades and raise protests from others. Alien class pressures ran rampant and each sharp turn produced both reaction and galloping runaways.

Some comrades identified the disastrous politics with that of Trotskyism and began to question the whole validity of Marxism itself. While other comrades were able to make telling criticisms of their political opponents, most of the time they too proved incapable of providing a Trotskyist analysis and program. In this whirlwind of mad hatter politics, cliques and counter-cliques were common, and the heated internal debates ended almost invariably with organizational means being resorted to by one side or another. Bureaucratic expulsions and Simon-pure splits became the norm; until today the world “Trotskyist” movement looks like an American junkyard containing every make and model of the last thirty years.

Today there are four international groupings claiming to be, or to represent, the true heritage of the Fourth International. In some countries there are as many as ten or more groups which claim some allegiance or other to Trotsky. In those countries where you find only one, the reason is simple: the Trotskyist movement has been crushed or there is just no history of Trotskyism. Instead of embodying the development of Marxism, and providing a competent, reliable and representative leadership for the different sections of the International, the International leadership, has on the contrary, proved to be the kiss of death for almost every section. As we shall try to show in a brief sketch, this legacy still lives in the United Secretariat of the Fourth International.

Part Two

In Wohlforth’s series erroneously entitled In Defense of Trotskyism: an Answer to those who Vilify our History, he displays his dubious talents of attributing to his opponents anything that suits his needs and then railing against them. This series like much of Wohlforth’s writings displays quite a forensic dexterity of shadow boxing, windmill charging and tearing up of his own straw men.

Wohlforth began the series with an attack against “an untitled anonymous document.” We will not attempt to defend explicitly this document, but suffice it to say that we find ourselves in general political solidarity with it as opposed to Wohlforth’s hysterics and that in defending ourselves we defend a common political line.

In the Bulletin of July 2nd 1972, comrade Wohlforth attempts to “deal with David Fender who has clearly had his influence on” the “anonymous author.” Wohlforth begins his task with a few inaccurate statements of my history sliced with personal barbs, all designed to cast a shadow on my character. Political hack writers can’t resist making their unsavoury brew more tantalizing with bits of gossip, hearsay and character assassination devoid of any real political content.

After a lengthy quote from the section that appeared last time, Wohlforth states that:

 “We do not view the question this way. We agree that the assessment made in the Transitional Program that the crisis of leadership has been brought about primarily by the degeneration of the Communist International.”

Our most subtle comrade Wohlforth tries here to make us out as being opposed to the Transitional Program and himself in perfect consonance with it. We must inform comrade Wohlforth that the Transitional Program was adopted in 1938 and was an assessment made on the revolutionary experience up to that time and that we too are in perfect agreement with that assessment. The assessment we made, however, was of “the last 30 years since the founding of the Fourth International,” which is stated more than once in the very quote that Wohlforth uses. Our assessment was that the opportunities have not been lacking during that period and that the Fourth International had failed “to provide a valid alternative to the crisis in leadership,” and therefore “the crisis in leadership has ultimately been the crisis of the leadership of the Fourth International itself.”

Wohlforth, in his typical evasive manner, tries to worm his way around this assessment by stating that:

“The question of the crisis of leadership is not a matter of opportunities here or there but of the fundamental task of actually breaking millions of workers from the leadership of Stalinist and social democratic parties.”

Unless comrade Wohlforth wishes to claim that this task can be done at any moment he chooses, then it is “a matter of opportunities here and there” such as in Vietnam, Bolivia, Algeria, Ceylon, etc., where instead of “breaking millions of workers from the leadership of Stalinist and social democratic parties,” the Fourth International capitulated to these parties preparing the defeat and not the victory of the proletariat. The history of the International Committee (IC) is likewise.

Wohlforth continues, “The Fourth International is to be judged not by its progress or lack thereof in a numerical sense in this period or that but by what it does to resolve this crisis politically and theoretically in each country.” The phrase “numerical sense” is Wohlforth’s own straw man. Far be it from us to gauge our success in numerical terms or dollars and cents as it seems Wohlforth and Co. actually do. No, we have found that the Fourth International, and IC for that matter, have been lacking at those particular historical junctures where organization are put to the supreme test –where the question of taking power is posed.

The metal of both the Fourth International and the IC has on many an occasion been malleable enough to alloy themselves with the parties of “Stalinism and social democracy” instead of resolving the “crisis politically and theoretically” and “breaking millions of workers from the leadership” of these parties. But the political bankruptcy of these organizations at the crucial junctures in history is not incongruent with their day to day politics. It is for this reason that we say a new Trotskyist International must be built basing itself on the founding documents of the Fourth International in 1938 and on an objective assessment of the historical period since and not on the phantasmagoria of the likes of Wohlforth.

Most of the young Communist parties of the Third International had yet to completely break with ideologies of their origins, such as social democracy and syndicalism, or to substantially root themselves in the working class when the Stalinist bureaucracy began to manipulate these parties for its own ends.

In fact, the bureaucracy used these very weaknesses to drive out the strongest, most knowledgeable and serious cadres who quite naturally tended to side with the Left Opposition. The names of Victor Serge, Rosmer, Nin, Sneevliet, Vereecken, Cannon, Shachtman, Pang Shu-tse, Chen Tu-hsiu and many others testify to the quality of the cadres which comprised the International Left Opposition.

The International Left Opposition while containing communists with outstanding revolutionary credentials and abilities was, nevertheless, in most countries –especially in Europe, and in particular France, the center of the Left Opposition –primarily petty bourgeois in composition. The lack of any working class base combined with the increasing political confusion and isolation from the working class, led to constant infighting with many of the outstanding militants deserting the Opposition for “greener pastures”. Much of the in-fighting was over organizational and tactical questions carried on by personal cliques. Trotsky fought hard to straighten out the disputes, especially in France, although without much success. But Trotsky’s major thrust was to integrate the comrades into the living politics of the proletariat, and it was for this reason that Trotsky supported the French comrades who proposed an entry tactic into the SFIO in 1933. The results of the “French Turn” were more positive in the United States and Belgium than elsewhere. In France things looked very encouraging at first, but soon deteriorated as the bourgeois pressure from the impending crisis made itself felt.

After a fight with a minority similar to the Oehlerites in the USA, the Communist League voted at a national conference the 29th of August, 1934, to enter the SFIO “with their program and their ideas.” Once in, however, a dangerous tendency began to express itself among many comrades. Many comrades began to adapt to centrist tendencies and to compromise the program to make blocs with them. A similar phenomenon took place in the Bolshevik-Leninist faction of the Socialist Party in the USA as Trotsky pointed out in a letter dated May 25, 1937.

In From a Scratch to the Danger of Gangrene, Trotsky quotes his letter and says:

“In both of the documents (a) the private letter of Max about the convention, and (b) Shachtman’s article, Towards a Revolutionary Socialist Party mentioned in the above letter, Shachtman revealed excessive adaptability toward the left wing of the petty bourgeois democrats –political mimicry –a very dangerous symptom in a revolutionary politician!” (In Defense of Marxism, p10). Cannon himself stated:

“There is no doubt at all that the leaders of our movement adapted themselves a little    too much to the centrist officialdom of the Socialist Party”. (Cannon, History of American Trotskyism, p. 238)

The adaptation of the French comrades was more serious, however, and its consequences were more immediate. In less than a year Trotsky began demanding that the comrades prepare to leave the SFIO, but he met with considerable resistance. The tendency led by Raymond Molinier and Pierre Frank refused to leave, and Trotsky denounced them along with the centrists as having “capitulated before the social-patriotic wave.” This was only to be a harbinger of the nationalism that was to manifest itself in the Fourth International through its predominantly petty-bourgeois composition and leadership –the traditional transmission belt of bourgeois ideology in the working-class movement.

While the Molinier-Frank faction capitulated outright, the other leaders of the Bolshevik-Leninists had paved the way for their capitulation. The latter had not wanted to criticise the centrists openly and had been tolerant of the politics of the Molinier-Frank faction. In spite of the fact that the French section was able to increase its numbers, the petty-bourgeois leadership had proved that it was unable to root itself in the working class and to the real advantage of the opportunities that were open to it. “We possess at present 1n our own history an important example of a missed opportunity or rather a spoiled one,” was Trotsky’s comment. (Trotsky, After the Crisis of the Bolshevik Leninists)

The petty-bourgeois composition of the International Left Opposition was no accident, but rather the result of the historical period which in itself left its imprint on the cadres. Until 1933 the Opposition was forced to concentrate its efforts in and around the Communist parties, cutting it off from the majority of the working class which in most countries still remained under the influence of Social Democracy. The gangsterism of the Stalinist CPs on the ether hand not only made it difficult for us to reach what working class base the CPs had, but also cost us the lives of many of our outstanding cadres. On top of this the historical international defeat of the proletariat culminating with the rise of Hitler in 1933 left its mark on the already too struggling comrades of the Opposition.

As Trotsky pointed out earlier in regard to China:

“The strangulation of the Chinese revolution is a thousand times more important for the masses than our predictions. Our predictions can win some few intellectuals who take an interest in such things, but not the masses.”

So it was with the International Left Opposition. The ebb of the working class movement internationally served only to isolate the cadres even further. It was the result of the pressure generated by these defeats as well as future ones that laid the basis for the desertion of whole groups back to Stalinism, syndicalism, Social Democracy, and the endless swamp of Centrism –such as the SAP (Socialist Workers Party) of Germany which, soon after having signed in 1934 the “declaration of the four” calling for the formation of the Fourth International, rapidly degenerated to supporting popular frontism and becoming an outspoken enemy of Trotskyism.

The Communist Left in Spain, led by Andre Nin and Juan Andrade, in 1934 broke with Trotsky over the question of entry into the Socialist Party. Instead they made a fusion with the Spanish Bukharinists, the “Workers’ and Peasants’ Bloc”, led by “the nationalist Catalonian philistine” Joaquin Maurin, to form the POUM (Workers Party of Marxist Unification). The POUM criticized the politics of the Popular Front as class collaboration, only to do an about face in February, 1936, and enter into an electoral coalition, finally entering the Catalonian Popular Front government itself.

Two of the organizations which signed the “declaration of the four” were from Holland (the RSP and the OSP). They then fused to form the RSAP (Revolutionary Socialist Workers Party) led by H. Sneevliet. Sneevliet also baulked on the question of entry, supported the POUM, and flirted with the London Bureau. Vereecken in Belgium split over the question of entry, and the Polish section as a whole opposed the attempt to found the Fourth International and showed great hesitation on the entry question.

Sectarianism abounded. From everywhere came criticism from the “left” against Trotsky. But it was these very same “leftists” who refused to soil themselves by carrying out the entry tactic into Social Democracy that ended up being the merry bed-fellows of the hopeless centrists of the London Bureau variety. For Trotsky the entry question was very important. It was the difference between complete stagnation and degeneration into a self-amusing discussion group of intellectuals on the one hand; and, on the other, the active participation in the life and struggles of the proletariat as a foundation upon which to build new parties equal to the historic tasks that they faced.

After the defeat in Germany with the rise of Hitler, the International Left Opposition became the Movement for the Fourth International, and its main center quite naturally became France. With the debacle of the “third period” 1929-1933, the Stalinists turned to the Popular Front tactic to deal with the new upturn in the workers movement and the threatening new world conflagration which threatened them. From 1933 to 1938 there was a slight recovery from the economic crisis which had shaken the world –due in part to the preparations for WW II –which produced in its turn a new rise in the class struggle. In the USA there were the two successive waves in the rise of the CIO, in Spain the revolution broke out in full thunder, and France witnessed the great strike wave of 1936.

Although world events dictated it, the French comrades were little prepared to become the center of the struggle for the Fourth International. “Before its entry the French Section was in a state of complete stagnation.” Such was Trotsky’s opinion. The section did, however, “In spite of the two splits, both at the time of the entry and the time of the exit, as well as big mistakes and hesitations…conclude the SFIO chapter with a large and incontestable gain.” (Trotsky, Writings 1935, p. 31)

But gains weren’t to last.

 “In France the regeneration began with the entry into the Socialist Party. The policy of the Socialist Party was not clear, but it won many new members. These new members were accustomed to a large milieu. After the split they became a little discouraged. They were not so steeled. Then they lost their not-so-steeled interest and were regained by the current of the People’s Front. It is regrettable, but explainable.” (Bulletin, December, 1969, p. 26)

The French section was neither capable of keeping the gains it made during its experience in the SFIO nor of making any significant gains during the mass strikes of 1936. The “general historical current” proved to be too strong.” Nor was the section able to improve its social composition during this period.

“A new radical tendency directed against the general current of history in this period crystallizes around the elements more or less separated from the national life of any country and for them it is more difficult to penetrate into the masses. We are all very critical toward the social composition of our organization and we must change, but we must understand that this social composition does not fall from heaven, but was determined by the objective situation and by our historic mission in this period.” (Ibid., p. 25)

Trotsky went on to caution that the above did “not signify that we must be satisfied with the situation,” and that he “did not wish to say that we must reconcile ourselves with the impotence of our French organization. On the contrary Trotsky was proposing at that very moment that the French section enter the PSOP (Workers and Peasants Socialist Party). But the short-lived entry into the PSOP also did not produce anything because of the state of disintegration of the Trotskyist movement in France during this period.” (Quatriem International, Pierre Frank, P.39). The expulsion of the Trotskyists in November of 1939 from the PSOP followed Daladier’s interdiction of all communist organizations in September.

When the French section officially re-established itself in June of 1940, they called themselves the “French committees for a Fourth International”, and adopted a nationalist political position. Almost every section at one time or another during the war, including the International itself, was to concede the “profound revolutionary implications” of the “masses” struggle for “national liberation” in “France and the other occupied countries.” The nationalism expressed by the Fourth International and its sections may not have been done in the same blatant manner of the Second International during World War I, but regardless of how subtly the nationalist position was expressed, the consequences were no less disastrous for the Fourth International than they were for the Second International.

The necessity of war that forces itself upon the bourgeoisie, demands that all its forces be mobilized to their utmost, that society itself be regimented and disciplined and that any and all areas of possible dissent be ferreted out and suppressed. The whip must be applied by the bourgeoisie in accordance with the gravity of the crisis and the seriousness of the actual threat. The crack of this chauvinist whip is reflected first and foremost through the petty-bourgeoisie into the workers’ movement. The experience of the Second International in the First World War was conclusive proof of this fact. Unfortunately the newly founded Fourth International was to undergo a similar experience with the arrival of the Second World War.

Part 3

Wohlforth tries to apologize for the failures of the Fourth International of the last 30 years with the same old and time worn theme used by Healy, Mandel, Frank, Hansen, etc., that: “The Fourth International has had to carry out this work under generally unfavorable objective historical circumstances.” Here in a nut shell Wohlforth exposes himself and his non-Marxist methodology in spite of his constant ritualistic incantations to dialectical materialism. All the old political skeletons of the Fourth International and International Committee’s (IC) misleaderships are neatly tucked away in the closet marked historical determinism.

The condition of the Fourth International today, it seems according to Wohlforth, has nothing to do with its leadership, “the consistency of analysis and program,” that in spite of what mistakes were made, things could not have been qualitatively different than they are today. Such a fatalistic position is adopted by Wohlforth, Healy and Co. in order to rationalize the miserable history of the IC which they claim is the real Fourth International –a subject we will take up at some length in the latter part of the history.

The SWP was, perhaps, in the best position of all the sections of the Fourth International to deal with the national chauvinist pressure. The original founders of the Left Opposition in the USA contained a good number of comrades who had come from and had their roots in the working class movement. With the first wave in the rise of the CIO, these comrades were able to take advantage of the situation and lead a very important class-struggle fight in Minneapolis deepening their roots in the proletariat. The fusion with the American Workers Party also brought in fresh cadres, and then the entry into the Socialist Party under “the advice and guidance of Trotsky –a decisive factor in all this work” (Cannon) was a success, with the party again increasing its ranks and learning precious lessons. The valuable work done by the cadres of the early Trotskyist movement was reflected in the more favorable social composition of the Socialist Workers Party compared to that of the other sections in the Fourth International. The SWP could claim a membership consisting of at least 50% working class, many of them with valuable practical experience.

The fact that the SWP was in the USA and not in Europe is another important factor that should not be under-emphasized. The impending and immediate crisis in Europe demanded that the respective bourgeoisie use the chauvinist whip much more severely. Unlike Europe the USA was in no danger of becoming a battleground and even its entry was not an immediate question. The economic crisis in the USA was not so aggravated as to necessitate a Fascist dictatorship such as in Italy, Germany, and Spain, or a Popular Front solution as in France, which only laid the basis for the reactionary governments that followed. Whereas the government of France outlawed all communist organizations, Roosevelt prosecuted the leadership of only the SWP.

In spite of the SWP’s more favorable position –compared to the other sections –it by no means escaped the nationalist chauvinist pressure. The first real blow came with the Burnham-Abern-Shachtman fight. The party split almost down the middle on a class basis. The petty bourgeoisie deserted to higher ground to avoid the sting of the chauvinist whip.

“The split in the SWP was followed by a split, although a very small one, in the International, where a series of elements like Lebrun, Johnson, Trent, and Anton, who had seats on the International Executive Committee, had in reality adopted the political and organizational positions of Shachtman.”     (Pablo, “Twenty years of the Fourth International,” Fourth International, No.3, Summer, 1968).

The capitulation before the social-patriotic wave” occurred as early as 1935 in France, as we pointed out, in relation to the Molinier-Frank tendency inside the SFIO. In 1940, only a few months after Shachtman split from the SWP, the French section as a whole openly capitulated, lock-stock-and-barrel, to nationalism. In the Bulletin of the Committee for the Fourth International (No. 2, Sept. 20, 1940) we can find a report adopted unanimously by the “Central Committee of the Committee the Fourth International” (ex-POI) from which the following is excerpted:

“The French bourgeoisie has rushed into a blind alley to save itself from revolution, it threw itself into Hitler’s arms; to save itself from this hold, it has only to throw itself into the arms of the Revolution. We are not saying that it will do so cheerfully; nor that the fraction of the bourgeoisie capable of playing this game is the most important; the majority of the bourgeoisie secretly awaits its salvation from England, a large minority awaits it from Hitler. It is to the ‘French’ fraction of the bourgeoisie that we hold out our hand… We must be the defenders of the wealth that the generations of             French peasants and workers have accumulated. We must also be the defenders of the splendid contribution of the French writers and scientists to the intellectual patrimony of humanity, the defenders of the great revolutionary and socialist tradition of France …”

Among the many quotes to choose from we will satisfy ourselves with only one more. On the occasion of the anniversary of the Paris Commune, the April 1, 1941, issue of La Verite (No.11) had the following to say:

“We know like our predecessors of 1871 that we will have to take in hand the struggle for national independence, betrayed by the bourgeoisie…”

The above should be sufficient to show that the political line of the French section had nothing in common with internationalism. The Leninist concept of revolutionary defeatism –the defeat of one’s own country being the “lesser evil” –is diametrically opposed to the “struggle for national independence” so clearly stated above.

In 1944 three ‘Trotskyist’ groupings (POI, CCI and Groupe Octobre) unified to form the PCI (Parti Communiste Internationaliste). From a bulletin put out jointly in July, 1943, by the POI and CCI, one learns that although the POI used some “dangerous expressions” (or formulations), the fundamental political position was correct and even farsighted in that the POI saw as early as 1940 the transformation of the national movement into the class struggle. In the unity declaration which appeared in the March 25, 1944, issue of La Verite, one discovers that the unifying organizations had, since the beginning of the war, maintained an “internationalist position politically and in action.” In “correcting their errors, by means of a Bolshevik self-criticism” they noted “some episodic errors of this or that group.” The truth of the matter is probably that it was not so much a question of refusing to make a self-criticism, but rather a simple inability to do so. The comrades were hopelessly caught up in the national chauvinist politics of the petty bourgeoisie of which they were only a part.

In August, 1945, the French section published a pamphlet entitled La-Lutte des Trotskyistes sous 1a Terreur Nazie (The Trotskyists’ Struggle under the Nazi Terror), the main theme of which is to document the “Trotskyist” struggle against German Fascism. The pamphlet contains an open letter to the president of the Press Federation reprinted from the Sept. 30, 1944 La Verite (No. 74). The letter is written in defense of the PCI’s demand that La Verite be allowed to appear legally inasmuch as La Verite was the first resistance organ” against the Nazis.

“During four years, in 19 mimeoed editions and 54 printed, La Verite led the campaign against fascism and the occupying imperialism. These campaigns  were oriented in the following direction:”

Point #3 reads: “3rd, Struggle for the Right of Peoples to Self Determination. This right being valid for all peoples, including those of the colonies.”

One would search in vain to find anything that even resembled a revolutionary defeatist position in this pamphlet, the 73 editions of La Verite, or the politics of the French section in general during or even after the war. Even the demand for fraternization was not based on the concept of turning the war into a civil war on both sides but rather of both sides joining together in a “determined struggle against Hitler”. As we shall see, the French section’s complete capitulation to nationalism was only one of the extreme manifestations of what took place in the International as a whole.

Comrades of the German section, the IKD (International Communists of Germany) also adopted a straight nationalist line. They wrote in their infamous “Three Theses” document dated Oct. 19, 1941:

“There is no more burning problem in Europe than the national freedom of nations enslaved by Germany, and its solution with the help and through international socialism is important and indispensable for three reasons”… “However one views it, the transition from fascism to socialism remains a utopia without a stopping place, which is by its contents equivalent to a democratic revolution.”

In the December, 1945-Jan, 1946 issue of Quatrieme Internationale in their article “On the European Revolution” the German comrades state:

“The retrogressive development of capitalism leads to the destroying of national independence and of democratic rights in the main European countries. Under these circumstances, class struggle must exchange its old     traditions for new methods. Instead of the more or less free play of the different social and political forces of the old democracies, instead of the existence of political parties and trade unions, what we are dealing with now is a national democratic movement of liberation including the whole population in its struggle against national and political oppression…”

For the German comrades the countries of Europe again had to undergo bourgeois democratic revolutions. The national revolution was “the order of the day.” Even within their nationalist theoretical wanderings the German comrades did not remain ‘Trotskyist.’ They did not even retain the theory of the permanent revolution to deal with the national question –unlike the International –but rather opted for the Menshevik theory of stages with the democratic revolution being “a stopping place”. The “important and indispensable” forces of “international socialism” were to “help, and through” them was to be accomplished the “national and democratic” stag which would then, and only then, open the door to the “socialist and proletarian” stage.

Part 4

In February, 1944, a six day European conference was held in France. One of the points on the agenda of this conference was the unification of three Trotskyist groups in France, to which we referred earlier. This conference attempted to make some criticisms of both the POI and the CCI’s positions on the national question. In the Theses on the Situation of the Workers Movement and the Perspectives for the Development of the Fourth International we find point 29 which states:

“29. It was, above all, during the present war that the movement of the Fourth International underwent the most difficult and decisive test. On the basis of internationalist principles, it had to defend on the one hand, against the infection of the nationalist and patriotic epidemic, which in the beginning seized the masses, and on the other hand against the terror of the bourgeoisie.

Under the pressure of the conditions created after the defeat of French             imperialism in France and elsewhere, one can notice a certain weakening in the internationalist behaviour of certain sections, especially the French section, which often expressed in its day to day politics the nationalist influence of the petty-bourgeois masses exasperated by the defeat of their imperialist masters.

The position taken by the French section on the national question, the theses put out in the name of the European Secretariat of the Fourth International, controlled exclusively during this period by the French comrades, represents a social-patriotic deviation which must be once and for all openly condemned and rejected as incompatible with the program and general ideology of the Fourth International.

Instead of distinguishing between the nationalism of the conquered bourgeoisie which remains an expression of its imperialist preoccupations and the ‘nationalism’ of the masses which is only a reactionary expression of their resistance against the exploitation of the occupying imperialism, the leadership of the POI considered the struggle of its own bourgeoisie as progressive, did not at first separate itself from Gaullism and was content with giving it a more ‘revolutionary’ terminological form.

In putting the conquered and imperialist French bourgeoisie on the same plane as the bourgeoisie of the colonial countries, the leadership of the POI took on a completely erroneous conception of the national question and spread dangerous illusions as to the character of the nationalist organizations which, far from constituting potential ‘allies’ for the revolutionary proletariat, reveal themselves as the counter-revolutionary avant-  garde of imperialism.

In the same way, in starting from the entirely correct point of view of the necessity of the revolutionary party to take part in the struggle of the masses and to tear away large segments of the working class from the bad influence of nationalism, the leadership of the POI allowed themselves to get carried away with dangerous ideological and tactical concessions, and did not understand that the first condition for conquering the masses consisted in the clear revolutionary language of the internationalist class struggle, in opposition to the confused and treacherous language of social-patriotism.

It is necessary to add, nevertheless, that, if this condemnation of a right-centrist deviation is forced upon us, the Fourth International must equally condemn with all its energy the ‘leftist’-sectarian deviation that manifested itself , for example in the politics of the CCI in France on the national question, which under the pretext of keeping intact the patrimony of Marxism-Leninism, stubbornly refused to distinguish the nationalism of the bourgeoisie from the resistance movement of the masses.

In condemning the struggle of the proletarian and petty-bourgeois masses for their day to day interests as ‘reactionary and nationalist’ from the moment that this struggle directed itself against the occupying imperialism and under the cover of petty- bourgeois slogans, sectarianism paralyzes precisely those revolutionary efforts for combating the nationalist ideology and automatically cuts itself off from the real struggle of the large masses.

Nevertheless, the social-patriotic deviation was, from the beginning, energetically thwarted by the healthy resistance of the revolutionary base of the French section as well as by the rest of the international organization.” (Quatrieme Internationale, No. 6-7, April-May, 1944, p. 8-9)

If we have taken the time for such a long quote, it is for definite reasons. One is that such criticism emanating from official bodies and leaderships of the Fourth International are quite unique on any question. Second is that while ostensibly criticizing the “social patriotic deviation” of the French section, the European Secretariat’s criticism showed its inability to deal with the origin of the French section’s deviation, and lays bare the basis of the Secretariat’s own capitulation to nationalism. The criticism does not in any way attempt to investigate or explain why it was that the French section was so influenced by “the petty bourgeois masses exasperated by the defeat of their imperialist masters.”

It, on the contrary, makes believe that it was only a deviation of the French leadership while “the revolutionary base” remained healthy and “thwarted” the deviation. Just how this healthy “revolutionary base”, “thwarted” the social-patriotic deviation” of the French section is not explained. That it did not thwart the “social-patriotic deviation” of the French section can be seen from two sources already mentioned above, both of which appeared after the above criticism was made. The first was the “Open Letter to the President of the Press Federation” printed in issue No. 74 of La Verite, Sept.30, 1944, and the second is the pamphlet, The Struggle of the Trotskyists under the Nazi Terror, published August, 1945, which also contained a a reprint of the “Open Letter”. But these are not the only items that can be used to show that the nationalist infection of the French section went deeper than its leadership, as we shall see later on.

The inability of the European Secretariat to make an incisive criticism of the French section is in itself an indication of “the infection of the nationalist and patriotic epidemic which” “seized” almost the whole of the International. The Secretariat criticizes the French section for not distinguishing between the nationalism of the conquered bourgeoisie…and the ‘nationalism’ of the masses… It is true that one must differentiate between the nationalism of the oppressed and that of the “capitalist and his journalist,” lawyer, etc. But is this the real content of the Secretariat’s differentiation? The Secretariat also criticised the POI for “putting the conquered and imperialist bourgeoisie on the same plane as the bourgeoisie of the Colonial countries…”

Here we can see the real content of the Secretariat’s differentiation. The Secretariat is not criticizing the POI for taking up the struggle for national liberation, but merely for assigning a progressive role to the French bourgeoisie. You see, according to the Secretariat, the national liberation struggle of the French bourgeoisie “remains an expression of its imperialist preoccupations,” and therefore, is barred from playing a progressive role, while on the other “plane”, “the bourgeoisie of the colonial countries” can and do play a progressive role in the struggle for national liberation. Here is clearly the theory of the permanent revolution, in essence, applied to the imperialist country of France which smacks of the more subtle chauvinist positions in the 2nd International during WW 1 –while the essence of the Menshevik line (Stalinist) is adopted by the Secretariat for the “colonial countries.”

The Leninist theory of revolutionary defeatism in the imperialist countries, and the theory of the permanent revolution which states that the bourgeoisie in the underdeveloped countries cannot play a progressive role in the epoch of imperialist decay, are both thrown out the window for an almost pure classical social-democratic position on nationalism.

Elsewhere in the Secretariats’ Theses one can corroborate this analysis of their above criticism. The Theses as a whole undoubtedly reflected the growing militancy of the masses, the growth of the partisan movement, and some growth in our own ranks as well. While stating several correct things, such as the task of projecting a “policy to transform the imperialist war into civil war” and condemning the “slogan of ‘national insurrection’,” the idea of national liberation is, nevertheless, smuggled in;

“While the proletariat must reject any alliance with its own bourgeoisie, it cannot remain disinterested in the struggle of the masses against the oppression of German imperialism. The proletariat supports this struggle in order to facilitate and hasten its transformation into a general struggle against capitalism.”

And the Theses go on to project entrism into the partisan movements.

Part 5

By supporting the struggle for national liberation as the first step to “a general struggle against capitalism” the Secretariat ends up tail ending the nationalist and partisan movements in that the Secretariat projects “democratic demands” as “the most effective instrument for the mobilization of broad masses of the people against, the bourgeoisie… (which in turn) opens the road to power for the workers and peasants.”

As the Theses prepares for the revolutionary crises, everything is stood on its head. Instead of the position that transitional demand become all the more necessary and decisive as the old and partial or democratic demands come more and more into conflict with “destructive and degrading tendencies of decadent capitalism”, the Secretariat projects democratic demands as taking on a revolutionary quality in-and-of-themselves:

“Precisely because it (the Fourth International) knows that in the epoch of imperialism there is no room left for bourgeois democracy, the revolutionary vanguard transforms the struggle for democratic demands on the part of the masses into a powerful instrument against the bourgeois state.”

The Theses even goes so far as to say that:

“In certain countries and under certain circumstances … extreme democratic demands, such as the demand for immediate elections or for the convocation of a constituent assembly, can become powerful means of mobilizing great masses of people around the proletariat.”

As history has shown, democratic demands in imperialist countries in crisis have “become powerful means of mobilizing great masses of people around” not, “the proletariat” but rather the bourgeoisie. History proved this very fact to the so-called “revolutionary base of the French section.” As we stated above, the French section continued to follow a national-democratic position clearly using the political position outlined in the 1944 Theses. Tail-ending the CP and under the cover of fighting for democratic demands, the PCI called for a “yes” vote on making National Assembly into a Constituent Assembly in the referendum of October 21,1945. The PCI demanded all candidates for office be qualified and immediately recalled at any moment. It launched an appeal to form Defense Committees of the Constituent Assembly. And in the referendum of May 5, 1946, it again appealed to the masses to vote “yes” for a bourgeois constitution. To defend bourgeois democratic demands was to block the reaction. The capitulation of the French section was only a more gross expression of the capitulation of the European Secretariat as well as of the International.

The Fourth International was founded in 1938. Trotsky had wanted the International founded in 1936, but for many reasons, some mentioned above, it had been impossible to do so. The new International was small, isolated, mainly petty-bourgeois in composition and beset with many problems. Nevertheless, the strength of the International was to be found in its theoretical and political clarity on the historical and current questions of the day which was summed up in its founding document The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International drafted by Comrade Trotsky.

Trotsky was the all important figure in the founding of the International. It was the probity of Trotsky’s theoretical work, and, based on this, his incisive political analysis, that put the International on a solid Marxist basis. Trotsky’s theoretical analysis of the Soviet state, Stalinism, and Fascism, laid the basis for principled class-struggle politics, without which there would have been no Fourth International. Trotsky was the new International’s theoretical and historical link to the Bolshevik Revolution which embodied Marxism’s richest traditions.

On the eve of the war the International (with certain exceptions) found itself even more isolated than before. The cruel defeats of the French and Spanish proletariat set the stage for the imperialist war and our even greater isolation from the working class. The declarations of war were almost everywhere accompanied by crackdowns on the Trotskyist movement. Several militants in France where picked up, and in September, 1939, Walter Dauge, secretary of the Belgian section, the PSR, was arrested by the Belgian police. The organizations of the Fourth International were for the most part forced underground.

The Stalinists before the war had been able to murder some of the most capable young Trotskyist cadres, but after the war had broken out, the bourgeoisie, under cover of war, carried out with the Stalinist’s consent, a wholesale slaughter by comparison. Hundreds of Trotskyists lost their lives by outright murder, firing squads, or from internment in prison. Whole leaderships were destroyed and among them the young international’s most capable and promising figures.

“We lost during the war a large number of the leading cadres of our movement, long-time revolutionaries, such as Comrade Marcel Hic, general secretary of our French organization, dead in a concentration camp in Germany; the Belgian comrades Lesoil and Leon, who suffered the same fate; the Italian comrade Blasco, victim of Stalinist repression at the moment of the “Liberation”; the Greek comrade Poulioplos, executed by the fascists in Greece in 1943, the German comrade Widelin; and so many others.” (Michel Pablo, The Fourth International, ‘What It Is, What It Aims At’, 1958, p.18)

“The only public trials attempted during the war and the only condemnations to death or to prison of revolutionary leaders and militants accused of opposition to the imperialist war, in both camps, had Trotskyists as their victims. It was thus that in Holland the Gestapo assassinated after a public trial on April 12, 1942, nine well known leaders the RSAP, Trotskyists and pro-Trotskyists, among them Comrades Sneevliet and Dollerman. In Vienna, Trotskyist militants were executed after a public trial, as well as in Germany.” (Michel Pablo, “Twenty Years of the Fourth International” part 3, Fourth International, Autumn 1958, No.4, p.61.)

“In the United States, Britain, Ceylon, and India, countries on the ‘democratic’ side only Trotskyist leaders were imprisoned for their consistent struggle against the war and against imperialism.” (Ibid, Fourth International)

The resounding blow, however, which shook the newly founded International, the hardest, was the assassination of Trotsky, August 20, 1940, by an agent of Stalin’s GPU. The International undoubtedly would have been able to weather the storm with Trotsky at the helm, in spite of the tremendous losses and theoretical and political confusion resulting from the war. Without Trotsky, the theoretical and political helm of the badly battered, storm-tossed International naturally fell to the historically strong section of the International, the SWP.

The SWP had worked closely with Trotsky during the last four years of his life. There were frequent meetings and discussions with the leaders of the SWP. Many of Trotsky’s body guards and secretaries were provided by the SWP. Because of his closeness to the SWP and the potential it offered, Trotsky took a keen interest in the affairs of the party and gave it his theoretical and political guidance even to the point that a sort of division of labor was created. This, we can be sure, was not Trotsky’s intention, but rather to teach and educate the party so that it could better stand on its own two feet as it grew older.

Nevertheless, the division of labor existed –Trotsky provided the theory and politics; the SWP leadership the machine to put them into practice. That this was the case can be seen in the fight with Burnham-Abern-Shachtman –Trotsky provided the theory and Cannon the organization. This division of labor is admirably reflected in the two books issuing from this struggle: In Defense of Marxism by Trotsky which deals mainly with the theoretical and political problems in dispute, and The Struggle for a Proletarian Party by Cannon which concentrates on the organizational problems raised.

In spite of all its shortcomings, the SWP remained the Trotskyist organization with a promise of great potential. Unlike most other Trotskyist groups the SWP had kept its leadership intact during the war. It was essentially a proletarian party with a proletarian leadership. It was a party that had gone through an important struggle at the beginning of the war with its petty-bourgeois layer which reflected the chauvinist whip. With the split of the petty bourgeois Burnham-Abern-Shachtman opposition, which took about 45% of the ranks, the party became even more homogenous, proletarian in composition, and experienced in serious political struggle. Trotsky himself expressed great hope in the American section when he complimented Cannon by saying that he was the only man outside of Lenin to have built a proletarian party. The years after international contact was restored (beginning in 1944) were to be crucial and were to prove whether Trotsky’s hopes for the SWP had been well founded or not.

While the SWP did not break with revolutionary defeatism in the USA during World War II, it did bend somewhat to social patriotism. For example the slogan “Turn the imperialist war into a war against fascism” which began to appear in the March, 1941 Militant, lends itself to some confusion at best. There is obviously a distinction being made in this slogan between fascism and bourgeois democracy. Otherwise the authors of the slogan would have stated: “Turn the imperialist war into a war against imperialism”. But this slogan is at best, vague and nonsensical. Each imperialist power claims it is fighting imperialism, just as the allies claim to be fighting fascism.

“Turn the imperialist war into a war against fascism” is not the same at all as the Leninist slogan “Turn the imperialist war into a civil war!” In the latter there is no room for doubt as to who or where the enemy is, while the former gives some credence to bourgeois democracy’s struggle against fascism. The slogan might have been acceptable for out German comrades in Germany, but coming from the USA where there existed a bourgeois-democratic government, it meant to reflect in our program the strong social patriotic atmosphere created by the bourgeoisie under the guise of fighting fascism.

It is one thing to have a revolutionary defeatist program against imperialist war and yet quite another to be critical of the war. But at times our propaganda came closer to the latter than the former. The party sometimes criticized American capitalism for holding back and sabotaging the war effort. There is nothing wrong with this per se, if it is done in the right context of not criticizing but opposing the imperialist war by exposing capitalism and the imperialist nature of the war. But if it is not done specifically in the context of opposing the war such an approach becomes, in essence, a formula for supporting the war because it only criticized the capitalist government for not pursuing the war more efficiently. Even a teamster strike, for example, could be considered as holding back and even sabotaging the war effort, if not put in the proper context of a program in opposition to imperialist war. No one can deny that the party generally stood in opposition to the imperialist war. But so did Shachtman’s Workers Party. The important thing is the nature of this opposition, that is, what political content filled this abstract slogan.

Part 6

The real position of the SWP during the war cannot be gauged just by its political line in relation to the USA. What is just as important is the position the SWP took in relation to the national question posed by the European sections and European Secretariat.

The national problem was not posed in the United States since the US was never in danger of being occupied. The war was a ‘foreign’ war, and we had entered it to help the “good”, guys against the “bad” guys. It is, therefore, instructive to look at the SWP’s position on the European situation and what our position might have been if occupation had been a question.

Point, 13 of the section on Europe from the Political Resolution of the National Committee of the Socialist Workers Party begins:

“The aspiration of the masses of France and the other occupied countries for national liberation has profound revolutionary implications. But, like the sentiment of antifascism, it can be perverted to the uses of imperialism. Such a perversion of the movement is inevitable if it proceeds under the slogans and leadership of bourgeois nationalism.” (Fourth International, Oct., 1942. P. 319)

In other words, the struggle for national liberation by the French masses was a progressive struggle as long as it was not perverted by the slogans and leadership of the bourgeoisie. The idea that the struggle for national liberation in imperialist France was in-and-of-itself a bourgeois slogan was not even considered. The struggle for national liberation at the time of war could ultimately only tail end the national liberation struggle being led by the national bourgeoisie. The problem of national liberation in the imperialist countries could not have been posed by Marxists until one imperialist power or another had won a definitive victory resulting in the political subjugation of all of Europe, thus imposing a de facto empire. After a certain period then, and only then, could Marxists have even considered, as Lenin pointed out, the possibility of the struggle for national liberation be considered as part and parcel of the struggle for socialism. But the SWP saw it differently.

Continuing from the above quote:

“The task of the workers of the occupied countries is to put themselves at the head of the insurgent movement of the people and direct it toward the struggle for the socialist reorganization of Europe.”

That is, the struggle for socialism flowed from the struggle for national liberation led by the working class, in the advanced countries just as in the under-developed countries. Here again we see, as in the European Secretariat’s Theses, the theory of the permanent revolution being applied to the imperialist countries of Europe.

The SWP did criticize the “Three Theses” of the German comrades in somewhat the same fashion as the European Secretariat, but has to our knowledge never mentioned the “nationalist deviation” of the French section. On the contrary, the SWP glorified the French section’s role during the war as well as that of the European Secretariat. Point #29 of the European Secretariat’s Theses of the 1944 European Conference (quoted above) was not reproduced in the March or May (1945) issues of the Fourth International along with the other parts of the Theses. In the “Editor’s Note,” an introduction to the Theses, one reads the following:

“The record of Trotskyism in Europe is an inspiring record of relentless, unyielding, heroic struggle in the face of overwhelming odds. For years our co-thinkers in Europe had to conduct their struggle under the Hitler dictatorship. This struggle for socialism is exemplified by the French Trotskyists who published illegally 73 issues… of their critical organ La Verite in a period of 4 years beginning with August 1940.”

In spite of #29 of the Theses which criticized the French section for “a Social-patriotic Deviation”, the SWP’s Fourth International states that “the French Trotskyists” “exemplified…the struggle for socialism”. The lengthy introduction is, for the most part nothing more than a paraphrasing of a document we have already referred to several times above –the “Open Letter to the President of the Press Federation.” This, it will be recalled, was the letter “written in defense of the PCI’s demand that La Verite be allowed to appear legally” since it had been such a valiant campaigner “against fascism and the occupying imperialism.”

The “Editor’s Note” even repeats #3 which we ourselves quoted above:

“From the first the French Trotskyists fought deportations, racism and anti-Semitism. They advanced the slogan of the right of all peoples, including those in the colonies, to self-determination.”

For the French as well as for the SWP, the struggle for national liberation in the occupied imperialist countries was the first order of business. The idea that the French working class should be organized around a revolutionary defeatist position which should include as one of its major and most urgent tasks, the struggle for the right of the colonies to self-determination, is turned inside out. The struggle of the colonies for the right of self-determination is added as if it were only an afterthought, almost as if to say that the struggle of the colonies would be included once France had won her own right of self-determination.

That the SWP had essential agreement with the United Secretariat on the national question in Europe is seen in the last part of the “Editor’s Note”:

“Out of the European Conference come the theses, sections of which are published below for the information of our readers. It will be apparent to the readers of Fourth International that in the main essentials there is a solidarity of ideas between the theses of the European Conference and the programmatic documents adopted by the Socialist Workers Party at the November 1943 Plenum and November 1944 Convention (…)”

It should be obvious that the SWP as well as the European Secretariat was unwilling or unable to deal with the origins of the French Trotskyists deviations on the national question, let alone the national question in general. Not completely, but partly due to this failure to deal with the national question, there developed another petty-bourgeois opposition in the SWP which was only a reflection of similar tendencies in other sections not the least of which was the majority of the French section with its position of voting “yes!” for the bourgeois constitution. It was no accident that the Goldman-Morrow faction made its way to the Shachtmanites. The Goldman-Morrow tendency should have been an ominous warning of the dangers that still existed in the International from the petty bourgeoisie adapting to the prevalent pressures of the moment.

While the tendency represented by the Goldman-Morrow faction was due essentially to the pressure generated during the war, another petty-bourgeois tendency began to take form after the war. This tendency was ideologically akin to Shachtmanism and resulted from almost the very same pressures that had produced the original bureaucratic-collectivist ideology of Shachtman. The tail-ending of the Stalinists by our European sections, the growing prospects of WW III spurred on by the cold war and the rape as well as suppression of the working class of Eastern Europe by the Stalinists, created pressures similar to those that were present on the eve of WW11; all of which acted as midwives to the new outburst of petty-bourgeois despair in the International.

The state capitalists were represented in the SWP by the Johnson-Forest faction which after the war left Shachtman and re-entered the SWP bringing all their ideological baggage with them. This same tendency took form in France in August, 1946, during the preparation of the PCI’s third party congress. Tony Cliff was sent to England by the International Secretariat to straighten out the RCP (Revolutionary Communist Party) leadership who had been toying with the ideas of state capitalism. The RCP leadership, however, ended up rejecting state capitalism and Tony Cliff ended up becoming one of its foremost advocates and leader of the state-capitalist faction in Britain. The new Shachtmanite tendency was like adding fresh iridescent paint to the already obvious.

Part 7 (Final)

At the end and immediately after the war, there was an upsurge of the masses through the world which was reflected in the growth of the Trotskyist movement. The RCP in England, for example, had a sizeable proletarian base for its size. Out of roughly 500 members, the RCP was approximately 80% workers. After the reunification in France the PCI began to grow and was able to recruit a base –even though small –in the working class. Certain sources put the French section at 2,000 strong. In the United States the SWP too began to grow, and by 1946 the party reported a membership of 2,000.

Optimism abounded. Opportunities seemed to be opening up everywhere. Trotsky’s prediction about the war throwing capitalism and bourgeois democracy into a prolonged and aggravated crisis seemed to be coming true down to the last letter. The enthusiasm and confidence of the period was best summed up in Cannon’s speech to the 12th National Convention “The Coming American Revolution” in which he stated:

“Our economic analysis has shown that the present boom of American capitalism is heading directly at a rapid pace toward a crisis, and this will be a profound social crisis which can lead, in its further development to an objectively revolutionary situation.”

The crisis from which the revolution would leap was just around the corner, “Onward to a party of 10,000” was the slogan of the SWP convention. But the analysis of the SWP and the International proved to be wrong. Nevertheless, the SWP and the International dogmatically clung to what they thought Trotsky has predicted.

Long after it became abundantly clear that the capitalist crisis was not around the corner, they continued to argue that it was on its way. Ernest (Germain), the economic theoretician of the International, confidently defended the International’s position at the 2nd World Congress in 1948 against the RCP majority which as a minority of one maintained that the boom would not be so ephemeral. Such farsighted analysis by the British section was, however, branded as disillusioned petty-bourgeois scepticism.

Nobody could defend Trotsky’s anticipations of the events down to their last letter. Trotsky, like all the great Marxists, anticipated the future not with the intention of being history’s script writer, but of indicating the general development of events given certain preconditions. Sometimes even the general flow of historical development is interrupted by historical accidents. Nevertheless, Trotsky’s prediction of the crisis of capitalism and bourgeois democracy and the subsequent rise of the masses under the banner of the Fourth International was not without foundation.

The rise of the masses did occur. What was missing was a presupposition that was understood in Trotsky’s prediction that the Fourth International would be sufficiently prepared to provide the masses with a revolutionary alternative. In fact, in 1937 he clearly stated:

“If in the event of a new war, the masses are not headed by a revolutionary party…a new revolutionary situation would throw society back.”

But as we have seen, in the most important countries such as in France the sections of the International were incapable of taking advantage of the opportunities open to them.

The politically bankrupt sections were unable to provide any valid alternative to the treacherous leaderships of Social Democracy and Stalinism which allowed the breathing space capitalism needed to secure its wobbly legs. But according to the SWP and the International leadership, the Fourth International had not yet had its chance to lead the masses in the storming of the bourgeois bastions and, therefore, the crisis was still around the corner. A dogmatic interpretation of Trotsky –sterile orthodoxy –replaces a critical analysis of the objective situation and our own historical role.

To ignore the physical as well as political disintegration of the International during the war was to attempt to build upon a foundation of sand. The results could only be an ever continuing collapse of the structure, politically and organizationally, regardless of how impressive the facade appeared at anyone time. The Second World Congress in 1948, however, sanctified the role of the International to that time and posed with optimism about the “more or less rapid transformation”… “of our sections”… “into mass parties.”

In the activities report of the IS, “10 Years of Fighting,” adopted by the 2nd Congress, we find the following sanctimonious excerpts:

“c) In the face of the occupation of Europe by the Nazis and the reactions it provoked among the masses, the International defended the principle of the link between the struggle against national oppression and the struggle for the socialist revolution …d) Against the tide of chauvinist propaganda flooding the whole world, the Trotskyists held aloft the flag of revolutionary internationalism.”

While having stated the above the authors felt no compunction in stating further on:

“At first the pressure of the war and of the occupation of Europe by the Nazis completely bewildered the pre-war leadership of the French Trotskyist movement. A few of them deserted the organization and others abandoned all political activity. Among those who stayed, some leading comrades developed positions which essentially constituted a complete retreat from the revolutionary positions of the 4th International…”      

Under the heading “The National Question during the War”, the report continued, officially stamping as good coin the International’s own deviations on the national question:

“The question was to organically combine the masses’ national demands with the proletarian socialist program. The sections or tendencies which hesitated to audaciously take the initiative to write the struggle for national demands in their programs, or which showed their incapacity to do so, to organize this struggle or to participate in the ‘national’ movement of the masses (strikes, partisan armies, insurrections such as the Greek one of December 1944) made serious sectarian mistakes which weighed on their development.”

And we learn that, outside of possible tendencies here and there the Greek section seems to have been the only one to have raised objection to the International’s deviations on the national question and it was branded as sectarian. The Greek section, however, outside of having been small to begin with and losing its leadership during the war, found itself in three parts at the end of the war. To say the least, it was not able to have any preponderant influence in the International as a whole.

The 2nd World Congress held ten years after the founding of the 4th International maintained that the International was alive and well. The political documents issuing from the 2nd World Congress, however, proved that the International was not well, and even raised speculation as to its total demise. The young International was weak in cadres at its founding, but its strength was not in its numbers but in its unrelenting revolutionary program. The 2nd Congress of the International could brag of an increase in cadres, but the program had for all essential purposes become a religious relic. It had been replaced by a concoction born of social patriotism, enriched by pragmatism and impressionism and couched in sterile orthodoxy. Future events were to prove that the demise of the International ‘vas more than mere speculation.

The new leadership of the reorganized European Secretariat and subsequently, in 1945, of the International Secretariat, was personified by Michel Raptis (Pablo) who took over as general secretary of the European Secretariat after the arrest of Marcel Hic in 1943 and his murder in 1945. Leaving aside political considerations, one could not help but be suspicious of this new leadership from the organizational wheeling-and-dealing that was carried on under the guise of re-organization. Negotiations were opened up with the POUM. Negotiations with the Shachtmanites were placed on the agenda for the SWP. A phony Irish section was set up consisting of one individual who turned out to be sympathetic to Shachtman. An Italian section was concocted which proved to be largely Bordigists. But these and other organizational gymnastics were only a portent of the organizational and political acrobatics yet to come.

The 2nd World Congress began to take up the most important theoretical question of the nature of the Eastern European states occupied by the Soviet Union. The Congress documents held that these states remained capitalist, that “structural assimilation” by the bureaucracy was impossible except for, possibly, “one or another country”, and that the bureaucracy must withdraw under the pressure of imperialism, or “the real destruction of capitalism…take place only as a result of the revolutionary mobilization of the masses.” (Here it is impossible to take up the question of Eastern Europe and the many fallacious theories advanced, such as the theory of “structural assimilation”. To the present the Eastern European question has not been dealt with satisfactorily.)

One can see from the above how unprepared the International was for the actual events that took place in Eastern Europe. Outside of “one or another” exception, there could be no “structural assimilation” a thoroughly reformist concept in its own right –in Eastern Europe, and the Soviet bureaucracy remained “compelled to maintain the bourgeois function and structure of the state, not only because its destruction is impossible without a revolutionary mobilization of the masses, but also in order to defend its own particular exploitation (sic) of the workers in these countries.” The transformation of the Eastern European countries into deformed workers’ states –in process at the time the documents of the 2nd World Congress were being passed –took the International by surprise.

The underestimation of the capabilities of the world Stalinist bureaucracy in the general framework of the world situation –which itself had been misunderstood –laid one of the bases for the zig-zag which became known as “Pabloism.” When it finally decided that the Eastern European countries had been transformed into workers’ states –determined precipitously and empirically the International leadership, without retracting a single comma that appeared in the 2nd World Congress documents, now began over-estimating the potential of the same Stalinist bureaucracy. Both positions showed a lack of understanding of Stalinism and its bureaucratic rule.

The change in the International’s position followed the Second World Congress by a matter of weeks. Before the ink was dry on the Congress documents, the International Secretariat (IS) was writing open letters “To the Congress, the Central Committee and the Members of the Yugoslav Communist Party,” in which the IS was, according to the British section:

“forced by events to proceed from the standpoint of the British Party, that the productive and political relations in Yugoslavia are basically identical with those of the Soviet Union.”

The British comrades continued in the “Letter on Yugoslavia sent to the I.E.C.”:

“If indeed there exists in Yugoslavia a capitalist state, then the IS Letters can only be characterized as outright opportunist. For the IS does not pose the tasks in Yugoslavia which would follow if bourgeois relations existed there as the dominant form. The Letters are based on conclusions which can only flow from the premise that the basic overturn of capitalism and landlordism has taken place.

The second Open Letter gives several conditions necessary if Yugoslavia is to go forward with true revolutionary and communist progress. Yet nowhere does it call for the destruction of bourgeois relations in the economy and the overturn in the bourgeois system and regime.

The comrades will remember that the Congress document gives as its first reason why ‘the capitalist nature of the buffer zone is apparent’ that ‘nowhere has the bourgeoisie as such been destroyed or expropriated.’ Why no mention of this in the Open Letters? Of all the seven conditions given in the Congress document as making ‘apparent’ the capitalist nature of Yugoslavia and other buffer countries, the IS mentions only one –nationalization of the land. But even here, the question of the failure to nationalize the land is raised, not from the point of view of proving the capitalist nature of Yugoslavia. It is raised to point out, correctly, that the nationalization of the land is necessary in order to combat the concentration of income and of land in the hands of the kulaks. The question is raised in the general context of the Letter as an aid to the socialist development of agriculture in a country where capitalism and landlordism have been overthrown, but the danger of a new  exploitation is still present in the countryside.

Not only are main tasks posed in the Open Letter identical to those to be carried out to cleanse a state similar in productive and political relations in the Soviet Union; but, Russia.

The articles appearing in our international press revealed one thing the thesis adopted by the World Congress failed to provide a clear guide to the problems that arose from the Cominform-Yugoslavia split, and the tasks of the revolutionaries in connection with the regime and its economic base.”

It is evident from the quote that the comrades of the British section, along with their other disagreements, disputed the position of the International on the nature of the Eastern European states. While we cannot agree with the British section’s alternative political analysis on the question, (an analysis similar to the Vern-Ryan tendency of the SWP that red army equals workers state) the letter of the British comrades, nevertheless, exposes the International’s total disregard, without even the slightest compunction, for their own political evaluation. The letter exposes as well the Secretariat’s crass opportunism and is a premonition of the adaptation the IS was going to make, not only in relation to Yugoslavia, but to Stalinism in general.

The attitude that the YCP was on its way to reforming itself, under the leadership of Tito, flowed from what seems to have been the assumption that any opposition to the Kremlin by another CP had, of necessity, to be from the left. The ideas of the British comrades that the Yugoslav “bureaucratic regime, resting as it does mainly on the peasantry, can have no independent perspective between the Soviet Union and American imperialism,” and that the struggle of the YCP was a “desire of the Yugoslav leaders to maintain an independent bureaucratic position and further aspirations of its own” were completely dismissed by the International leadership.

The IS leadership behind Pablo and Healy as well as the French section behind Bleibtreu and Lambert, threw themselves into the word of establishing contacts with Yugoslav government officials, organizing work brigades to go to Yugoslavia, and sycophantically praising in their press the “courageous” position taken by the YCP and its leader Tito. Tito’s portrait even decorated the walls of the offices of the IS and the French section. The attitude to Yugoslavia was only a precursor to positions that the IS would take in relation to China, Bolivia, Cuba, Algeria, Vietnam, etc.


Written by raved

January 2, 2015 at 9:40 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Trotskyism Today – An Evaluation of a Series

leave a comment »

We reproduce here an important 6-part critical series by the US Trotskyist Harry Turner published in 1970-71 in the Vanguard Newsletter.  It is a critique of the US Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) and some of the organisations that split from it and in particular the petty bourgeois ’empiricist’ method of the Spartacist League led by James Robertson that led to the ‘suspension’ of a minority around Turner on differences over united front work to unite Black and White workers.


Trotskyism Today – An Evaluation of a Series

by Harry Turner

Vanguard Newsletter, Vol 2 No 8 September 1970



What Is Spartacist?, the six-part series by Tim Wohlforth, which appeared in the Workers Leagues’s Bulletin between June 22 and August 10, 1970, purports to be a Marxist examination, not only of the Spartacist League but also, of its “graduates”. Included among the latter is one, Harry Turner, an editor of Vanguard Newsletter.

We can agree with Comrade Wohlforth that the Marxist method requires that phenomena be apprehended in its development to be adequately understood. But this means that all other interacting phenomena must be afforded a similar treatment, and above all, that a genuinely conscientious appraisal be undertaken.

Quite obviously, the scientific detachment of an observer from Sirius can hardly be expected in social phenomena from participants, let alone partisans. However, the great Marxists have set their followers an example in this respect as in others, in combining the most passionate devotion to the cause of the working class with the most scrupulous treatment of the factual materials with which they dealt.

We intend to follow them in this respect as well in evaluating the What Is Spartacist? series, in examining the record of individuals and groups who came to the fore as oppositional elements in the rapidly degenerating Socialist Workers Party and in their subsequent evolution.

Wohlforth attempts to prove his central thesis in this series, that the disintegration products of the SWP – all with the exception of Wohlforth and his tendency –rejected proletarian internationalism, and thereby, became enemies of the Leninist vanguard party, as a result of their pragmatic adaptation to surface phenomena. Wohlforth, it seems, was spared this fate, because of his mastery of Marxist “method”!

As evidence, Wohlforth quotes extensively from materials made available by the Spartacist League, his own voluminous correspondence with Gerry Healy, the national secretary of the Socialist Labour League and secretary of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the documents of the SLL and IC, and also from letters sent to Gerry Healy by this writer.

Our series will also attempt to prove a thesis, namely, that the “graduates” of the SWP, including Wohlforth, and even before “graduation”, from 1962 on, in one degree or another, operated in a manner harmful to the construction of a Leninist vanguard party in this country, and that the current practices of both the WL and SL in particular, act as obstacles to its construction.

We will also have occasion to refer to documents and to produce extracts of our correspondence to support our thesis – including those parts of a letter to Gerry Healy which Wohlforth carefully overlooked.

As Marxists, we understand that the ideological superstructure –not immediately, not directly, but in the final analysis –is dependent on the economic base, and that serious political struggles, even within a small organization, reflect this base and the resultant movement of social classes. We also understand with Marx that the “character of the people who first head the movement” play an important role in accelerating or delaying developments.

As Marxists, we recognize that the negative practices of the SWP “graduates” are not simply the “evil” work of “evil” men. Underlying all the errors of revolutionists and would-be-revolutionists, including those resulting from the erratic behavior and subjectivism of individual leaders, we see the action of economic-political law.

The defeats of the European and world working class in the post World War II period by capitalism aided by Stalinism, produced the revisionist theories of a Michel Pablo and the immediate or subsequent capitulation to his conceptions by a large part of the world Trotskyist movement. Abandoning attempts to build an international working class vanguard party, they sought for short-cuts to socialism in adaptations to one or another variety of Stalinism and “Third World”-ism.

The harmful practices of those “graduates” who “oppose” Pabloism must also be understood in the context of an as-yet politically backward working class, in the absence of a real working class movement which they would be bound to respect, and in their inability to produce a coherent and consistent strategy and tactics to deal with the sharpening crisis of world capitalism, to the extent that they even recognize its existence.

Wohlforth has admitted in this series that the WL made errors in the past, e.g., that it had held “a confused position on the question of Black Nationalism”, which has since been corrected, so that it now “ruthlessly fights each and every manifestation of black nationalism “. However, Wohlforth not only fails to explore the roots of this error, in this or any other series, to our knowledge, he also delicately refrains from elaborating further on the other “mistakes” to which he admits.

Lenin in Left Wing Communism states that:

“a political party’s attitude toward its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is, and how it fulfils in practice its obligations toward its class and the working people. Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analyzing the conditions that have let up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification, that is the hallmark of a serious party…”

Using Lenin’s criterion, we intend to demonstrate that neither the WL nor the SL can be considered “serious”, in Lenin’s meaning of the term.

The infrequent Spartacist, in its August-September issue, has printed a shrill reply to the What is Spartacist? series, entitled The Wohlforth League: Counterfeit Trotskyists. Adopting the maxim that the best defense is a good offense, the SL has let loose a welter of accusations and grievances against Wohlforth and the WL. It is unable, however to undertake an objective examination of the WL’s failings because, despite its pretensions that it is the embodiment of “authentic Trotskyism”, it is not a serious organization in any sense of that word. Its hastily written lawyer’s brief is concerned to cover over its own sins of commission and omission. Its continued existence as an organization can be attributed, not to its own laggard efforts but rather, to the blunders which the WL has made and continues to make – as we intend to demonstrate.

The Left Opposition in the SWP

The Cuban revolution, which brought to power a new Bonapartist formation headed by Fidel Castro, which we understand as having resulted in a deformed workers’ state, a state not qualitatively differing from the Soviet, Eastern European or Chinese varieties, was seen by the SWP leadership as the distilled essence of a proletarian revolution –consummated without the proletarian party, without the active participation not to speak of leadership of the proletariat, and without the organs of working class rule, the Soviets –that it was at least the equal of, if it did not surpass, the October Revolution led by the Bolshevik party.

In his first instalment, Wohlforth correctly indicates –and in fact, the series makes a number of valid points and presents some useful information, which we intend to credit in due course –that the left minority faction in the SWP initially arose in opposition to the opportunist direction by the party majority on Cuba.

He then refers to the documentary evidence to show that the IC leadership had understood earlier and had helped the minority in the SWP to understand that the opportunist adaptation to the new Cuban bureaucracy by the SWP majority was but an expression of its fundamental theoretical and political degeneration, was “an expression of a whole international perspective and method known as Pabloism”.

Wohlforth attacks the Robertson concept1on, which appeared as late as January 1965, in an introduction to a reprint of the minority document of 1962 In Defence of a Revolutionary Perspective that the SWP leadership first took an opportunist position on Cuba, and then generalized their opportunism into an opportunist international perspective.

This writer only became involved in the struggle for revolutionary politics in the SWP after the split of the original minority into the “Revolutionary Tendency” of Robertson and the “Reorganized Minority Tendency” of Wohlforth. However, there seems to be no reason for not crediting Wohlforth’s version of the sequence of development which produced the SWP minority and its basic agreement with the IC.

We must take issue, however, with Wohlforth’s underlying simplistic psychological assumption, that the erroneous views of Robertson in this respect are significant as an expression of a national deviation which “explains” his and “his friends” subsequent “rejection of internationalism”. And in fact, despite his use of the term “interlocking” to describe the questions of Pabloism and Cuba, Wohlforth’s presentation betrays his own inability to understand that the SWP’ s adaptation to the Castro Bonapartist formation was not only an “expression” of its Pabloist “perspective and method”, but that Cuba represented that added factor which transformed quantity to quality, which caused an already weakened and disoriented organism to succumb to Pabloism.

Despite Wohlforth’s stress on Marxist “method”, as the fundamental attribute which distinguishes the WL from the SL and other pragmatists, in reality, he and Robertson have in common a basic incapacity for dialectical thought, and an eclecticism –in some cases clearly expressed, in others, cleverly masked as “authentic Marxism”, and to adaptations which betray the fact that neither are as far from the Pabloism which they condemn as they would like others to believe.


TROTSKYISM TODAY Part 2, by Harry Turner

Vanguard Newsletter Vol 2 No 9 October 1970


Split in the SWP Left Tendency

Is it worthwhile “bothering” about “ancient” factional and organizational “squabbles”within the SWP and other ostensibly revolutionary organizations?

We believe that an examination of the interacting objective and subjective factors can provide Marxists with useful lessons in the struggle for the Leninist and Trotskyist vanguard party –and not least, in illuminating personalities who present themselves today as leaders.

Illusions in self-appointed, incompetent and opportunist leaders and their policies, can prove an insuperable barrier for the working class, in spite of the most promising revolutionary opportunities. Our series, therefore, performs a needed political hygienic function. Those who try to conceal past “mistakes”, to distort the truth to promote their “revolutionary” organizations, are in reality, expressing an elitist attitude which can only negate real socialist consciousness in the working class.

From this standpoint, a revolutionary socialist is bound to treat the views of opponents with complete scrupulosity. It is impermissible to abstract phrases from context to give them a meaning contrary to their author’s intention, or to deliberately omit passages from quotations which have an important bearing on the matter in question.

Part 5 of Wohlforth’s series, “What Is Spartacist?”, quotes at length from the letter written to Gerry Healy by this writer on Jan. 10, 1969. The same letter was also referred to by James Robertson in an exchange Vanguard Newsletter printed in its February 1970 issue. As we demonstrated then, Robertson quoted a sentence “out of context in an attempt at identifying the WL’s views on the Negro question as our own”.

But Wohlforth also violated the integrity of the letter by giving his readers no inkling that between the paragraphs quoted, other paragraphs, perhaps not to his liking were also present. Thus, while quoting our affirmation that a “re-assessment … requires… a close look at two turning points, the original split [in the SWP]… in 1962, and the exclusion of Robertson at the London Conference of the IC in 1966…”, he omits any indication of an intervening paragraph in which we informed Healy of our objection “to certain of the tactics used by the Wohlforth group against the Robertson group”, while both were still in the SWP.

Again after citing our finding that Robertson bore the major responsibility for the “original split… in 1962”, and his “exclusion…in 1966”, no reference is made to a short paragraph which informed Healy of our objection to “the forms chosen to disclose Robertson’s essence” in 1962 and 1966.

The tone of the letter also reflected the circumstances in which it was written. At the time, we were still exchanging political views with the leaders and members of the WL, in attempting to convince them of the validity of our positions, and in particular, that a Leninist party could not be built in the US through passive adaptation to white chauvinism. We worded our letter to Healy diplomatically, but also registered our organizational and political agreements and disagreements with the WL and SLL.

As our examination of intra-tendency and later struggles will show, petty-bourgeois egoism, malice and heavy-handedness can play a disastrous role in politics, in this instance on the vital question of the construction of a Leninist vanguard party in the US, in the cornerstone of world imperialism.

In our “re-assessment” of the split in the left tendency, we stated that Robertson’s differences with the IC were not of a character which required him to break with it. One could infer from the eagerness of the Spartacist League to make the records which bear on the split, available in “Marxist” bulletins, that Robertson is motivated by a masochistic need, if it were also not evident that he is either unaware of or believes that his protestations mask the clear evidence that his entire course led to a break with the IC.

All the bleating by Robertson and his friends about violations of tendency democracy, cannot conceal the fact, except to political unsophisticates –a fact which emerges from the correspondence and documents which the SL itself circulates –that they were unwilling to subordinate their oversized egos to the needs of the international movement.

Both Wohlforth, despite an occasional extravagance, and Gerry Healy, on the contrary, emerge as the principled parties, who whatever personal factors were involved were concerned to conduct a serious struggle for revolutionary politics within the SWP as a vital part of the world Trotskyist movement.

The internal perspectives document by Robertson and Ireland, The Centrism of the SWP and the Tasks of the Minority which precipitated the break with the IC, has not a word to say about the relationship and responsibility of the tendency to an internationally organized struggle. Its focus is myopic and narrow. Its tactics are limited to the immediate tasks of the tendency within a national framework. Not an inkling exists that the tendency in the US, comprising a few dozen members at best, was directly connected to parties, to the SLL in England and to the then-named ‘Organisation Communiste Internationaliste’ (OCI), which represented thousands of Trotskyists in their own sections, and who in addition; had the responsibility for organizing a struggle in the other national sections of the world movement.

Instead of attacking the Robertson-Ireland document for its narrow parochialism however, Wohlforth’s answer was restricted to the same national framework. He instead attempted to find a class basis for the sharpening differences through a specious argument about the working class nature of the SWP cadre, which had by then become badly attenuated. The class basis did exist, but Wohlforth did not present it at that time.

Robertson gave expression to the moods of petty-bourgeois impatience and instability, of personal rancor and pique in the face of the unprincipled organizational methods of the majority. He was able to win most of the tendency to his side in the struggle because of its poor composition, its high proportion of student-intellectuals. Unfortunately, the tactics pursued by Wohlforth and Healy, not only failed to expose Robertson’s “essence” but instead played into his hands.

Quantity had already been transformed into quality, reluctant, though Wohlforth and the IC leadership were to recognize that fact. The SWP leadership, which had shown unmistakable signs of the Pabloite infection earlier, despite its continued recitation of “orthodox” Trotskyist formuli, had succumbed to the disease with the Cuban revolution. Wohlforth and Healy only strengthened Robertson within the tendency by not recognizing the fact that the leadership was “centrist”, that its direction was increasingly opportunist, by trying to preserve illusions that a section of the leadership, “the Center”, might still be won for revolutionary politics, when every new development proved the opposite. This unclarity, the reluctance to “make premature characterisations of the Center”, which was justified on both tactical and political grounds, also resulted in an ambivalent attitude toward the leadership by Wohlforth, which Robertson could attack with justification as “conciliatory”.

However, the struggle within the SWP and on the international plane required, along with a clear understanding of the nature of the leadership, a serious struggle to win the membership. It was necessary to combat the growing intransigence of Robertson and his coterie, which their tactics in the SWP and its youth organization reflected, in posing the tendency against the organization, instead of as an alternative leadership for it.

The increasingly unrestrained factionalism which’ could and did result in actions which the SWP majority might have utilized against the national and international tendency, was in fact a “split perspective” even if those who held it were only “partially aware of, or not aware at all”, as Wohlforth stated. (Toward the Working Class, 10-2-62)

The controversial conditions in the statement prepared by the IC, “written by comrade Healy himself, acting in consultation with other comrades of the British SLL and also of the French 1C group”, were the following: that the tendency center its fire on the “right wing” in the SWP while making no concessions to “the center…”, that it effect a united front where possible with the center elements against the right … recognise the SWP as the main instrument for realization of socialism in the United States …” and work as “loyal party members…” , as “people who are responsible for their party…”, that is, not make “premature characterisations of the leadership of the SWP accept of those groups such as Weiss and Swabeck…”, that the majority “not be described as a finished centrist tendency in the same way as the Pabloites…”, and that tendency members must “accept these conditions” to remain “members of the tendency”.

True, the IC statement contained political formulations with which Robertson could not agree. However, he was not asked to agree, but to accept the conditions. As Robertson well knows, the members of the party of Lenin, and Trotsky were never required to agree with all provisions, but were required to accept the program and carry it out.

Robertson and his friends reacted as petty-bourgeois nationalists. Their complaint, in essence, was that “outsiders” were dictating to the “insiders”, who alone had the right to decide on matters which concerned their “turf”.

Would acceptance of the IC’s conditions have ruined the struggle within the SWP for the international revolutionary party, let alone, have constituted a betrayal of principle? Neither the one or the other. They contained illusions about the nature of the “Center”. Some formulations were erroneous. But acceptance only meant delaying the inevitable confrontation between tendency and party organization. Valuable time might have been gained to enable the tendency to win SWP members for revolutionary policies. Had Robertson been concerned with advancing the principled struggle instead of his ego, he would have accepted the conditions, convinced his co-thinkers to do the same, and as a minority within the international tendency fought for better policies.

Instead, and as our letter to Healy pointed out;

“By splitting with the IC, he did, in fact, as you have stated, strengthen the SWP revisionists, who were able to out-maneuver a disunited left opposition, and close off the minds of many of those in the SWP, who might have been reached by us. In addition, many waverers, who might have been held by a united left opposition, became confused and demoralized, and gave up the struggle entirely.”

But what of the “forms” which Healy chose? By attempting to resolve the political question in an organizational manner, in the form of a statement which the tendency had not helped prepare, and which could not be altered, Healy presented Robertson with an ideal weapon, which he used for his own organizational purposes, and to obscure the real nature of the disagreement.

Unfortunately, we will often see utilization of narrow organizational approaches to solve political tasks.

Several months after the split in the tendency, Wohlforth’s illusions about the SWP leadership were to be expressed in an anti-Robertson organizational maneuver which served only to discredit Wohlforth.


TROTSKYISM TODAY Part 3 – by Harry Turner

 Vanguard Newsletter, Vol 2 No 10 November 1970


The Birth of Spartacist and the Workers League

Organizations can appear to be very revolutionary when judged by their words, by their, perhaps, frequent bows to Marxist “orthodoxy” to the politically naive. It is only over time and under test, throughout an entire range of struggles, that the essential political characteristics of organizations and their leaderships become clearly delineated.

Our post mortem on the recent series by the Workers League’s (WL) Tim Wohlforth, What Is Spartacist?, has as its purpose the drawing up of a balance sheet on two left “alternatives” to the Socialist Workers Party, the Spartacist and WL –as well as other formations in passing –to support our contention that their leaders, both Robertson and Wohlforth, have acted as obstacles to the construction of a revolutionary Marxist, i.e., a Leninist and Trotskyist working class vanguard party.

In our second instalment in October, we stated that the 1962 split in the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) left tendency had been caused by the refusal of “Robertson and his friends … to subordinate their oversized egos to the needs of the International movement”. We also observed that Wohlforth’s “ambivalent attitude towards the [SWP] leadership” was to be “expressed in an anti-Robertson manoeuvre which served only to discredit Wohlforth”.

As was its custom, the SWP had set a two month discussion period in preparation for the crucial convention held during July 1963, which would mark its final rupture with “orthodox” Trotskyism” by its political re-unification with the Pabloist International Secretariat, thereafter known as the United Secretariat.

The intense struggle over program and leadership was reflected in the sheer volume of internal discussion bulletins which were published. Every tendency and assorted independent individuals , not only on the impending re-unification with the Pabloists, but also on the specific political issues to which political re-unification was connected, e.g. the “Russian” question which now also included China, Eastern Europe, Cuba, the “American” question, which the majority was able to consider apart from the “Negro” question in metaphysical fashion.

The “Reorganised Minority Tendency” (RMT) under Wohlforth’s leadership was, of course, legitimately concerned to present its and the International Committee’s (IC) political views. It was also required to make clear the basis for its separation from the other “anti-Pabloist” tendency, the “Revolutionary Tendency” (RT), under the leadership of Robertson. While the separate existence of the two groups had produced divergent positions on a number of important questions, neither had become sufficiently differentiated in the eyes of the rank and file of the party. Moreover the majority utilized the split to attack both groups for unprincipled factionalism.

But Wohlforth’s illusions in the “center”, his reluctance to make a “premature characterisation” of the Dobbs-Kerry leadership as a “finished centrist tendency” led him into taking a serious political mis-step, in attempting to carry through this responsibility.

Just prior to the closing date for submission of documents, Wohlforth produced his explanation for the left minority split, entitled Party and Class. Repeating all the rationalizations for continuing to view the SWP as still “revolutionary”, he re-affirmed the loyalty of his tendency to it, its concern to avoid all factional confrontations in the interest of a thorough political discussion of outstanding issues, and then proceeded to indict the Robertson tendency for having “written off the party as a whole”, for having “displayed no serious interest in the work of our party”, for seeking “to retreat into the comfortable ‘study circle’…”, and for rapidly evolving “at that time…in the direction of a split from the party”. As evidence for the validity of this statement, he appended two of his internal tendency documents and the letter of a supporter, Albert Philips. But these appendices not only referred to the specific internal tendency documents which had been written by Robertson- Ireland and Harper, but interpreted their contents in a manner which could not fail to provide the SWP majority, should it desire it, with the grounds for organization proceedings against them, e.g.:

“A tendency which rejects party discipline (even if only partially) and party building, which seeks to sneak people into the party, which functions in part as an independent entity, which carries on an organization faction war within the party, which, in violation of party statutes includes non-party members, which is so deeply alienated and isolated from the party ranks that it has in fact already split in content if not yet in form –such a tendency is going down a road which must lead to a split from the party.” (Toward the Working Class).

This writer, having considered the positions of both tendencies for some months, had by then decided to join forces with Robertson after achieving political agreement with him on Cuba as a deformed workers’ state, and on organizational approaches towards Progressive Labor, which had broken from the Communist Party to its left. An important factor in this writer’s decision was his conclusion that Robertson’s open hostility towards the leadership was more forthright and logical than the ambiguous-seeming position of Wohlforth.

Robertson had only managed to learn about the Wohlforth document as it was being produced. In a last minute attempt to prevent its publication, he called upon this writer to appeal to Wohlforth to withdraw it. Wohlforth, however, refused on the ground that it was no longer possible, that the document was already known to the leadership. He also refused to entertain the possibility that his document would result in disciplinary proceedings against the Robertson tendency, and insisted that the SWP leadership had never expelled anyone for thoughts, only for specific actions.

Robertson has accused Wohlforth of having ‘finked’ on the RT in an effort at having its leadership expelled. The latter was, of course, concerned to destroy the former politically, hoped to discredit his tendency in the eyes of the SWP membership, and to establish his own as a “loyal” opposition. While personal malice was, perhaps, involved, it is possible to understand Wohlforth’s action as based on the mistaken belief that the still “revolutionary” SWP would not resort to organizational measures solely on the strength of his documents.

The Party and Class document also made clear that the RMT would have sought “political collaboration between the tendencies”, would not have sought to discredit Robertson and his followers, if his tendency has supported its resolution on the “American” question for a turn to the working class, instead of amending the majority document “to continue ‘propaganda work’”.

As we have shown, Wohlforth and the IC had retained illusions that the SWP was still the “main instrument for the realization of socialism” in the US. This underestimation of the ravages of the Pabloite infection also expressed itself in the document, The Decline of American Imperialism and the Tasks of the SWP, which the RMT had presented two months prior to its Party and Class document. Its simplistic theme was that, like Antaeus and mother Earth, the SWP could be revitalized, would regain its revolutionary elan, by restoring its contact with the working class.

But Wohlforth had miscalculated. The RMT did not enjoy a rush of new membership support from the explosion of his “bombshell”. Robertson has been able to submit the refutation of the RT, Discipline and Truth, in time for its publication as an internal discussion document, in which Wohlforth’s statements were branded as “lies” concocted to promote the expulsion of the RT. Appropriate quotations from correspondence and from the Robertson-Ireland and Harper documents were used to “refute” Wohlforth’s interpretations, and to put a better color on some of the more awkward phrases to which he had referred.

The last business of the Convention, the election of the National Committee by the delegates, saw Wohlforth deprived of his seat because of his “disloyal” association with Healy’s SLL.

Prior to the Convention, the Political Committee of the SWP had moved against the RT leadership by demanding the Robertson-Ireland and Harper documents in question.   After the Convention it convened a Control Commission to investigate the RT leadership, suspended, and then in January 1964, expelled Robertson, Ireland, Harper, Mage and White from the SWP. Shortly thereafter, the first issue of Spartacist was published. Its appearance precipitated charges against and the expulsion of the remaining members of the RT, including this writer, from all local organizations of the SWP in which the majority exercised control.

The high-handed procedures of the SWP majority against the RT–suspensions and expulsions for “bad” thoughts, for the expression of opinion within a tendency, without proof of overt violations of party discipline, and, in the cases of Geoffrey White and Shane Mage, without even the evidence of “disloyal” thoughts –had brought the RT a groundswell of sympathy from many members. Protests began to pour in from individuals and even entire local organizations of the SWP. Other tendencies, including the RMT, also joined the chorus of opposition.

Many of the protesters were without sympathy for the political positions of the RT. Some even had essential political agreement with the majority, and had simply become disturbed over the abrogation of the rights of the RT. Some, at odds with the majority on one or other question, feared the precedent that was being established. But others, seeing the heavy bureaucratic hand of the leadership in action, also began to give sympathetic ear to the political views of the RT.

Wohlforth and the RMT were, however, isolated, distrusted and scorned by all sides. Sympathizers with the majority did not accept Wohlforth’s “charges” against Robertson as a manifestation of “loyalty”, and still considered him to be the creature of Gerry Healy. The newly aroused members on the other hand, gave credence to Robertson’s vilifications that Wohlforth had acted as a “fink”, had deliberately “framed up” the RT for his own Machiavellian purposes.

In addition, in focussing attention on the organizational side of politics, in attempting to destroy the RT with sensational appendices, Wohlforth inevitably detracted from what he had declared to be the central question of Party and Class, the program which the RMT had issued on the “American” question, although, perhaps, somewhat overambitious for a small party, was a fundamentally correct orientation for a serious revolutionary movement. It mistook the tempo of economic development and looked for a “crisis of growing stagnation” at a time when capitalism was achieving a new “prosperity”. It is now dated in its emphasis on the Southern civil rights movement. However, it did direct itself to the growing domestic and international contradictions of capitalism, which have, since 1967-68, shaken world capitalism.

At the time, and to many SWP members, including this writer, the majority criticism with which Robertson concurred, that the RMT was proposing a “Don Quixote” perspective which invited the SWP to “charge simultaneously into all sides of the mass movement”, seemed valid. Robertson’s more modest proposals for directing the SWP’s “general propaganda offensive” along “class lines” were closer to the majority document, Preparing for the Next Wave of Radicalization in the US. But both the RT and the SWP majority viewed the economic “reality” in empirical fashion. The former continued to respond to it in the propagandist style which it had learned in the period of the SWP’s deterioration. The latter abandoned even these feeble approaches to the working class for the new opportunities which saw it tail-ending Black nationalism and Cuban Bonapartism.

Viewed today, the RMT proposals that the SWP make work in the trade unions, among the workers who were beginning to move into struggle, not only against their employers, but also against the trade union bureaucrats, and to win Black and Spanish speaking workers on this basis, seems eminently reasonable.

The opposition of two themes –between the activity of a revolutionary Marxist organization directed toward the working class, which Wohlforth had emphasized in his document on the “American” question, and the “propagandist” orientation of Robertson, directed toward “selected” arenas for “exemplary” purposes –had been buried in a cloud of organizational manoeuvring, but the struggle between the two concepts of organization would be posed again and again, between the Workers League, formerly ACFI, and the SL, as well as within the latter organization.

Ironically, the WL was to abandon its earlier appreciation of the Black and other specially oppressed minorities as the key to the building of a working class base, for a passive adaptation to the chauvinist outlook of white workers, which it would cover with the abstract and sterile slogan “Fight Racism”.

With equal irony, the SL was to adopt the understanding that this writer had proposed in a Memorandum on the Negro Struggle, that it focus its activities on the construction of rank and file caucuses in the trade unions, on a program to unite the racially divided working class in the struggle against special oppression in its own immediate and fundamental interests –but only as a ploy with which to attract Student radicals. It was to abandon it in short order, and in the process, eliminate those who sought to implement it.

A few months after the expulsion of the RT members, Wohlforth’s RMT, minus those of its supporters who saw the Soviet Union as “state capitalist”, was suspended from SWP membership for attempting to force a discussion of the Ceylonese situation. The bulk of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), which had maintained close ties over an eighteen year period with leaders now in the United Secretariat, had joined the “popular front” government coalition headed by the bourgeois Sri Lanka Freedom Party of Mrs. Bandaranaike.

Upon its suspension, the RMT immediately declared itself to be the “American Committee for the Fourth International’ (ACFI) and began to publish the Bulletin of International Soc1alism.

As in the case of the early American Communist movement, the “Trotskyist” “alternative” to the revisionist betrayal of revolutionary Marxism had issued forth as two separate organizations. However, history, as Marx has observed, recurs, “the first time as tragedy, the second as farce”.


TROTSKYISM TODAY (Part IV) – by Harry Turner

Vanguard Newsletter Vol. 2 No. 11 December 1970


Spartacist and ACFI “Unity” Negotiations

Two organizations cannot occupy the same political space for long. Either their political correspondence increases and finds its organizational expression in unity, or else their politics diverge as objective circumstances act on and are acted upon by each organization in accordance with its own nature. In the case of the Spartacist group and the American Committee for the Fourth International (ACFI), first one and then the other took place. Unity negotiations were followed by a final breech and a divergent development.

The Spartacist group’s expulsion from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) several months prior to ACFI gave it a distinct advantage over the latter. As the only organisation to the left of the SWP, as the putative bearer of the revolutionary banner of Marxism which the SWP had abandoned , it began to attract new forces toward it, primarily from the student milieu together with sympathetic periphery of ex-members and sympathizers of the SWP. It managed to recruit in this period several members of the American Socialist Organizing Committee (ASOC), the left-wing faction of the Young People’s Socialist League (YPSL), the youth organization of the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation (SP-SDF).

Shortly after the suspension of the members of the Reorganized Minority Tendency (RMT) from the SWP and its emergence as ACFI in the summer of 1964, the Spartacist group’s James Robertson proposed that, as both had political agreement on essential questions, their two groups unite. Proceeding at a languid and desultory pace, initially through literary exchanges, and then through 8 meetings between their leading representatives, unity negotiations had reached a dead end by October 1965.

An examination of Marxist Bulletin No. 3, Part IV, published by the Spartacist League (SL), of the minutes of these sessions and its preface, should prove illuminating to an objective observer. The SL, in attempting to use the minutes to justify its own behavior, only succeeds in proving that both leaderships were more concerned with organizational manipulation and control of the fused organization, should it ever come into being, than with their responsibility for building a viable section of the Trotskyist movement in the US.

As though taking part in a quadrille, first Spartacist comes forth aggressively as the wooer with ACFI in retreat. Then the reversal, ACFI becomes the ardent swain with Spartacist in the role of reluctant partner. At intermission, the two parties are found in a mutually uneasy and distasteful embrace. The steps of the dance are related only to the narrowest organizational aspect of politics. The existing political differences which are raised, are not the real focus of the negotiations, but are only advanced as a defensive reflex, and largely to achieve leverage on the “important” question –who will swallow whom.

As a result of the initial successes of the Spartacist group, Robertson was convinced that his organization, at that time, perhaps, four times as large as ACFI, could successfully digest the latter. Wohlforth, fearful that ACFI might well be the eaten and not the eater, at first wants only an exhaustive literary discussion on all outstanding political and organizational questions. Only later does he agree to meetings of the leaderships. But he then proceeds to demand immediate organizational collaboration and fraternization at all levels before his organization will decide whether or not unification is desirable.

Robertson, fearing that Wohlforth and ACFI might lead some of his new flock astray, counters by insisting that Wohlforth first make a commitment that unity is “possible or principled”. Having received it at the 5th session, he then demands that ACFI accept the onus for the split in 1962, as the central question, without which, unity will not take place. Robertson has, evidently decided by then that the kind of unity which he had in mind was not possible, that ACFI and its talent, and especially Wohlforth’s literary ability would not be at the disposal of an organization which he, Robertson would dominate.

The character of the leaders of organizations, can play, as Marx has pointed out, an important role in accelerating or delaying developments. This subjective factor, will and should have a certain weight in negotiations between organizations. But revolutionary Marxists, scientific socialists, begin not from subjective considerations, but from the objective tasks with which the movement is faced, and to which the subjective factors are, in the final analysis, subordinate. For serious Marxists, the vital considerations are the perspective with which the organisation proposes to function, and the program that it elaborates, the strategy and tactics which it develops in relation to both the objective situation and the prevailing level of working class consciousness.

It was at this point that the International Committee of the Fourth International (IC) intervened to remind both groups of the vital importance that the construction of a revolutionary vanguard party in the US would have for the international revolutionary struggle. As both Spartacist and ACFI had expressed agreement with its international perspectives and program, the IC called upon both groups to work toward agreement on American perspectives as the basis for unity.

Shortly thereafter, at a meeting in Montreal, the delegations from the Spartacist group and ACFI, at first independently and then conjointly, met with Gerry Healy, the national secretary of the Socialist Labour League (SLL) and secretary of the IC, and agreed to work for a consummation of the unity after the London Conference of the IC in April 1966, and to prepare an American perspectives document for presentation at the conference.

But not without a struggle. Robertson wanted a written guarantee that the IC would not again “interfere” in the internal affairs of the American section, as in 1962, and was ready to break off negotiations unless he received it.

Gerry Healy, of course, understood that Robertson, in the name of democratic centralism was demanding, in effect, a federative relationship with the international movement, of the type that the SWP had achieved in the post-war period, in which each national movement conducted its own “business” without having to account for its activities to the international –in essence, a reversion to the national practices of the Second International. Healy was, quite properly, opposed to any such understanding.

A national section of the international movement must, of course, develop leadership with the capacity to determine correct strategy and tactics, not apart from the international movement, but as an integral and essential part of it. These sections bear the direct responsibility for constructing a working class vanguard party which, as a result of its deep roots and intimate knowledge of the concrete conditions of struggle, can initiate and respond correctly to them. Obviously, for an international movement of this kind, there can be no question of giving and taking “orders”.

At the same time, the international party of the world proletariat must operate on the principle of democratic centralism. It has, not only the right but the duty to intervene, to criticize the work of the national sections, to point out opportunistic and/or sectarian errors in the work, and to demand that their politics be congruent with those of the international movement.

The weakness of any of its parts is, of course, a weakness of the international as a whole. The success of any of its sections strengthens all sections. The revolutionary break-through, the socialist revolution, especially in one of the advanced countries, would shortly place the socialist revolution on the agenda in all capitalist countries, and the political revolution as well in the degenerate and deformed workers’ states.

Unknown to Healy and ACFI, Robertson’s intransigence had divided the Spartacist delegation. While all its delegates, at that time, accepted Robertson’s petty bourgeois nationalist position that Healy’s intervention in 1962, violated their national rights, two of them, Geoffrey White and this writer, had insisted that the unity of revolutionary Marxists on the basis of the existing fundamental political agreement into a nucleus of a Leninist vanguard party was a far more important question that formal guarantees of independence.

However, this division never came to a head because Healy proposed a formulation with which all could agree, that, both groups based themselves on the “decisions of the first Four Congresses of the Communist International”, on the work of the “Founding Conference of the Fourth International”, and on the IC international perspectives document; and that, on this basis, “tactical disagreements on work” in the US “would not be an obstacle to unity”. The IC reserved the “right to make its political position…known to the delegates at the Unification Conference…”. “Discussion on all past differences” was to be suspended until after unity had been consummated, when it would be continued in literary form.

The owl of Minerva flies at dusk. In retrospect, it was, obviously, a mistake not to have fought out the question of 1962 at Montreal, together with the issue of a working class orientation for the united organization as against the Robertson propagandist approach.   While Robertson would, probably, have convinced the majority of his delegation to break off negotiations, a fissure would, in all likelihood, have been opened in the ranks. His real petty bourgeois nature would have been revealed to, at least, a section of his membership, and the basis would have been prepared for a healthier unity with some of the Spartacist group later on.

It was only much later, after Robertson had called for a halt to the turn toward the trade unions and toward the construction of a network of rank and file caucuses on a program to unite the racially divided workers in struggle against special oppression, that this writer began to understand the real meaning of his emphasis on the role of the SL as a propaganda group.

The propaganda group label was not merely a sober recognition of the “realities”, but the expression of a pragmatic outlook, which ignored the growing crisis of American and world capitalism. Robertson was without a cohesive perspective for building a revolutionary party, and was proposing a type and level of activity which seemed to him “sensible” and also, of course, comfortable, i.e. work to which he was suited, work with the petty bourgeois strata.

Shortly before the London conference, Wohlforth attacked the “rough” draft which Robertson had presented at the last moment to a joint meeting of the Spartacists and the ACFI, on the floor and later in writing, for not providing “the basis for a proper perspective for the fused movement”, for being without a “perspective on the development of the class struggle” in the US, nor of posing “any strategic orientation around which a fused movement could be built”. Wohlforth was then roundly attacked for attempting to prevent unity. He had, however, only spoken the truth.

At the London Conference, Robertson was again to demonstrate that his primary concern was not the construction of a section of the party of the international socialist revolution, but rather, in building a petty-bourgeois personality cult.


TROTSKYISM TODAY, part 5 by Harry Turner

Vanguard Newsletter, Vol. 3 no. 2, February 1971.


The 1966 IC London Conference and Its Aftermath

Its participants expected that the April 1966 London Conference of, the International Committee (IC,) of the Fourth International would record the reconstruction of a center of international revolutionary Marxism. Instead its proceedings became a source of malicious glee and heartfelt relief to the enemies of Trotskyism, in general, and to the revisionists of Trotskyism in the United Secretariat of the Fourth International, in particular, as Joseph Hansen bears witness in his preface to the pamphlet, Healy “Reconstructs” the Fourth International.

The bulk of this pamphlet’s contents, containing the contents of correspondence of members of Spartacist, the American Committee for the Fourth International (ACFI) and Gerry Healy, the secretary of the IC, had been leaked to the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) through a sympathizer by the leader of Spartacist, James Robertson. After its publication, the pamphlet became a “best-seller”, not only with the SWP but also, with the Spartacist League. Robertson was indeed, as delighted to follow the lead of Hansen in treating the Conference as a hilarious farce, as he was in utilizing Hansen’s agile pen in defending his behavior at that Conference.

The pamphlet also contained a letter by this writer and Robert Sherwood dated April 10, 1966, to Gerry Healy in response to one of his. In it, Robertson’s conduct at the Conference was hotly defended, and Healy’s – in the case of both Voix Ouvrier and Robertson – attacked. By January 10, 1969, this writer had concluded that this, “defence of Robertson…was entirely in error”.

Joseph Hansen, Robertson’s self-appointed defense counsel, is aghast that an “exhausted” Robertson, who is “near collapse”, can be summarily ordered to return to a session of the Conference. What abominable bureaucratic brutality! But, a careful examination of all the facts in the Robertson affair presents an entirely different picture. Robertson, whatever his state of health prior to the Conference, was tired, and with good reason. He had lost a night’s sleep in a last minute effort at whipping together a draft document which was to be the basis on which the Spartacist and ACFI groups were to be united, and which he should have completed months earlier. But that doesn’t end the matter.

On the third day of the Conference Robertson had presented his divergent views, including his position on Cuba, for the first time before a world gathering of co-thinkers. But he, evidently, did not consider it worthwhile to stay for the afternoon session, in which delegates were able to react to the report and exchange views. No! Robertson decided this would be the ideal time for a nap! When awakened by another Spartacist delegate with a request to attend the Conference session, he bluntly refused to bestir himself and returned to sleep.

Is it any wonder then, that his demeanour was found to be arrogant and disrespectful to the Conference! Ah! But there were other delegates from Spartacist, reported one of its delegates, Rose J. Let us examine them.

In addition to Rose J., the other delegates were Liz G. and Mark T. Liz G. was a young college student, at that time without a responsible position in the organization. Mark T. was a relative newcomer to the organization, who was functioning as an alternative delegate only because he happened to be England attending graduate school. Rose J. had been a politically inactive member of Spartacist for some time. She had attended the Conference as a delegate, only because it suited her plans while on a prolonged visit to the European continent.

Gerry Healy’s remark in his letter to Turner and Sherwood that the, “relations within the delegates resembled that of a clique”, was an apt characterization of the group.

Without Robertson’s presence, the delegates from other sections who wished to respond to Spartacist’s positions, would have been, in effect, talking to themselves, and Robertson, who is not burdened with false modesty, was well aware of it. Although “tired”, he was certainly in good enough health to have attended the afternoon session, if he had felt it “worthwhile”.

We, at home, were dumbfounded by news of Robertson’s expulsion from the Conference. It was the last thing we expected.

With the prospects for unity with the ACFI gone glimmering, one could have expected that Robertson, on returning home, would have first called a meeting of the Spartacist Regional Editorial Board (REB) – in reality the political committee of the national organization –to give it an account of his activities, and to plan future strategy. After all, Spartacist prided itself on being a “democratic centralist” organization! But no! Robertson called a special meeting of the NYC local organization to hear his report.

In the course of a 5-part report, lasting almost 3 hours, the audience was also informed of an incident, of which his attorney, Joseph Hansen, had not been told. It seems that just prior to his expulsion, Robertson and the rest of the Spartacist delegation, had been called to a special meeting with Healy and Mike Banda of the Socialist Labour League (SLL). They had, at the time, offered to “work something out”. It was Robertson who refused to consider a rapprochement, who “just wanted to get out of there”. Somewhat amazed, and not quite certain that I had heard him correctly, I cross-questioned him and was again informed that it was, indeed, Robertson who had made the decision to break-off relations with the IC. Only after that, did Healy call for his expulsion from the Conference.

Thus, a vitally needed unity of revolutionary Marxists in the US was sacrificed, and a black eye handed to a world conference of Trotskyists, with whom Spartacist was in essential agreement, all because Robertson had decided that he would not be comfortable in the same international with Healy or anyone else with authority, who was able to see through his pretensions as a “revolutionary leader”. I was then that I moved the following three-part resolution that was defeated by a vote of 14 to 1:

“(1) To criticize Cde Robertson for withholding a suitable apology for not attending a session of the IC Conference –and apology which would have been of a principled character.

(2) To requires the REB to reopen unity with the SLL and ACFI immediately on the basis of political agreement between the groups and on the basis that a break with the SLL and ACFI would be harmful nationally and internationally.

(3) To request the REB to place an account of the Conference and differences in “Spartacist” and other published material in the mildest manner possible and indicating confidence that the misunderstanding will be bridged and unity consummated in the spirit of the re-opened unity negotiations.

I was convinced at the time that Robertson and Healy were equally responsible to blame for the jettisoned unity, which might well have heralded the re-birth of a strong revolutionary Marxist organization in the US, with all that it entailed internationally. Under the circumstances, I saw no alternative to remaining in Spartacist, and attempting to build that organization into the working class vanguard party which the American and international working class required. It was almost two-and- a- half years later, that if finally became quite clear that Robertson had no intention of building such a revolutionary party. Robertson’s perspective was limited to the acquisition of a small student personality cult.

But the “form” which Gerry Healy had chosen to expose Robertson’s “essence” had again, as in 1962, given him an organization cover. Then, it was the unalterable statement, which could not be voted upon, but only signed. Now, it was an “apology” by Robertson for his arrogant attitude towards the Conference.

In addition, the organizational manoeuvring with Voix Ouvriere, who should not have been invited to the Conference, in the first place, given the existing political differences, also tended to provide Robertson with useful organizational camouflage.

Had the unity gone through, would “Robertson have had the charter…with which he could do as he pleased…excluding the politics of the international except those aspects with which he had particular agreement”, as Healy believed?

Perhaps, but then the battle would have taken place on clear political issues. In the process of seeing how Robertson worked to carry out the “politics of the international”, a great deal more would have been learned about his personality and his close associates, some of whom were serious about building a section of an international working class vanguard party in the US.

The founding conference of the Spartacist League (SL), which was held September 1966 in Chicago, was able to record a membership of more than 80. A tiny number, true, when compared with the thousands in the US Communist Party, but not quite so insignificant, even when compared with the SWP at that time.

However, the SL was a basically unhealthy organism, whose decay was inevitable and soon to accelerate. Its self-identification as a not-yet viable “propaganda group” revealed a lack of perspective, which was most “visible” in its erratic press.

From that point onward, the SL began to fall apart as, first individuals, and then groups, became convinced that despite its correct political positions, it had no future as a revolutionary organization.

A year after the founding conference Robertson was to seize eagerly on the Memorandum on the Negro Struggle, which had been submitted by this writer in an attempt to shore up the organization.


TROTSKYISM TODAY Part 6, by Harry Turner

Vanguard Newsletter Vol 3 No 4 April 1971


The Split in the Spartacist League

By the fall of 1967, the Spartacist League (SL) was displaying increased symptoms on an incipient crisis. A marked disorientation was becoming evident in diminished activity and initiative in the local organisations, and in a falling membership.

The lack of perspective demonstrated in the organizations self-description as a not-yet viable “splinter propaganda group”, and by its infrequently and irregularly published organ was, by then, beginning to unleash centrifugal forces within it.

James Robertson, the National Chairman and then-editor of Spartacist, who was responsible for both the designation and publishing policy, supported the Memorandum on the Negro Struggle, which this writer had submitted, as a timely and badly needed morale booster for the organization. Although it did, initially, serve that purpose, the crisis was only postponed for a few months. The Memorandum was then to help bring it to boil with redoubled force.

This writer has been surprised at the ease with which the Memorandum has been accepted, but also perturbed at the almost complete lack of discussion by the SL’s political bureau. Not one of its members has examined the Memorandum critically, argued its merits and limitations, tried to concretely determine its applicability or to suggest improvements. Instead the “leading” body of the SL gave it a bland and unanimous acceptance. A dispirited and passive plenary session of the “central committee”, held at the end of 1967, was also to adopt the Memorandum in the same manner, uncritically and unanimously.

The basic strategic and tactical orientation of the Memorandum has stood the test of time, has demonstrated its validity, although some secondary aspects of its program have required modification in the light of developments since 1967.

Both the pragmatic and dogmatic “Marxists” discard Marxist theory as a “guide to action”. The dogmatist turns the body of philosophical, economic and historic knowledge into a set of rigid formuli, into a religious exercise. The pragmatist rejects “religion”, and operates eclectically: whatever “works” is good. But without a unifying theoretical conception which takes into account development, that which “works” at one moment, turns into its opposite at the next.

The Memorandum attempted to provide the SL with an integral and coherent perspective for the building of the revolutionary socialist party, which unites Marxist theory and practice of the past to present reality viewed dialectically.

By the end of 1967 it was becoming increasingly clear that the post World War II expansion of world capitalism was ending. The ruling class therefore could be expected to shore up the falling rate and mass of profit through an attack on workers’ wages and working conditions, and by shifting the “burden of the Vietnam war onto their backs”. It would find it necessary to outlaw “the right to strike in major industries”.

To defend its standards, the working class would be required to go beyond the economic, “to an all encompassing struggle which includes the political plane.”

In his discussions on the Transitional Program, Trotsky made the point that:

“The idea of a fixed class of unemployed, a class of pariahs…is absolutely the psychological preparation for fascism”.

A fascist development in the racially divided US, he felt, “will be the most terrible of all.” Trotsky had always emphasised the centrality of the Negro question to the building of a working class party in the US. It was with this same understanding that the Memorandum posed the need for a turn to the trade unions, as a major focus for the SL, in becoming the Leninist and Trotskyist vanguard party.

It was at the point of production that Black and White workers could become aware that “unity against the class enemy” is both possible and necessary.

In essence the Memorandum proposed building a transitional organisation in the trade unions, which would base itself on a transitional program, in which the struggle against special oppression was posed in the immediate interests of all workers.

The road into the ghettos was seen as beginning in the work-place, with the Black workers who had been won to a class and socialist outlook. They would conduct the fight for jobs, housing and education in the ghettos in a class, a revolutionary socialist basis. They would also fight for labor candidates and an independent Labor party in the ghettos, united to the national Labor party based on the unions.

The Memorandum aimed at first attracting “the most oppressed and discriminated…the most dynamic milieu of the working class”, in Trotsky’s words, and, therefore, recommended rank and file caucuses –inaptly named “civil rights” caucuses –be initiated in those trade unions with a high proportion of Black and Spanish-speaking workers.

That the workers from these minorities, and the young workers in particular, are the most radicalised sectors of the class, has been made abundantly clear. The appearance of the Black Panther party, followed by the Young Lords –although on a confused program of reformism, guerrillaism and socialism –their support among the Black and Puerto Rico peoples, in spite of police frame-ups and murders, testifies to the revolutionary potential which is present in these “most oppressed” layers of the working class.

But despite their militancy, Black and Spanish-speaking workers cannot achieve a working class identification, cannot be won to Marxian socialism, unless their experience the solidarity of white workers, expressed in the struggle against their special oppression.

In his conversation with Swabeck in 1933, although Trotsky posed a possible national development, he emphasised just this concept: the need for revolutionists to carry on “an uncompromising, merciless struggle” against the “colossal prejudices of the white workers.”

In waging an “uncompromising” struggle against white chauvinism, the revolutionists would, at the same time, cut the ground from under Black nationalism. As the white workers became aware that racial discrimination played into the hands of the bosses; that any “advantage” that white workers received over Black workers, was paid for by the lowing of wages and conditions for the class as a whole i.e., their wages and conditions; as they reached the understanding under the compulsion of necessity, and through the work of the revolutionists, that only a class solution, could end unemployment and exploitation; and conducted a class fight against special oppression in “their” own interests, then the Black nationalist reactionary utopia of “communities” exploited by their own Black capitalists would have little appeal to the Black workers.

It was this conception that would guide revolutionaries in the rank and file caucuses.

Having achieved a base in unions with a high concentration of minority workers, the Memorandum projected and expansion of the caucuses from individual shop and union, into “inter-union” and “regional and national” networks of caucuses. The resulting national organization was seen as the analogue of the ‘Trade Union Educational League’ (TUEL) which the American Communist Party had promoted in the early ‘20s. That organization had campaigned inside the AFL on a program which included the call for industrial unionism, a labor party and a fight against racial discrimination.

The TUEL had scored initial successes until the labor bureaucracy attacked it as a “dual union”. In 1929 when it could have taken the leadership, it was transformed into the Trade Union Unity League (TUUL). It then initiated a real dual union policy, and withdrew its forces from the AFL, under the spur of Stalin’s ultra-left turn.

The rank and file caucuses would not only provide a base for recruitment into the revolutionary party, but also an alternative leadership for organized workers. At a revolutionary moment, the caucuses would become the factory committees, the workers’ councils –“Soviets” –organs of “dual power.”

But the SL was merely a student-oriented personality cult around Robertson. It was incapable of adopting, let alone realising this perspective. The SL paraded itself as the “proletarian tendency” –but alas, only to students! It had concentrated for 4 years, at that time, on the professionals in NYC’s Social Service Employees Union –which drew non-specializing college graduates –without recruiting a single solitary soul. But Robertson used the defection of the SL’s 2 hospital workers to justify an end to the concentration in the hospitals, after 3 months! –as if more SL members should not have been sent in!

In the ensuing struggle, Robertson and his coterie were to thoroughly expose themselves as a fairly common variety of petty-bourgeois radical academic circle.

The SL “splinter propagandist group” would be burnt-out by the trade union concentration demanded by the minority –and besides, the forces could not be spared from the campuses. Black workers did not possess a “weltanshaung” and could not be recruited to a “splinter propaganda group”. The SL should concentrate in unions whose members “are more like us”. The Black and Spanish-speaking workers are not super-exploited, but even if they are, it doesn’t matter! Cleaver should “mobilize the Black masses”, not a “splinter propagandist group” like the SL!

With the premature departure of a section of the minority from the SL, the internal struggle was decided. Robertson proved himself particularly adept at using even cruder bureaucratic tactics to force the remaining minority out of the SL, that the SWP had used against the Spartacist forces. As we stated in the initial issue of Vanguard Newsletter:

“The ebb in the revolutionary socialist movement, as seen by the fractionation into smaller circles, will, in the coming period, be reversed, as objective circumstances make clear the programmatic basis for its reconstruction.”

All the indications are that the revolutionary “flood” is now beginning, which will see the reconstruction of the world party of Lenin and Trotsky. It is to this task that Vanguard Newsletter is dedicated.






Written by raved

January 2, 2015 at 8:24 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

BRICS around the neck of the proletariat

with 2 comments


The Sixth BRICS Summit meeting held in Brazil was held in July. The occasion was one of wheeling and dealing between the two big BRICS bloc leaders and their Latin American supporters looking to set up an alternative to the traditional US dominance of the continent and an alternative to US global financial hegemony. The leaders also took time out to test the loyalty of US allies in the EU facing US-dictated sanctions on Russia that will cost the EU economies $billions. Putin used the FIFA World Cup to meet Merkel and discuss Ukraine. No doubt Russia is motivated to strengthen its push into Latin America as a reprisal to the US determination to push NATO right up against its borders. Not content to put pressure on the US bloc in Europe and Asia, Putin’s deal to write off most of Cuba’s debt and reopen a former Soviet spy base at Lourdes rubs the National Security Agency (NSA’s) nose in its own business. The rise of BRICS is regarded by many on the left today as a dynamic ‘anti-imperialist’ bloc challenging US imperialist hegemony. We challenge this view and show that BRICS may be a rival bloc but is neither ‘progressive’ nor ‘anti-imperialist’, because it is led by the emerging imperialist powers, Russia and China. We argue that the mounting inter-imperialist rivalry between the two blocs means we can only advance the world revolution by opposing and defeating both blocs.

The rise of BRICS is taking place in the context of the global crisis of capitalism. The post-Soviet, post capitalist-restorationist China, world of capitalism in decay is shaping up to look much like the world of a century ago, with inter-imperialist rivalry leading inexorably to another imperialist war. The emerging imperialist powers of China and Russia are positioning themselves as a bloc of BRICS against the traditional NATO bloc, with the United States as the dominant imperialist power since World War II.

As recent moves have shown, the declining United States is bent on maintaining this dominant position through preventing BRICS re-division of the world or re-dividing it for their benefit. The Pacific Pivot and the TPPA is directly aimed at China’s growing power in the Pacific, as was the sabre-rattling against North Korea, which was not only targeting the remaining gains of the collectivized property of the deformed workers state (DWS), but also served as a warning to capitalist China that they would call the shots in the region. Japan, an imperialist ally of the United States, has provoked China over the Senkaku islands.

Now the China-led BRICS nations have formed the BRICS Development Bank as a counter to the Bretton Woods IMF/World Bank. Although starting with a relatively meager $50 billion fund, the goal is to reach a financing capacity of $350 billion in a few years and eventually rival the World Bank, particularly with extra capital funding from China and Russia. Recently BRICS representatives were courting Latin American countries, a direct challenge to the United States. It is obvious that BRICS is wielding increasing influence, but as what? Is BRICS now beginning to pose a challenge to US hegemony as an anti-imperialist bloc or a bloc led by emerging imperialist powers, Russia and China?

Four Class Perspectives on BRICS

It is useful to breakdown the different views of BRICS by their ideological basis in one or other social class. Otherwise we have the spectacle of free-floating standpoints that reduce to national cultures, national geography, ‘blood, race or nation’, or ‘great leaders’ – ultimately, biology or genetics. The bourgeois class ideology of sovereign individuals in the free market is the default ideology of capitalism. This is the fetishised form that unequal production relations take as equal exchange relations. Value, rather than representing the labour time of workers, becomes the value of commodities as determined by the market. Individuals cease to be workers, capitalists or landlords and become sovereign individuals as buyers and sellers of commodities in the market and citizens with equal political rights. Capitalism is the best of all possible worlds provided individual freedoms in the market and nation state are not limited by other individuals and states. Today, bourgeois ideology takes three main forms –‘neoliberal’, ‘liberal’ and ‘radical’.

(A) Neoliberals

Neoliberals are neither new nor liberal. They claim to be liberal in the sense of 18th Century liberalism of free market capitalism. However, such liberalism (now neo-liberalism) never represented the reality of capitalism. The arrival and survival of capitalism since its beginning has required massive state intervention. Moreover, since the late 19th century state intervention developed into its highest form as capitalism had to move from competitive capitalism to state monopoly capitalism to deal with increasingly frequent and serious crises. (Lenin, Imperialism)

Neoliberals are apologists for state monopoly capitalism destroying organised labour and buying votes in order to dominate the ‘free market’. Neoliberalism was born out of the end of the post-war boom and onset of structural crisis in the early 1970s and announced its presence in the Chilean military coup with the overthrow of the populist president Salvador Allende to maintain US domination of the economy. Neoliberals don’t have any doubt that China, allied to Russia, leading the BRICS bloc poses a threat to US hegemony calling forth a New Cold War. Cynically the U.S. is presented as the bastion of the free market, individual rights and democracy rather than the dominant state monopoly imperialist power. Its mission is to defend these ‘values’ against those who would destroy them with superior state monopoly power, e.g., Russia and China. For neoliberals it’s as if the Soviets have come back from the dead and the cold war never ended. That is why they back date to 1949 the White House policy of expanding NATO and rallying the Pacific allies of RIMPAC to militarily box in Russia and China from making a transition from ‘regional powers’ to global powers.

The Liberal critique of neoliberalism recognises the hypocrisy of the ‘free market’ that was never free and always manipulated by power elites. Neoliberalism is defined as the specific period of US global hegemony that arose in the last 40 years, often referred to as the ‘Washington Consensus,’ under the leadership of the so-called ‘neo-conservatives,’ i.e. the subset of neoliberals who try to disguise the realpolitik of monopoly of state power behind ‘traditional’ bourgeois cultural values of family, nation and god. Liberals therefore share the neo-liberals assumption that the problem is not the imperialist epoch of state monopoly capitalism, but rather the monopoly of power held by the wrong class, the imperialist elite. Therefore the liberal trick is to replace the imperialist elite with the power of the people! Enter the BRICS.

(B) Liberals

Against this official ‘neo-liberal-con’ view of the old (now revived) cold war where confrontation and war are necessary means to prop up U.S. state monopoly capitalism, the bourgeois liberal ideologues see the rising economic power of BRICS as a ‘counter-balance’ to the ‘Washington Consensus’ that can lead to ‘multipolarity’. There are some like Tom Engelhardt who discount multipolarity in the face of an overwhelming US global power that dominates geopolitics. Others like neo-Stalinist F William Engdahl see multipolarity arising like a phoenix as Russia and China challenge US economic and financial hegemony:

“Taken as a totality, along with other measures by Russia’s Putin to deepen political, economic and military ties with China and the other nations of Eurasia, the latest energy agreements have the potential to transform the global geopolitical map, something Washington’s war faction will not greet willingly. The world, as I’ve noted before, is in the midst of one of a fundamental transformation, such as occurs only every few centuries. An epoch is ending. The once-unchallenged global hegemony of the Atlantic alliance countries of the USA and EU is crumbling rapidly.”

Today’s liberals are more the descendants of Adam Smith than the neoliberals because they agree that the equal exchange in the market has been distorted by the concentration of power in the hands of ruling elites. Smith believed that the market was rational and that competition and ‘comparative advantage’ was sufficient to organise the economy and the ‘wealth of nations’. Comparative Advantage was based on the exchange of commodities at their labour value. The ‘hidden hand’ rewarded each person according to the amount of labour they could command in the market. Equal exchange would result unless nation states intervened to manipulate or monopolise the market. We can now see how liberals today see the distribution of power as determining the distribution of income and the need for a liberal state to regulate power relations in the marketplace. This is clear in the history of liberal reforms that attempt to balance the power of organised labour and capital.

‘Multipolarity’ is therefore the 21st century liberal road back to the utopia of Adam Smith, where the ‘rebalancing’ of excessive state power, allows the ‘free market’ to become the guarantor of the ‘commonwealth’ of citizens. The main tools of ‘multipolarity’ focus on the destruction of monopoly power to control production, distribution and exchange of value on the world market. For liberals who are fixated on the fetish of the market and the symbol of the market, money, this means breaking the dominance of the US ‘juggernaut’ over the “international finance system” – the U.S. Dollar as the global reserve currency–by setting up rivals to the World Bank and IMF.

Pepe Escobar, at the Asia Times, writes:

“ It’s been a long and winding road since Yekaterinburg in 2009, at their first summit, up to the BRICS’s long-awaited counterpunch against the Bretton Woods consensus – the IMF and the World Bank – as well as the Japan-dominated (but largely responding to US priorities) Asian Development Bank (ADB). The BRICS Development Bank – with an initial US$50 billion in capital – will be not only BRICS-oriented, but invest in infrastructure projects and sustainable development on a global scale. The model is the Brazilian BNDES (Brazilian Development Bank ed.), which supports Brazilian companies investing across Latin America. In a few years, it will reach a financing capacity of up to $350 billion. With extra funding especially from Beijing and Moscow, the new institution could leave the World Bank in the dust. Compare access to real capital savings to US government’s printed green paper with no collateral.

And then there’s the agreement establishing a $100 billion pool of reserve currencies – the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), described by Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov as “a kind of mini-IMF”. That’s a non-Washington consensus mechanism to counterpunch capital flight. For the pool, China will contribute with $41 billion, Brazil, India and Russia with $18 billion each, and South Africa with $5 billion. The development bank should be headquartered in Shanghai – although Mumbai has forcefully tried to make its case (for an Indian take on the BRICS strategy, see here ).

Way beyond economy and finance, this is essentially about geopolitics – as in emerging powers offering an alternative to the failed Washington consensus. Or, as consensus apologists say, the BRICS may be able to “alleviate challenges” they face from the “international financial system”. The strategy also happens to be one of the key nodes of the progressively solidified China-Russia alliance recently featured via the gas “deal of the century” and at the St. Petersburg economic forum.”

Using such tools, multipolarity will result in a rebalancing of the share of global power among the big powers, as a means of both increasing and redistributing economic wealth. But the utopia of the liberal bourgeoisie won’t work unless the working class and other oppressed people are won to it by reformist political parties and trades unions. Thus the working masses must be convinced that the BRICS bloc can reform global capitalism and reverse the massive social inequalities by redistributing global wealth. This liberal perspective is the basis of Hardt and Negri’s Empire, published in 2000 that promoted the liberal left utopia of a world where imperialism was outmoded and the Empire was being ‘civilised’ by the ‘multitude’ now led by the a new middle class of ‘immaterial workers’. Empire was immediately confounded by 9/11 and the onset of the ‘war on terror’ and the Argentinazo. U.S. imperialism re-asserted its hegemonic power in invasions and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the liberal utopia was rudely dashed by the rampant neo-cons. The rise of BRICS – the so-called ‘emerging markets’ – since 2000 however, has given the liberal standpoint renewed hope in the form of ‘multipolarity’.

One of the ways that Russia and China are presented as ‘progressive’ leaders of BRICS is the claim that they represent the former or present forms of ‘socialism’ that facilitate the transition from capitalism to 21st century socialism. Where they lack credibility as models of 21st century socialism for the masses, then at least they can be pushed in that direction by the example of the ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America) states, namely; Venezuela, Brazil and South Africa that all have popular front Governments with strong mass support. This is also the case in Cuba, which in our view has restored capitalism under the influence of China and has now become the ideological cheer-leader linking BRICS to Bolivarian socialism that is promoted by the World Social Forum (WSF) as embodying the phoenix that rises out of the ashes of the ex-Soviet world. These popular front regimes are the models for a global popular front. Under the control of the governmental and corporate elites, BRICS continue business as usual exploiting the masses and polluting the planet.  Yet mass pressure from below can force the BRICS to implement a popular socialist program. The strongest expression of this liberal populism was that of the “Brics from Below” conference held in South Africa during the 5th BRICS summit in 2013.

This theme was also taken up in the 6th Summit in Brasilia and Fortaleza, notably by Russia with its emphasis on political and military cooperation with Latin American countries, especially Venezuela and Cuba. Andrew Korybko writing in “Russia and the Latin American Leap to Multipolarity” argues that Russia’s resurgence from collapsed Soviet state to ‘Great Power’ status means it is attempting to recover its old spheres of influence. Latin America figures strongly in this recovery:

“Russia has restored its Soviet-era global reach under Vladimir Putin, extending its influence all across the world. Because it fulfils the role of a strategic balancer, relationships with Russia are now more prized than ever as the world moves towards multipolarity. Certain contextual backgrounds make Latin America overly receptive to multipolarity and Russia’s grand foreign policy goals in this regard. Over the past decade, Moscow has spun a complex web of relationships to directly and indirectly extend its influence in the Caribbean and along both coasts of the South American continent. This strategy is not without risks, however, since all of Russia’s partners are vulnerable to various US-sponsored destabilizations. If managed properly, however, Russia’s return to Latin America can be a godsend for multipolarity, and it can even reverse the Pentagon’s strategic initiative and for once place the US on the defensive within its own natural sphere of interest…[a]round this time [around 2000], Russia was rising from the ashes of the Soviet collapse and finally returning to its Great Power status. It thus felt the need to expand its sway back into areas which it once held influence, and this of course included Latin America. Mutual visits, weapons deals, and energy contracts flourished between Russia and Venezuela since 2000, and both countries were already deep strategic partners by the time of Putin’s 2010 trip to Caracas. Military cooperation in the naval and aerial fields solidified the relationship and showed both sides’ commitment to one another. All of this influenced and has been in line with Russia’s 2013 Foreign Policy Concept, where the pursuit of multipolarity is taken as an assumed granted (having first been stated as an official foreign policy goal in 2000) and increased interaction with Latin America is emphasized.”

Cuba and Venezuela are the bridgeheads for Russia’s return to Latin America, just as they have been for China. The ALBA states have established ‘strategic’ relations with both major BRICS powers. Bolivarian socialism or 21st Century Socialism has seized on Russia and China as non-imperialist, if not ‘socialist’, powers that can rescue them from U.S. imperialist subjugation and bring about the self-determination of the underdeveloped and ‘emerging’ nations globally. “Win-Win” deals will enable all partners in the BRICS to prosper together in harmony. Thus the rise of the BRICS represents a re-balancing of the global situation where U.S. imperialist hegemony is reigned in and power is more evenly distributed among a number of ‘great powers’.

Not surprisingly, the 20th century socialism of Lenin and Trotsky is replaced by the 21st century utopia of multipolarity as the BRICS reform global capitalism, which once rid of the aberration of financial parasitism, realises a Smithian equilibrium of non-exploitative social relations among all nations. This liberal utopia is translated via the labour bureaucracy in the unions and politics adopting a more ‘left’, even ‘Marxist’ language. The debt to Kautsky, Menshevism and Stalinism is obvious in the potential of all these global powers to arrive at a policy of ‘peaceful coexistence’. This marks the death of Lenin’s theory that in the epoch of imperialism the major imperialist powers must fight for supremacy, or go into decline. Imperialism for Lenin might have been the highest stage of capitalism, but that is now passé as it is peacefully passing over into 21st century socialism.

So, it is no irony that 21st century ‘Bolivarian socialism’ replicates the patriotic fronts of 20th century Stalinism, which advocated that the international working class form political alliances, or popular fronts, with the ‘democratic’ bourgeoisies against fascism. Only the language has changed. In the new millennium, these popular fronts are between workers and the populist capitalist regimes posing as “market socialist,” striking an anti-imperialist posture against the US ‘evil’ empire. The model for this is Latin America where national populism is an historical response to the domination of the US Empire and its direct intervention in regime change from 1896 in Cuba to 2009 in Salvador. Russia’s late return and China’s recent arrival in Latin America are as the ‘saviours’ of such populist regimes. China has bankrolled Cuba’s restoration of capitalism while Russia now steps in to forgive Cuba’s debts and boost its military defence. However, as we have pointed out in Beware Falling BRICS, the idea that all the BRICS partners, even when pushed from ‘below’ by unions, NGOs and populist movements, can share equitably in a new ‘multipolar’ world, is a bourgeois utopia. Russia and China are emerging imperialist powers and their relations with the other BRIC partners are far from ‘equitable’!

(C) Radical Left

The Radical Left rejects the liberal reformist view of ‘peaceful coexistence’ between great powers and the potential for capitalism to be transformed into socialism without workers revolutions. The issue then becomes how is the socialist revolution to be won in the 21st century? The role of the Radical Left is to convince workers that capitalist exploitation can be eliminated by mobilising the working class behind the leadership of the petty bourgeoisie to equalise exchange. Imperialism therefore is no longer conceived as the ultimate stage of crisis ridden-capitalism where imperialist powers go to war to re-divide the world. Lenin’s concept of imperialism as anarchic state monopoly capital, adopted by the Bolsheviks, must be replaced by the Menshevik view of imperialism as political policy of the ruling class that can be replaced by a proletarian policy of socialist revolution as ‘peaceful coexistence’ between classes. So while the radical left has to accept that Russia and China are emerging ‘super powers’ they must argue that they cannot be new imperialist powers. Rather they are reduced to relatively minor powers subordinated to the existing U.S.-led imperialist bloc and for that reason have a ‘progressive’, ‘anti-imperialist’ character that can counter US hegemony and bring ‘peaceful coexistence’ between capitalist nations. We argue here that those who deny that Russia and China are imperialist do so having decided in advance that this is not possible because the U.S. is hegemonic. All sorts of labels are fixed to these subordinate powers – sub-imperialist, regional imperialist, capitalist semi-colony, or even Deformed Workers States!

We will prove that these are the empiricist impressions of petty bourgeois radicals. At the heart of their impressionism is their fetishised concept of finance capital. They break from Lenin who defined finance capital as the fusion between banking capital and productive capital. Imperialism is the epoch of monopoly where banks and large enterprises are jointly owned and collaborate closely to finance the accumulation process. When banking (money capital) is separated from productive capital because of a crisis of overproduction, excess money capital outside the circuit of production cannot create new value and money begins to lose value. Speculating in existing values does not maintain the value of money since the claim of money on existing value leads to its devaluation until such time as it can be turned into money capital productive of value.

That is why much of the U.S. banking capital and the U.S. dollar in particular is increasingly fictitious capital that does not represent real wealth. The U.S. massive national debt reflects that its U.S. rising dollar wealth cannot be exchanged for declining U.S. owned production of value, and the debt is only sustainable by printing U.S. dollars. Instead of uncontrollable price inflation that would normally result, the U.S. dollar value is kept artificially high because it is in demand as the world currency that has to be purchased to exchange for the value of commodities, in particular oil. Therefore the argument that the U.S. is the world hegemonic power because of its control of global finance capital does not follow. On the contrary, the overproduction of capital due to the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall, means that U.S. imperialism must undergo the huge destruction of its surplus capital. The spark will be the bursting of the debt bubble and collapse of the value of the U.S. dollar.

The hegemony of U.S. imperialism is therefore as fragile as the agreement of U.S. rivals to pay for commodities in U.S. dollars! We will prove that petty bourgeois ‘Marxists’ who fail to understand this reality overestimate the capacity of the U.S. to dominate its imperialist rivals financially, and thus underestimate the capacity of those rivals to accumulate their own genuinely finance capital based on the fusion of banking capital and productive capital. And this is of course a fatal mistake when it comes to understanding the current rise of Russia and China. The fact that Russia and China are over-accumulating capital and at the same time overproducing capital as fictitious capital that will have to be destroyed, is conclusive evidence that they are not subordinated to U.S. finance capital, but have developed their own finance capital.

  • Regional Imperialist (United Secretariat of the Fourth International hereafter USec)

The regional imperialist view is held by the USec, the official ‘Pabloite’ international that claims falsely to represent Trotsky’s Fourth International, but ends up junking Lenin on imperialism and rehabilitating Kautsky’s ultra-imperialist position that the period we are living in is no longer one of inter-imperialist war!

“Today, capitalism is a global intertwined and integrated system under US hegemony in a way which it was not in 1914. The two world wars of the 20th century were mainly wars of inter-imperialist rivalry to gain or maintain control of areas of the world. The outcome of these wars was the establishment of the USA by far and away as the major power in the world, ruling the capitalist system through its massive economic and even greater military power, and through institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and NATO. This global capitalist system has further expanded with the restoration of capitalism in Russia and China, but this does not mean that inter-imperialist rivalries and the threat of regional wars are no longer on the agenda.

The form of US hegemony in operation today means that weaker states are allowed to pursue their own imperialist ambitions and regional geo-strategic interests, including through military interventions conditional on them at least not challenging the main thrust of US interests; something which is delicate to achieve as the imperialist ambitions of Russia and China have to a certain extent be at the expense of US imperialism. If they step out of line, they become “rogue” states that have to be subdued militarily as in the case of Iraq, or sanctions imposed such as for Iran and now Russia. To maintain weaker states within the framework of US imperialism, the latter has to carry out a lot of sabre-rattling. This is a dangerous game, as any incident such as the accidental downing of MH17 in Ukraine, or of the Iran Air plane by the US navy in 1988 killing 269 people, can rapidly escalate into a full military confrontation, the dynamics of which may no longer be in the hands of US imperialism and its allies. But sabre-rattling should not be confused with a dynamic towards inter-imperialist war like that leading to the two world wars. This is not the nature of the period today.

As long as Russia remains within its regional geo-strategic sphere, Western imperialism (i.e. the USA and NATO) is not greatly concerned by Russia’s annexation of Crimea. The few sanctions against Russia announced are so far symbolic – mainly against individuals – and there are deep divisions on extending them because of arms and gas deals, and because of the globalisation of the capitalist system. Sanctions that hurt Russian capitalism also affect Western capitalism.”

Claiming Leninist orthodoxy, the USec says that Russia and China are unable to become more than ‘regional’ powers and that they are tolerated by the U.S. unless they challenge US global hegemony. The U.S. remains the global power dominating its imperialist rivals without the need for major war. This is a as throw back to Kautsky’s “ultra-imperialism,” where the U.S. can impose its dominance across the globe with impunity. While the left must oppose Russia’s ‘regional’ imperialist designs such as in Ukraine, there can be no war between the U.S. and Russia because that would backfire and damage U.S. imperialism. This means that the left is disoriented and disarmed when it fails to recognise the decline of the U.S. bloc and the rise of the Russia China bloc which express their inter-imperialist rivalry in regional disputes and proxy wars. And where these proxy wars inevitably blow up into direct military confrontations between the two blocs, the left is faced with the pressure to defend the regional imperialist powers, Russia and China, against the world hegemonic power, the U.S. The fallacies of this neo-Kautskyism can be shown simply by going back to Lenin’s own critique of Kautsky:

“…the best reply that one can make to the lifeless abstractions of “ultra-imperialism” is to contrast them with the concrete economic realities of the present-day world economy…Compare this reality –the vast diversity of economic and political conditions, the extreme disparity in the rate of development of the various countries, etc., and the violent struggles among the imperialist states –with Kautsky’s silly little fable about “peaceful” ultra-imperialism…an example of the division and the re-division of the world…The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the disparity between the development of the productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the other?

Below we will prove that this theory is all the more applicable today to explain the rise of Russia and China as new imperialist powers driven by the necessity to re-divide the world by means of war.

  • Sub-imperialist (Socialist Fight)

Gerry Downing in Socialist Fight has a similar view to the USec. He attempts to establish a firmer Leninist theoretical explanation of the difference between the dominant U.S. imperialism and the rise of Russia and China as rivals rather than regional geography. Socialists should side with Russia and China against the U.S. not because they are mere ‘regional’ or minor imperialisms, but because they are not imperialist, i.e., ‘sub-imperialist’. Gerry Downing is not the only one who adopts the concept of ‘sub-imperialism.’ It originated in Brazil to characterize that country’s role in the world. It means that such states are intermediary between semi-colonies and imperialist nations. They fall short of imperialism on the grounds that while they collaborate in the imperialist super-exploitation of semi-colonies, they remain semi-colonies and are exploited by the US dominated international finance capital. There is no suggestion that ‘sub-imperialist’ states can become imperialist.

Downing uses the term to acknowledge Russia has ‘imperialist’ characteristics, but is prevented from developing into a full imperialism by U.S. financial hegemony. The barrier is not productivity since the “sub-imperialist” corporations are competitive with US corporations, but political and military. Downing claims the U.S. is in decline (he implies that this is a decline of manufacturing competitiveness) and must increasingly go to war to stop Russia and China emerging as global rivals. Therefore the solution is for the international working class to defend Russia (and China) from U.S. warmongering and in the process trigger the defeat of U.S. imperialism.

The false premise in this theory is the ability of U.S. finance capital to subordinate Russian and Chinese imperialism in the same way it does other “sub-imperialist” nations (e.g., Brazil, India or South Africa) through control of global finance capital. Downing points out, that ‘finance capital’ is universal yet the U.S. is able to impose its hegemony because it owns the biggest banks including the IMF and World Bank. So no matter how competitive Russian and Chinese corporations are in the global market, U.S.-owned banks always take the lion’s share of the super-profits extracted from the semi-colonial world. But to work, this must mean that the U.S. can monopolise finance capital and its accumulation in Russia or China. As we have shown elsewhere, this is not the case. Joint ventures with U.S. (and EU) capital in Russia and China allow value to be expropriated on the basis of low wages and low rents, but both Russia and China accumulate a major part of the value produced. The U.S. may have the biggest banks but these cannot monopolise the production of value in Russia or China, and hence cannot trap these countries in “sub-imperialism”.

This is the same trap that Sam Williams falls into when he reduces finance capital to money capital in search of surplus value. This is the “decisive factor” in determining if a country is imperialist or not. But finance capital is separated from ‘industrial’ capital for Williams, while for Marx and Lenin finance capital is the fusion of bank and industrial capital. So for Williams finance capital makes a claim on surplus value; it does not have to be invested in the production of surplus value. By equating finance capital with money in banks, Williams reduces imperialism to “big banks.” We reject this non-Marxist method and follow Lenin’s criteria of ‘export of finance capital’ as measured today by Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI) ‘directly invested’ in producing surplus value. It means that Williams like Downing overestimates the power of U.S. banks to prevent Russia and China from accumulating value. In fact, Williams draws the conclusion that both Russia and China are semi-colonies of the US (see below). However both Downing and Williams over-estimate the capacity of the U.S. to accumulate value, since the U.S. dollar cannot be a repository of value, and the vast bulk of its money capital value is fictitious capital. U.S. banks are technically insolvent because without the Fed printing of U.S. dollars they would be bankrupt. This explains why far from being hegemonic, U.S. imperialism is in decline and must go to war to plunder raw materials and labour power as the sources of more value. Here they face the emergence not of sub-imperialist powers, but of new rival imperialist powers that accumulate more real value than the U.S. and seek to replace the U.S.-dominated banking system with a rival system.

To fit their preconception that Russia and China cannot be imperialist, petty bourgeois Marxists look for empirical “facts” to validate their theory. Fictional pseudo-Marxist concepts like ‘sub-imperialism’ and ‘regional imperialism’ then reflect the fetishisation of the capacity of the U.S. economy to monopolise the production of value on the basis of fictitious value, and the ‘de-valuing’ of the production of real value by the Chinese and Russian economies.

Logically, this leads to a reformist program that is no different essentially than 21st century liberal ‘multipolarity’ at the fetishised level of exchange relations. The radical concept of ‘sub-imperialism’ arises out of Underdevelopment Theory associated with Baran and Sweezy, in which exploitation occurs at the level of exchange leading to ‘unequal exchange’. As a result the international class struggle, specifically a Bolivarian-type popular front with Russia and/or China, or ‘BRICS from below’, led by modern Mensheviks, can create a BRICS Development Bank and other mechanisms (e.g., a rival Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication –SWIFT) to challenge U.S. dollar domination of international finance capital over ‘sub-imperialist’ states, bringing about an ‘equalisation of exchange’, a redistribution of money as value, and a peaceful global socialist utopia.

  • Capitalist Semi-colony (International Leninist Trotskist Fraction – FLTI)


Carlos Munzer of the FLTI argues that Russia and China are semi-colonies. This is because as former workers states when they restored capitalism they were slotted back into the global capitalist division-of-labour as semi-colonies super-exploited by imperialism, in particular U.S. imperialism. Munzer’s main argument against Russia and China as imperialist is that imperialist partition of the globe was completed by WW1 and therefore the oppressed countries recognised by Lenin at that time as colonies, semi-colonies or ‘independent’ countries, could not make the transition to imperialism. Munzer explains the role of Russia and China as that of semi-colonies serving the interests of U.S. imperialism. He explains their rapid economic growth and increased outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) as the provision of cheap raw materials and cheap labour as inputs into U.S. multi-nationals’ production in China. Therefore, China cannot profit from its growth and accumulate capital in its own right, as it has to pass the lion’s share of the surplus value on to U.S. imperialism.

As we have pointed out in a number of articles on this question, this is the other side of the coin of Pabloist empiricism. Empiricism fits the “facts” to preconceptions without investigating the essence of reality. Pablo was the main leader of the post WWII Fourth International, who argued that Stalinism was a progressive force allied to democracy to smash fascism and so would power on into the future dragging the working class along with it. That is, he fitted the “facts” that Stalinism was historically progressive into a preconceived Menshevik schema that capitalism would peacefully evolve into socialism without a Bolshevik revolution! The reverse side of this position is to state one’s preconceptions as dogma and ignore all facts that don’t fit the dogma. Thus Munzer ignores the need to explain the surface appearances of a ‘superpower’ and takes the dogmatic position that, since Lenin excluded the rise of new imperialist powers, the economic expansion of Russia and China must be to serve existing imperialism. Hence Munzer made a propaganda bloc with the JRCP (Japan Revolutionary Communist Party-Koroda) in Japan which recognises Russia and China as ‘super-powers’ while simultaneously rejecting Lenin’s theory of imperialism as no longer relevant!

All these radical left positions on Russia and China today seek to apply sundry revisions of Lenin’s theory of imperialism to prove their preconception that they are NOT imperialist powers. Williams’ is perhaps the most blatant revision of Lenin’s concept of ‘finance capital’ as the merger of banking and industrial capital, to mean money in banks that has a claim on surplus value. This conflates capital productive of surplus value directly invested to realise super-profits, as a response to the Tendency of the Rate of the Profit to Fall (TRPF), with fictitious capital speculating in existing values, as a symptom of the TRPF, i.e. the overproduction of money capital. As we have argued elsewhere, this fails to grasp the essentials of Lenin’s theory based on his dialectic method. The Bolshevik Revolution broke the reality that the whole world was partitioned among imperialist powers. They spent the next 70 years invading or blockading Russia and China in the attempt to collapse the Soviet bloc but only succeeded around 1990. The assumption that history then jumped back to 1917 and the imperialists simply squabbled over who would get the spoils of the ex-soviet world cannot explain the reality that Russia and China, unlike the other smaller members of the Soviet bloc – Vietnam, Cuba etc.,– did not become mere semi-colonies of one or another imperialism, but emerged as new imperialist powers.

Thus both the empiricist and dogmatic deviations from Marx, Lenin and Trotsky’s dialectics fail to resolve the dilemma that the obvious appearance of new ‘super-powers’ cannot be explained by other than the rise of new imperialisms. The answer to this dilemma is provided by revolutionary Marxists who understand and apply materialist dialectics to all questions.

(D) Revolutionary Marxist

For Marxists this dilemma can only be resolved by recognising the reality that emerging ‘super powers’ must be imperialist. ‘Multipolarity’ therefore is no master plan for peaceful coexistence but rather a Kautskyite-Stalinist-Menshevik ‘smokescreen, thrown up to disguise the rapid escalation of inter-imperialist rivalry between two major imperialist blocs.

As we have argued, Lenin’s theory was based on materialist dialectics which can be developed to explain the rise of imperialist Russia and China out of the ashes of the former workers states. The partition of the world by the imperialist powers was broken by the Bolshevik Revolution which began the process of forming a Soviet bloc which was independent of imperialist domination and oppression. This national independence from imperialism (the overthrow of the national bourgeoisie and defeat of imperialist invasions) created the conditions for the development of the forces of production beyond that possible in a capitalist semi-colony.

If follows that we draw political conclusions from dialectics. Theory and practice are united in the class struggle in which Marxists participate. Unlike the neo-liberal ruling class who preach cold war between nations, and their liberal ideologues who take sides according to which nation is judged as ‘oppressive’, ‘rogue’ or ‘terrorist’ in its use of power against the people, or the radical left that subcontracts the defence of ‘oppressed’ countries to populist leaders, we take Lenin’s position and declare that the working class is the only revolutionary class and that our main enemy is the ruling class of our own country or the imperialist power(s) that oppress it. It is the first duty of workers in the imperialist countries to defeat their oppressors at home.

The Marxist view is that Russia and China are developing as imperialist rivals to the U.S. led bloc of powers. Each annual BRICS meeting hosted by one or other member, shows that it is becoming a new power bloc seriously threatening the U.S. led bloc. This is not just evident from the fact that both Russia and China clearly display the features of imperialism, in particular crises of overproduction and export of capital, but that through their BRICS partners, Brazil, India and South Africa, they have strong partners in extending their influence in Eurasia, Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Asia, Africa and South America.

In our view only Russia and China are imperialist members of BRICS while the others are subordinated as semi-colonies. This is evident from their trade, production and finance deals as we will show. The semi-colonial BRICS serve as dutiful allies in the expansion of the China-led imperialist bloc into their respective South Asian, Latin American and African spheres of influence. Those who argue that all or some of the BRICS are either regional- or sub-imperialist are empiricists basing their arguments on criteria that owe nothing to Marxism. Patrick Bond, writing in Links, defines sub-imperialism as enabling neo-liberal imperialism to further its policy of ‘accumulation by dispossession’. This is a definition of imperialism at the level of exchange which means that all the BRICS act as ‘sub-imperialist’ cronies or agents of U.S. and EU imperialist powers. However, as we will prove, Russia and China extract imperialist super profits from their BRICS semi-colonies in their own right, and far from serving US and EU imperialism, are the basis of the emergence of the rival China/Russia spheres of influence.

What this dynamic reflects is that the conditions that allowed Russia and China to escape semi-colonial subservience to the US bloc of powers also enable them to follow the same classic road of rising imperialisms competing with existing imperialisms. This means exporting capital to the semi-colonial world, and then as super-profits accrue, draining this world of surplus value, and setting limits on the semi-colonies capacity for their own capital accumulation. So we can document in Eurasia, Africa and Latin America, Russia and China acting on the basis of the laws of capitalist accumulation. Russian and Chinese Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) becomes the basis for vertical integration and monopoly control of production, distribution and exchange. As we shall see, Russia and China are expanding their OFDI into the semi-colonial BRICS (not all at the same rate) through loans in exchange for oil, and mergers and acquisitions in mining, agriculture, construction and manufacturing, etc., all of which is designed to create a monopoly of production from raw materials to finished products shipped to market. The essence of this is the rapidly rising share of surplus going to Russia and China, and the much smaller rise in the share going to India, Brazil and South Africa.

Table 1 below shows that from a weak start in 1995 when capitalism was barely restored in Russia and China, all the BRICS had modest levels of FDI. Since then both FDI and OFDI has increased markedly. But we can see that the trajectory is different for Russia and China on the one hand and India, Brazil and South Africa on the other. First, the magnitude of both FDI and OFDI is much greater in the case of Russia and China. Second, while OFDI is 55% of FDI averaged over India, Brazil and SA in 2013, for the same year, OFDI averages 80% of FDI for Russia and China. This is a snap shot of a dynamic process however, and flows of OFDI exceeded flows of FDI in Russia after 2010 while China is expected to become a net exporter of FDI in 2014. On the other hand we would expect the rise of OFDI in the semi-colonies to stagnate and even decline as the ownership of the Multi National Corporations that engage in export of capital succumbs to imperialist ownership and control.

BRICS FDI Stock in $billions OFDI Stock in$billions FDI Stock in$billions OFDI Stock in $billions FDI Stock in$billions OFDI Stock in$billions FDI flow over OFDI flow
1995 1995 2010 2010   2013 2013 2013
Russia        6        3     490   366      576     501 79/95
China    101      18     588     317      957   614 124/101
India        6        0.5     206      97      227   120 28/2
Brazil      48      45     682     191      735   293 64/-4
S Africa      15      23     180      83      140    96 8/6

Table 1 Based on UNCTAD World Investment Report – Country Fact Sheets

That the BRICS semi-colonial partners serve the interests of Russia and China is also evident from the fact that this is recognised as such and is provoking a retaliatory response on the part of the U.S. led bloc. It is this response that confirms that BRICS is not merely an association of ‘emerging markets’, ‘regional powers’, or the rise of a ‘multipolar’ system that replaces the US ‘unipolarity’. Rather, it is perceived by the U.S. as a rising imperialist bloc that has created a core sphere of influence as BRICS based on production, trade, finance and political agreements that can onlyored sphere of influence as BRICS advance at the cost of U.S. decline. Currently while the two power blocs are facing each other in MENA, Africa and Latin America, it is in Eurasia where the stakes are highest. Here we can see the growing inter-imperialist rivalry escalating from trade wars to military confrontation and local wars, accompanied by rising threats and nuclear sabre rattling.

What is missing on the revolutionary left is a coherent critique of the role of BRICS as a new brand of “social imperialism from below” promoted by the World Social Forum (WSF) and fusing the neo-Stalinist and fake Trotskyist left into a new batch of Mensheviks, diverting the workers into a global popular front and tying their hands in the face of the escalating economic, political and military wars between the two imperialist blocs. In the absence of such a revolutionary theory there is no program to unite the international working class behind a revolutionary party and a revolutionary communist international.


The stakes are highest in Eurasia because here the heartlands of the two power blocs confront each other directly from Europe to the Pacific Ocean. The NATO powers confront Russia directly over the Ukraine. The U.S. and its ally Japan confront China directly over the territorial waters of the East and South China seas. These hotspots are therefore the most convincing test of the liberal ‘multipolarity’, radical ‘regional’ / ‘sub’ imperialism, and Marxist inter-imperialist rivalry theories. Already we see the liberal and radical theories bankrupted by events. In the Ukraine, the U.S. bloc is using NATO not to ‘negotiate’ the containment of Russia to prove that its global hegemony remains intact, but to impose economic and military sanctions to weaken Russia and challenge its regional power in Eurasia.

The result is not a victory for the U.S. bloc, but the consolidation of the China/Russia bloc and the weakening of the links tying the European powers to the U.S. bloc, as the two blocs exchange political, economic and military threats.

This is evident as Russia looks to China in building trade relations and joint ventures to counter sanctions. Most notable is the huge deal over gas. This deal ignores the U.S., dollar showing the petroyuan is on the way. A 21st century Silk Road is being driven from China into Europe and by sea from China into the Middle East. In meeting financial sanctions we have seen how BRICS is attempting to set up a rival development bank to counter the World Bank and IMF. Russia and China are now responding to U.S.-driven financial sanctions against Russia by advancing talks to set up a rival SWIFT bank of international settlement that will further undermine dollar hegemony. This will integrate the Russia-China bloc’s competitive advantage in production of energy and manufacturing with a banking system that challenges U.S. dollar hegemony.

The current weakening of the EU is the outcome of the so-called Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008. The U.S. downloaded its profit crisis onto the EU and forced the weakest states into bankruptcy. Greece and Italy had crisis regimes run by former employees of the U.S. finance broker Goldman Sachs, to ensure that austerity measures imposed on the working class make it pay for the U.S. crisis. The debt burden of the weakest states impacts heavily on Germany and France. Germany is attempting to produce its way out of the risk of default rather than print money and is now heavily economically interdependent on Russia and increasingly China for economic inputs and markets:

“Merkel will be under pressure to prioritise the economic relationship even more than before because of the slowdown in Germany” says Hans Kundnani at the European Council on Foreign Relations, a foreign policy think-tank based in London. “The EU is China’s largest trading partner, with Germany accounting for about one-third of total Sino-EU trade.”

Other European states are being torn between the two blocs. Armenia is to join the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). Turkey is to consider joining the EEU. Bulgaria is dependent on Russian Gas. Serbia proposes an FTA with Russia and sides with Russia on the South Stream pipeline. This strengthens the Russia/China bloc position with the EU as growing tension within the EU over alignment to the rival blocs is reflected in the strong popular opposition to the U.S.-driven trade war with Russia that will cost jobs and profits. The U.S. is trying to counter the powerful pull of Eurasia with its Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal, the TTIP. There is widespread opposition to this partnership as advantaging U.S. corporations at the expense of the sovereign rights and powers of EU states.

Does this amount to an emerging ‘multipolarity’? Not as the liberals conceive it, since the EU states are being pulled in two directions by the two big blocs. Nor as the radicals conceive it because every move that attempts to break the EU away from Russia-China is pulling the EU apart and strengthening the China/Russia bloc. The US is in decline and to survive it has to impose costs on its EU partners. US wealth in turn is propped up by a hugely overvalued dollar pegged to oil prices. The China/Russia bloc is on the rise and offers benefits to the EU which the U.S. cannot match. Moreover these countries are not doing oil deals in their own currencies rather than the U.S. dollar. This dynamic tug of war over Europe between a declining bloc and a rising bloc invalidates the dogmatism that U.S. dollar hegemony prevents Russia and China from becoming more than regional powers.

To sum up, Germany is drawing closer to the China/Russia bloc as a weakening of solidarity inside the U.S. bloc allows Russia and China to make inroads. This is a tale of two blocs not of multipolarity. The win-win liberalism is a mirage as the zero-sum nature of the ‘Great Game’ unfolds.

If we go to the other side of the Eurasian land mass, the Asia-Pacific Rim, we see that the U.S. bloc is ramping up hostility to China’s attempts to stake claims to oil and other resources in the East and South China Seas. It has yet to reach the level of crisis that is evident in the direct military confrontation in Ukraine. But there is no doubt this is not a negotiated settlement between equals. This is a display of U.S. power to deter China from stepping beyond its regional limits, because the U.S. fears China’s global expansion at U.S. expense. Thus the U.S. is pushing its Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) to a quick completion, ahead of China’s rival multilateral deal, so that the TPPA will allow U.S. corporations to make further inroads into China. U.S. investors in countries like Australia, NZ, Chile, ASEAN members, etc., that already have FTAs with China will be able to maintain their leverage in China. And just as the TPPA is the Pacific partner to the Atlantic TTIP, the U.S. military alliance RIMPAC in the Pacific is the beginnings of an equivalent of NATO in Europe, which so far allows China to participate.  Now this may seem odd for rivals to participate in joint military exercises, but this is a temporary quid pro quo in return for China’s participation in the anti-piracy flotilla off east Africa and guarding access to Middle East oil.

In South Asia, India is the BRICS partner that dominates that region. However it is not an imperialist power and is dominated by the U.K., Japan and U.S. imperialism. Nor in our view is India a ‘regional’ or ‘sub-imperialist’ power. A comparison of Chinese and Indian OFDI shows that the accumulation of surplus capital leading to capital export in India is relatively small and not rising significantly in relation to FDI. The drivers of OFDI are not primarily the need for raw materials or new technology but the more liberal regulatory regime in India which allowed OFDI into larger developed markets for services and manufactures. What this shows is that India’s OFDI is not primarily the result of the export of capital to counter the tendency for the rate of profit to fall by sourcing cheaper raw materials, land and labour power. India’s OFDI is much smaller than its FDI and targeted at developed markets.

This indicates that its place in the global division of labour is as a semi-colonial source of super-profits more than the ‘colonial’ super-exploitation of ‘developing’ markets. This supports our argument that longstanding semi-colonies like India cannot break free of imperialist super-exploitation to become new imperialist powers. It also means that India as a member of BRICS is now being integrated into the China/Russia bloc as a semi-colonial source of super-profits rather than an emerging imperialist power, in the same way that Brazil and South Africa are. This is confirmed by the vulnerability of these three BRICS to the ‘great recession’ of 2008 which saw their growth rates lag compared to those of Russia and China.

Let’s look at the evidence. Is India becoming a semi-colony of Russia-China rather than U.S. and EU imperialism? Not yet. China is India’s main trading partner with two-way trade reaching $70 billion in 2013. Its trade deficit with China was $40 billion. The comparative figure for U.S.-India trade is $64 billion while the US has a trade deficit of $20 billion. But beyond trade China has yet to get begin seriously investing in India. US FDI stock since 2000 is $12.2 bn compared with China’s miniscule $0.4 bn in the same period. It remains to be seen if China uses BRICS to strengthen economic and political relations and overtake the US, Japan and U.K. as the main imperialist investors in India. President Xi Jinping’s promise of a loan of $20bn during his recent visit to India fell well short of Prime Minister Modi’s expectations:

“During his [election] campaign, Modi was wagering that India would increase its economic might and strengthen its position in the world, and he was looking to economic cooperation with China as a way to achieve that goal. Modi gives China credit for its economic buildup, and he is striving to transfer its experience to benefit India’s industrial growth. He is primarily pinning his hopes on Chinese direct investment, which in the last 14 years has not exceeded $400 million because of previous policy restrictions.”

Given China’s recent emergence as an imperialist power, and the long-standing domination of India by U.K., Japan and the U.S., China’s relationship is still mainly about exporting cheap manufactures to India. Yet the trajectory of its dynamic relationship will probably follow the same pattern as Brazil and South Africa where it has developed FDI from resource extraction to include infrastructure and/or setting up branch factories producing home appliances, autos, etc. Bi-lateral relations between India and Russia point in the same direction with deals in the areas of defence, space and nuclear energy.

  • MENA

The Middle East is once again proven to be an ongoing site of inter-imperialist rivalry via proxy wars. No sooner had Israel’s latest bombardment of Gaza ended in a fragile ceasefire, than the ISIS began its campaign in Iraq and Syria. The rise of ISIS challenged the pact between the two rival blocs. The relative stalemate between the imperialist powers in Iraq and Syria as part of the containment of the Arab Revolution broke down again as Obama launched another war in these countries. Everywhere we can see the evidence of the latent rivalry between the rising bloc against the declining bloc. The Arab Revolution had not been contained by the NATO powers and by Israel without the rise of Islamic militancy filling the vacuum left by the relative weakness of the secular left. To counter this threat, the US has chosen to compromise with the BRICS (Russia, China and their client Iran and possibly Egypt) so long as this does not threaten its power base in MENA. The US initially looked to Iran, backed by China and Russia to re-stabilise Iraq. However, after its collaboration in replacing Maliki with another Shia head of government, the U.S. and Iran have not reached agreement on the latter’s participation in the coalition against IS. Thus the rival interests of the two blocs are revealed by the direct return of the US to military intervention in MENA.

Obama’s new turn to war on the Islamic State (formerly ISIS) is being sold as a continuation of the ‘war on terror’ but its real target is to contain China and the BRICS influence in MENA. Under the pretext of a war on IS ‘terror’, the U.S. keeps a military presence in MENA to counter China’s growing influence on the Arab states. The war against IS will be a long war and inevitably lead to the partition of Iraq into (1) an Islamic State tolerated by Assad, Russia and Turkey as a barrier to the Arab and Kurd social revolutions; (2) a Kurdish state in Iraq backed by the U.S. against the Kurd social revolution; and (3) a Shia state in the south backed by Iran and China, each staking out rival oil claims. But none of these militarised states will in the long run be able to suppress the masses by invoking sectarian or religious terror.

Syria and Libya will also be drawn into the war on the Islamic State creating rival national bourgeois factions backed by the China and U.S. blocs against the masses and radical Islam. NATO intervention in Libya was unpopular in Africa and MENA, with China and South Africa backing Gadaffi. Yet neither side was able to disarm the rebels and the re-opening of civil war will see both blocs try to control the outcome with BRICS backing the armed rebels against the NATO backed regime. If the revolutionary international forces do not intervene to support the Arab revolution, the rival blocs will continue to fight proxy wars to defend their interests at the expense of the Arab Revolution.

Syria today also reflects a stalemate where the BRICS power Russia backs Assad while the U.S. and its Saudi and Gulf allies back their factions in the opposition. Turkey is balanced between the two blocs since its main concern is to stop the Kurdish social revolution in Rojava from destabilising the Turkish state. So far neither side is able to win but given the failure of the world revolutionary left to decisively intervene on the side of the revolutionary masses, a prolonged stalemate is likely.

While there is no clear outcome yet in MENA, it is obvious that the U.S. and China led blocs are staking out their oil holdings, not as partners but as rivals. However MENA is repartitioned, this is clearly not a process in which Russia and China are mere regional powers, nor are they engaged in a negotiated re-balancing of U.S. ‘unipolarity’ as ‘multipolarity.’ Imperialism is a zero-sum game. While the power blocs may cooperate to suppress the masses, in the end it is the masses that will pay for their crises and wars unless an independent workers movement throws out both imperialism and their mercenary regimes.

            (3) Africa

Nick Turse claims that Washington’s ‘Pivot’ to Africa now involves Africom in 49 of 54 countries. Its objective is to checkmate China’s reach into Africa. If we want a test case that proves the point that Russia and China are neither sub-imperialist nor ‘regional imperialisms’ we only need to look at the war in South Sudan. Here, there is a brutal proxy war that proves beyond doubt that the US and China are deadly rivals in the war for oil. Nick Turse writes that South Sudan is second only to Liberia as a state that the U.S. has propped up in the hope of creating a ‘democratic’ bridgehead in Africa. But after pumping many billions of dollars to break the South away from the North, the experiment has failed. It is China that has stolen the march and controls most of the oil and is bankrolling the new regime. The war that is now raging is a proxy war between the regime armed by China and a rebel army backed by Uganda and the U.S.

China presents itself in Africa as an “equal partner” in development, making “win-win” deals which creates “double-happiness.” Against this propaganda, Howard French, in his recent book “China’s Second Continent”, recounts one of many cases in which Chinese investment in Africa exploits African labour and natural resources. The Chambishi Copper Mine in Zambia reveals a record of labour abuse and violence against protesting workers. It is obvious that Chinese firms will try to pay starvation wages ($100 a month versus a $700 subsistence cost of living) and unsafe working conditions, when it can get away with it. After a decade of super-exploitation at Chambishi under a succession of pro-China regimes a change of government in 2011 almost overnight forced a wage increase of 85%. Deputy Minister of Labour in the new Michael Sata government, a former mining workers’ union President interviewed by French stated that in Zambia, China treats workers unfairly, was corrupting politics, and was not developing Zambia to share in the wealth of its natural resources.

But it is South Africa (SA) that proves beyond doubt how BRICS serves Russian and Chinese imperialism in Africa. SA is the BRICS member that is the intermediary between Russia and China and the whole African continent. The African National Congress (ANC) dominated by the South African Communist Party (SACP) leadership takes a similar line to the Bolivarian left in Latin America. The movement to counterpose a “BRICS from Below” to the business interests of the BRICS corporations has its origins at the 2013 BRICS meeting in SA. The ANC has a strategic relationship with China and Russia to develop Africa as the ‘socialist’ alternative to U.S. and EU imperialism. In particular it has opened the door to China to use SA as a launching pad to produce and assemble Chinese made goods for the African market. The BRICS meeting in SA included a proposal for a new Development Bank, symbolic because small and funded by equal shares. But in reality China already has investments in Africa via the China Export-Import bank which are bigger than the World Bank. And bilateral finance follows trade deals, and other loans are targeted at specific development projects. BRICS has been attacked as a back door for Russian and Chinese ‘colonial’ exploitation of Africa, and as having no regard for climate change. Bond calls this “co-dependence on Eco-Financial imperialism”. If we want an especially brutal example of “eco-financial imperialism” , China’s bankrolling of the Mugabe’s regime in Zimbabwe to plunder its rich minerals and diamonds destroys the livelihoods of indigenous miners and lays waste to the environment.

If we need convincing proof of Lenin’s charge that inter-imperialist rivalry must lead to war:

“…the best reply that one can make to the lifeless abstractions of “ultra-imperialism” is to contrast them with the concrete economic realities of the present-day world economy…” (Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism)

Clearly, in opposition to Lenin, the ANC Stalinist view of African development in which the African states share in “win-win” deals with Chinese and Russian investment, is a popular front with imperialism no less than its long-term relationship with British and U.S. imperialism. And as the rival blocs scramble to plunder Africa to extract super-profits and maintain their capital accumulation, this rivalry is already leading to local proxy wars. The military build up of AFRICOM means that the U.S. recognises that China and Russia are not ‘sub-imperialist’ nor ‘regional imperialist’ powers but deadly rivals. Those on the left who hold the BRICS to be a ‘progressive’ alternative to imperialism are the enemy of the proletariat and poor peasants.

  • Latin America

The BRICS as ‘alternative to imperialism’ propaganda is most advanced in Latin America for the reasons outlined above. Brazil as the only Latin American BRICS partner plays a key role. Some of the Brazilian Trotskyist left regards Brazil as sub-imperialist. However, it is clear to us that this is not the case. Ana Garcia’s ‘Building BRICS from below’ provides evidence of the “concrete economic realities” proving that Brazil is a semi-colony in the global popular front with Russia and China, doing corporate doing deals, and its unions and NGOs are attempting to negotiate terms on ‘labour’s share’, sustainability, climate change, etc. Garcia lists all the ‘organisations’ which participate ‘from below’ in this popular front in Brazil. On the far left of this popular front, ostensibly revolutionary organisations such as Coletivo Lenin advocate a vote for the PT popular front with the BRICS against the right-wing threat of a coup. So it is in Latin America that the Trotskyist left is most strongly hooked on the illusion that China and Russia are ‘anti-imperialist’ partners in development as the alternative to Yankee Imperialism! Here we will follow Lenin’s lead again and put the “ultra-imperialist” abstractions to the test of reality of “concrete economic realities”.

We have written at length elsewhere on how Cuba has joined Venezuela as semi-colonies of China. We now have to add the role of Russia in Cuba. Here we want to concentrate on Argentina and Peru as special cases where Russia and China are making inroads, sometimes using Brazil as semi-colonial intermediary, in expanding their ‘sphere of interest’. In doing so we are critiquing particularly the FLTI and the COR in Argentina and the NRCI in Peru. The BRICS invited Argentina to the 6th summit as a prospective member. Here is Pepe Escobar’s take on Argentina:

“This Russia-China commercial/diplomatic offensive fits the concerted push towards a multipolar world – side by side with political/economic South American leaders. Argentina is a sterling example. While Buenos Aires, already mired in recession, fights American vulture funds – the epitome of financial speculation – in New York courthouses, Putin and Xi come offering investment in everything from railways to the energy industry.”

Escobar is here claiming that Argentina is a fit case to join the BRICS ‘multipolar’ world to escape from the predatory, ‘scavenging’ US imperialism. Will China bail out a bankrupt Argentina? Is the currency swap between Argentina and China part of the BRICs policy of ‘de-dollarization’? Can the West keep Putin’s hands off Argentina’s oil or the nuclear industry? Will Argentina join the BRICS and participate in the ‘multipolar’ utopia? This is the hopeful view shared by the Bolivarian left for which Russia and China are ‘anti-imperialist’ if not ‘socialist’ powers that can be pushed to the left (“BRICS from Below”) to share in a “win-win” economic and social development in Latin America.

A more cynical Trotskyist left such as the FLTI and COR rejects this benign view and damn the BRICs as the agents of hegemonic U.S. finance capital. Our differences with the FLTI are well known in our literature, and we have summarised them above, so we will not repeat them. Here, we will take up the position of the COR on the BRICS and subject it so Lenin’s dialectics. For the COR of Argentina:

“The6thBRICSsummitheld inBrazil is theintent of thesemi-capitalist “Emerging”andBonapartismChineseand Russianrestorationiststo showdecadent capitalismstill has afuture under thealleged newopportunity for growththat a”multipolar world would give.”This reactionaryfictionresonates with allbourgeois and petty bourgeoischarlatansnot only inthe “periphery”, but alsoin the financial centersof New York,London,Frankfurtand Paris.Thisis not surprising to anyone,as thismotleygrouping of “emergingcapitalisms” called “BRICS” was an inventionofthe financial institutions such asGoldmanSachs,seeking toprovide a solutionforspeculative capitalafter thecrisis of 2000-2001.”

For the COR the BRICS are semi-colonies and Russia and China are restoring capitalism as Bonapartist states oppressed by the U.S. and EU. This is a conspiracy of Wall Street to download the crisis onto the BRICS and fool the masses into believing that this is an ‘anti-imperialist’ alternative to U.S. imperialism. This puts the COR into the same dogmatic ultraleft camp as the FLTI in denying that Russia and China form a new imperialist bloc which includes the BRICS, with increasing influence in Latin America. The dogmatic rejection of reality depicting BRICS as U.S. agents is the reverse side of the opportunist “BRICS from Below” coin. It is a weak explanation for the increasing direct involvement of Russia and China, which like in Eurasia, MENA, and Africa, is obviously antagonistic to U.S. imperialist interests. The dogmatic position is therefore unable to counter the opportunism of the Bolivarian left popular front with BRICS. Both disarm the masses in the face of the development of inter-imperialist rivalry between the two blocs.

The NRCI is a recent split from the FLTI based in Peru. As far as we know, the NRCI shares the FLTI view of Russia and China as ‘independent’ capitalist states subordinated to hegemonic U.S. imperialism. Yet Peru of all Latin American nations has been subjected to direct Chinese investment in mining that has faced militant mass resistance for more than 10 years. Let’s check out these ‘concrete economic realities’.

Bolivarian opportunists like Morales claim that Chinese investment in Latin America is somehow more “progressive” than U.S. investment. This would mean extracting lower profits than the U.S., and certainly not ‘super-profits’ from mining. The dogmatists also argue that China has to extract lower super-profits as a ‘proxy’ of U.S. imperialism; not because it is “progressive” or “anti-imperialist” but because it is subsidising the raw material and labour costs of US-owned corporations, such as Apple producing electronics in China. We argue elsewhere that there is no evidence that China subsidises the inputs of foreign investors in China. To be able to do that and accumulate capital at the rate it is doing, it would have to gain access to very cheap labour and raw materials to extract huge super profits so as to be able to share part of its surplus value with U.S. imperialism.

What we find in Peru however, is that when the historical anomalies are accounted for, Chinese and non-Chinese mining corporations operate in much the same way. The first Chinese mine acquired in Latin America in 1992, Shougang Hierro Peru, has a 20 year old legacy of labour problems due to its failure to modernize. This mine operates with outdated machinery and has a tough labour regime to extract super-profits by intensive exploitation. Yet allowing for its outdated machinery, when Shougang Hierro Peru is compared with a more modern U.S. metals mine dating from 1997, Doe Run Peru, the rate of exploitation, labour and environmental conditions are not significantly different. This is an important finding and it is confirmed by the comparison of more recent Chinese FDI in mining in Peru with non-Chinese FDI.[i]  Using Irwin and Gallagher’s data, we argue that more recent Chinese mining investment, as with US and other mines, follows a similar pattern.

While all take advantage of the relatively lax enforcement of labour and environmental regulations to drive down wages by employing contract labour, there is no firm evidence to show that China behaves any differently than non-Chinese investment in mining in Peru. There is a clear trend from intensive labour exploitation at Shougang Hierro Peru, dating from 1992 (at which point China was restoring capitalism), towards rising labour productivity in more modern, efficient mines that are operated in much the same way as non-Chinese mines. Therefore China is no more or less exploitative than its FDI rivals when cost of raw materials, level of technology and labour and environmental regulation are taken into account. The opportunist belief that China is a “progressive” non-imperialist alternative to US and other imperialist powers in mining in Peru is false. Equally false is the dogma that China acts as the ‘agent’ of US imperialism (FLTI and NRCI) or “Wall Street” (COR Argentina).

The liberal and radical ideology of BRICS as a ‘multipolar’ grouping of  ‘emerging markets’ or ‘sub-imperialists’ that are a global counter-force to U.S. hegemony has no basis in the truth in the mines in Peru. We would say that this must also be the case from Cuba to Patagonia. The workers of Latin America and every continent where BRICS operates are no less exploited by the rise of Russia and China as emerging imperialist powers than they are by U.S., EU and Japanese imperialist powers.[ii]


There is nothing ‘progressive’ or ‘anti-imperialist’ about BRICS. BRICS are not all the same. They are not all ‘emerging markets’, not ‘developing’ countries, not ‘sub-imperialist’ nations subservient to U.S. and EU imperialism. Such false impressionistic conceptions allow their bourgeoisies to masquerade as the ‘multipolar’ alternative to U.S. imperialism, capable of redistributing global wealth. And on this basis the labour bureaucracy, reformists and centrists, present popular front governments as ‘anti-imperialist’ and ‘progressive’. That is why Evo Morales can claim that the recent electoral victory of the MAS popular front party was a victory for ‘anti-imperialism’. This is just another instance of states that subscribe to the Bolivarian, Castroist, ANC and World Social Forum global popular front with China and Russia. But BRICS are not equal, and we have shown that they cannot make ‘win-win’ deals. Even if the bourgeoisies of South Africa, Brazil and India get a share of the super-profits, it is the workers and poor peasants that will lose both their livelihoods and their lives.

This is because the BRICS are all capitalist countries subject to the laws of motion of capitalism in its imperialist epoch. This means that they are either semi-colonies of existing imperialisms, or become semi-colonies of new imperialisms. The new BRICS Development Bank is no better than the World Bank or the IMF. It is finance capital concentrated in the two imperialist powers that enters into the circuit of production to produce super profits in the semi-colonial world including India, South Africa and Brazil as well as any prospective members such as Argentina and Egypt. It thus competes with finance capital of the U.S. bloc to plunder the world’s resources to the point of climate chaos and human extinction.

We have explained why Russia and China have emerged as new imperialist powers. They escaped semi-colonial oppression when their national revolutions expropriated the capitalist ruling classes. Such independence could only be sustained by isolation from global capitalism which enabled these states to escape the fate of semi-colonies. Capitalist restoration allowed these states to jump straight into highly centralised state monopoly capitalism and emerge as new imperialist powers. Those BRICS which never expropriated their national bourgeoisies could not and cannot escape the trap of semi-colonialism within BRICS itself. Their membership of BRICS cannot protect them from the laws of motion of the imperialist epoch. BRICS is governed by these laws as much as the semi-colonies of U.S. and EU imperialism. That is why SA, Brazil and India (and prospective members of BRICS) look to Russia and China to rescue them from U.S. hegemony. They think that Russia and China have succeeded in ‘breaking these laws’, in part attributing it to their history as Deformed Workers States but also to their capacity to out-produce the declining U.S. bloc.

But there is no escaping the laws of motion of capitalism in its imperialist epoch. Capitalism can only survive by increasing the rate of exploitation of workers and peasants. And in the epoch of imperialism, capitalist crisis drives the imperialist powers to send their workers to war to re-partition the world and grab what is left of nature to destroy. For humanity and nature to survive the working class as the only revolutionary class must overthrow its ruling class. This is as true of Russia and China as of the U.S. and EU imperialist powers. BRICS cannot rise from soviet ashes to put an end to capitalism, only the revolutionary proletariat led by the revolutionary Marxist party and program can make the socialist revolution.

Reblogged from CWG (US)



Building a BRICS wall

Nick Turse


Putin in Cuba

Walden Bello

Patrick Bond

Patrick Bond Brics ‘Anti-imperialist or Sub-imperialist?’

Patrick Bond South Africa ‘BRICS from below’

Cuba Sold Out

Castro NATO as SS


Douglas Kellner on Adam Smith and Karl Marx

Vince Scappatura, ‘The US Pivot to Asia, the China Spectre and Australian-American Alliance.’

Imperialism: Policy Option or Death Drive


COR Argentina El Impresso #51 August 2014

Argentina restructures debt with China’s backing.

Silk Road Economic Belt

China/Arab states cooperation

China in Ethiopia

China and India comparison

China India trade deals

China Africa Project

China Zimbabwe

Washington’s Pivot to Africa Nick Turse

China and India

Breaking dollar hegemony

Engdahl Geopolitical tectonic shift

Turkey to join the EEU?

Kurd social revolution

Turkey support for IS

EU debt burden

The petroyuan comethn

Merkel looks to China to help with Russia

Coletivo Lenin

Egypt to join BRICS?

Morales claims victory for ‘anti-imperialism’

Silk Road

China into Middle East

China/US Rivalry in the Pacific

TPPA: the NAFTA from Hell

Imperialism: the Concentration of production and Monopolies http://

Pilling on Marx political economy

Commodity Fetishism

Petras is wrong on …Latin America

Ann Garcia Building BRICS from Below?

Trotsky on the Lessons of Spain

Howard French book Million migrants in Afica

Howard French in NYTs

Capitalist agriculture in Africa

China extracts LIBOR plus 1.5% in Africa

China ‘industry par’

Great academic resource on China Africa

Win-Win in Africa

China beating US in Africa

Howard French on Win Win vs imperialist power

Zambia: Chinese imperialism reverses the logic of China’s growth in Africa. African states are not able to put conditions on China FDI such as technology transfer; limit penetration of banks etc.

State subsidies allows China to pay more for minerals

Investments in mining on increase

China partnering with State firms risks patronage and competitiveness: China and competitiveness of SA mining

China’s wild rush into Africa.

Tufts Working Group/Excellent updated resource on China investment etc in LA

China OFDI soon to exceed FDI

Risk to LA of China slowing down. This is the context for China Russia entry of finance capital to ensure that LA can pay off debt and remain as stable suppliers. Motive is extraction of value and not win/win.

Good recent overview: China the new hegemony in LA?

China has reinforced LA as raw material suppliers (de-industrialisation)

Breakdown of US/UK/France and BRICS investment in Africa



[i] “Peru has been the recipient of the latest Chinese investment — the purchase of Las Bambas mine, in southern-central Peru, from Swiss-based company Glencore Xstrata PLC (LON:GLEN), announced on Monday. Chinese consortium MMG Ltd. (HKG:1208) bought the mine for $5.8 billion, the largest transaction for a mining site in the history of Peru.”

[ii] The Tufts Working Group pdf shows that LA supplies raw materials to China which are subject to price fluctuations typical of semi-colonies. “Over half of LAC exports to China are in four major commodity groups. Table 1 shows that each of these four groups (refined copper, copper ores and concentrates, iron ore and concentrates, and soybeans and other oilseeds) saw substantial growth in 2012 between six and 37 percent by weight. Considered as a single group, they grew by 11.4 percent: nearly identical to their average annual growth rate over the five-­‐year period of 2007-­‐2012, of 11.7 percent. But the revenue from their sale grew by much less than the quantity exported, and actually declined for iron and copper ores and concentrates. Export revenue for all four groups combined was essentially flat, growing only 1.8 percent. This is a huge drop from the 18.9 percent average annual growth rate over the last five years. Behind the increase in export quantity and flat export revenue is a drop in the price of each kilogram exported. Three of the four groups saw a price decline, and together they fell by nearly 11 percent. In effect, LAC exporters were running in place in 2012: selling more goods but not seeing more revenue from the sales.4”

Why are Russia and China imperialist powers and not capitalist semi-colonies?

with 5 comments


Developing Lenin and Trotsky on post-soviet Russia and China

There are big debates going on about whether Russia and China are imperialist powers today. This arises when it becomes obvious that the major local and regional wars around the globe, such as in Ukraine, are in reality proxy wars between the established imperialist powers led by the US, and the upstarts, Russia and China. With the rapid rise of inter-imperialist rivalry between the US and China led blocs this question has become urgent since it involves a policy of defeat for both sides if they are imperialist or the defence of Russia and/or China if they are not. Unlike much of the left that thinks that the old debates of the workers states are no longer important today, we argue here that the fundamental differences that arose over the workers states nearly a century ago carry over into the 21st century revisionist politics of new batches of Mensheviks who substitute the petty bourgeois for the revolutionary agency of the proletariat.

The usual approach of Leninist-Trotskyists is to apply Lenin’s criteria from Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, which essentially reduces to the overproduction of capital in the great powers which requires capital export to colonies and semi-colonies to raise the rate of profit at home. The argument goes back to Marx’s Capital to establish the foundations of the theory, and forward to see if the theory applies to Russia and China today. The problem is therefore framed in terms of whether Russia and China today are imperialist on Lenin’s criteria. A second important question that flows from this approach, however, is not just “if” this is the case, but “how”. This is because to be consistent with Lenin’s theory, more needs explaining than the theory underpinning capital export and whether Russia and China qualify in these terms. Lenin as well as explaining the rise of imperialism also argued that the world had been divided among the imperialist powers. Some have taken this mean that there is no room for new imperialist powers to emerge, not least former workers’ states!

In summary, Lenin’s theory draws on Marx Capital to posit imperialism as a necessary stage of finance capital that arises out of its inherent crisis tendencies. Driven by crises of over-production of capital at home to export capital to get access to cheap raw materials and labor, the competing imperialist powers carve up the world market among them. From that point on the world market can be re-divided among these powers only by means of trade, political and military wars until such time as wars produce revolutions capable of defeating imperialism and making the transition from capitalism to socialism.

Therefore it follows that there is no provision in the theory for the emergence of new imperialist powers escaping colonial or semi-colonial servitude. They lack the pre-condition for such a transition – that is, they lack genuine political and economic independence from imperialism. They are oppressed states and as such will remain oppressed by one or other imperialist power. So not only must Lenin’s theory be developed to explain the emergence of Russia and China as imperialist, we must prove “how” this is possible. In the process we can demolish all the rival theories that arrive at false conclusions based on a non-Marxist, non-dialectical method, that is, a bourgeois eclectic, empiricist method.

We must first show that Lenin’s theory, because it is grounded in Marxist method, is powerful enough to explain why Russia and China can emerge as imperialist nations late in the imperialist epoch. That is, far from being ‘exceptions’ to the rule, they prove the rule; that, in the epoch of imperialism, only nation states that have made successful national revolutions and become independent of imperialism, are capable of making the transition to imperialism. The measure of ‘independence’ is not the ‘political independence’ of neo-colonialism, but economic independence won by the expropriation of imperialist property, and the property of comprador national bourgeoisie that act as agents of imperialism.

The Imperialist Epoch

We can illustrate this briefly by reviewing the history of those imperialist states that existed at the time Lenin wrote Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism. Imperialist states by his definition are oppressor states that extract super-profits from oppressed states. Here we will show that those that became imperialist, like Spain, Italy, Britain, Japan, Russia and the USA, inherited pre-capitalist territories and expanded through wars of independence or conquest. All these countries were imperialist by 1914. They divided the world market among them and since then no colony or semi-colony that won their ‘political independence’ has succeeded in breaking free from imperialism, unless that revolution went further than the bourgeois democratic revolution and expropriated the bourgeoisie. Russia is the classic case of a workers revolution where the bourgeoisie were expropriated. Less clear are the post-ww2 national revolutions in China, Vietnam and Cuba, that ended up expropriating the bourgeoisie only because the bourgeoisie refused to make peace with a predominantly peasant-based government.

Those colonies and semi-colonies that underwent national revolutions that fell short of expropriating capitalist and imperialist property have remained oppressed countries failing to break free from imperialism. Since some of these are considered by many to be imperialist (or sub-imperialist), it is important to demonstrate why that cannot be the case. This question has arisen mainly in relation to the BRICS –that is, the grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. These states are grouped together because they appear to be similar on the surface. They are large developing or emerging countries that exercise some regional economic influence and export some capital. For this reason not only do Russia and China appear to have both semi-colonial and imperialist features, so too do India, Brazil and even South Africa. Yet by Lenin’s criteria only Russia and China make the grade because they alone have a history of national liberation struggles that expropriated the bourgeoisie. India, Brazil and South Africa never completed their national revolutions and so never achieved the level of independence from the existing imperialist powers to make possible their own transition to imperialism. That is, the accumulation of capital in those countries was largely expropriated by the imperialist countries leaving them incapable of developing their productive forces to the point of causing crises of overproduction leading to capital export.

Russia and China are different

In stark contrast, Russia and China did complete their national revolutions to break from imperialism to a point sufficient to develop the forces of production beyond that possible in a capitalist semi-colony. The only possible explanation for the economic growth of Russia and China outside the global capitalist economy is that they were post-capitalist planned economies that accumulated a social surplus produce. What makes Russia and China different from the rest of the BRICS is their independence as post-capitalist economies, outside the sphere of interest of any existing capitalist power, allowing these degenerated workers states to develop independently of the law of value. Yet at the same time their almost complete isolation from the global capitalist market forced them to backslide into economic stagnation as the parasitic bureaucracy consumed the surplus as its privileged income at the expense of the further development of the forces of production. While this isolation and stagnation ultimately led the restoration of capitalism, their independence from imperialism allowed them to escape semi-colonial oppression when they re-entered the global capitalist system and to make the transition to imperialism.

This analysis allows us to develop Lenin’s theory to the new situation of restored former workers states. We do this by integrating Lenin’s theory with Trotsky’s theory of the degenerated workers states. These are not the same as the classic ‘limits to growth’ faced by capitalist semi-colonies promoted by development theorists like Walt Rostow. As Trotsky had predicted, if the working class was unable to mount a political revolution to resist the growing distributional inequalities resulting from the stagnation of the plan, the bureaucracy could to overturn workers property and restore the law of value to stimulate economic growth and convert itself into a new capitalist class. The gradual step by step bureaucratic reintroduction of the Law of Value (LOV) became a total transformation in the class character of the state between ‘89-‘92 in Russia and China, when the bureaucracy decided to restore capital and, given the laws of motion of capital, created the pre-conditions for the necessary emergence of imperialism.

We will see how a range of empiricist non-Marxist theories fail to explain this concrete reality in Russia and China today. We exclude from this analysis the Stalinist Communist Parties and their associated currents. They defended the Soviet Union (SU) uncritically and many still see the SU and China as ‘socialist’ (in Stalin’s language) despite the inroads of global capitalism. We limit the analysis here to those self-described Trotskyists in the tradition of the 4th International. We target these groups to demonstrate that Lenin’s theory of imperialism and Trotsky’s theory of the workers state are both necessary in the case of Russia and China today to prove that alternate empiricist theories based on impressions, or appearances, of the concrete reality, fail to provide a guide to revolutionary practice. The programmatic consequence of such a bourgeois anti-Marxist method is a bourgeois program directed against the revolutionary program of the proletariat.

As we argue here, this empiricist method leads to the theory/practice of a refusal to defend workers states or to fight for the political revolution. In both cases this liquidation of the Trotskyist program contributed to the defeat of the workers states. Some recognise this as an historical defeat, others as a victory over Stalinism, but neither owns up to their rotten role in liquidating the Trotskyist program of world revolution in defence of the workers states. In the recent debates over the role of imperialism in a number of conflicts across the globe, the big majority of reformist and ‘centrist’ currents reject Marxist dialectics for an empiricist and eclectic method of Menshevism. This rejects the Bolshevik party as the proletarian vanguard and turns the socialist revolution into an evolutionary process a la Kautsky or Stalin in which the petty bourgeois substitutes itself for the revolutionary agency of the proletariat. As Trotsky argued in In Defence of Marxism (IDOM), empiricism is the hallmark method of the petty bourgeois intellectuals who select facts in isolation to promote their interests as a class or caste that acts as the labour agents of capital.

Empiricism versus Dialectics

Empiricism is the method of the bourgeoisie because it corresponds to capitalism at the level of exchange where the exploitative relations of production appear in a fetishised form as relations of exchange. When the petty bourgeois empiricists ‘select facts’ they are those facts that accord with this fetishised view of capitalism, in which they play a mediating role in the market between employers and workers. Petty bourgeois intellectuals along with the labor bureaucracy therefore act as the agents of the bourgeoisie subordinating the working class to its rule. The class struggle is a constant battle between revolutionary Marxists who represent the general and historical interests of the proletariat, and the petty bourgeois reformists, who attempt at every turn to subordinate the proletariat to the bourgeoisie. The Russian Revolution succeeded because the revolutionary Bolshevik party prevailed over the reformists and Mensheviks and led the workers and poor peasants to victory. The degeneration of the Russian revolution and the failure of the German revolution resulted from the failure of workers to form Bolshevik parties and break from the petty bourgeois currents in the labour movement outside the SU and the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy inside the SU.

The Russian revolution is the pivotal event in the history of the proletariat. It was the single event that proved the Bolsheviks superior to the Mensheviks. Acting as the agents of the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie in general rejected the revolution as premature. For example, the Mensheviks and Kautskyites did not think the pre-conditions for socialist revolution were present in Tsarist Russia. First there had to be a bourgeois revolution. Hence the Bolshevik revolution was regarded as a coup rather than a genuine revolution because it skipped over the bourgeois revolution. The Bolsheviks broke from the Mensheviks to overthrow the bourgeoisie and make a socialist revolution and the Mensheviks wanted their revenge. They regarded themselves as vindicated by history and rewound events in their heads to start again. Either the bureaucracy became the agents of the bourgeoisie in preparing the ground for socialism, or they became a new bourgeoisie to create a new or more advanced version of capitalism.

These Mensheviks fell into two camps, pro-Stalinist and anti-Stalinist depending on their attitude towards the historic role of the Stalinist bureaucracy. Both camps objectify the proletariat in order to eliminate its subjective role in the revolutionary process substituting the petty bourgeoisie as the subjective agency of history. Thus one identifies with the Stalinist bureaucracy as progressive in this process and so credits the bureaucracy with the subjective revolutionary agency of the proletariat. The other reverses the signs and attributes to the Stalinist bureaucracy the subjective agency of a bourgeoisie or a new ruling class. The both mask their conservative role in collaborating with the bourgeoisie by blaming the working class as unprepared for the historic tasks. Both represent a degeneration of Trotsky’s dialectics that puts the revolutionary agency of the proletariat, and in particular the proletarian revolutionary party, at the heart of its program and characterises the Stalinist bureaucracy as a counter-revolutionary ‘caste’ inside the working class which is dependent on workers property for its privileges.

(1) The Pro-Stalinists

By crediting the Stalinist bureaucracy with an independent progressive role in the transition to socialism, the pro-Stalinists liquidate the revolutionary party and program. Usually they are identified as Pabloites after the leader of the FI in the immediate post-war period. The Pabloites paid lip-service to the defence of the SU but in reality betrayed the revolution by liquidating the revolutionary party capable of leading the revolution. They responded to the restoration of capitalism in the SU and EU, as well as China in the 1990s, by recognising it as a counter-revolution but without taking any responsibility for it in their liquidating of Trotskyism into neo-Stalinism!

A recent example of this is Barry Sheppard’s apologetics for Pabloism. Sheppard admits that the official United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI) went soft on Stalinism and began to see the political revolution as an objective process. But he doesn’t think that it had any responsibility for the counter-revolution in the SU. He claims that the USFI always defended the SU despite Stalinism and did not capitulate like the ‘third camp’. Of course this is formally true; the SU was not capitalist, nor imperialist. But this does not absolve the Pabloites from any blame for the collapse of the SU. If you liquidate the party by underestimating the counter-revolutionary role of the bureaucratic caste, you are relying on objective forces outside the revolutionary party to defend workers property. In some ways this submission to evolutionary socialism is worse than the ‘third camp” since it defaults the task of political revolution to the Stalinist bureaucracy. Sheppard exposes his unreconstructed Pabloism by justifying the Socialist Workers Party (SWP-US) liquidation into the Cuban bureaucracy on the basis of its mass support and break from ‘Stalinism’. Since Cuba was a healthy workers state (however limited by its size and isolation) it did not need a political revolution. Not surprisingly, by such criteria Cuba remains a workers’ state today.

Most Pabloists see restoration as a transformation of Degenerate Workers States (DWS) into new capitalist semi-colonies. So facing the current global crisis and intensification of inter-imperialist rivalry they defend Russia and China from imperialism. We wrote a detailed critique of this when we were in the FLTI. The latest attempt to dredge up theoretical excuses against Russia as imperialist is that of Sam Williams at the Critique of Crisis Theory Blog. The author seems to be in the Pabloite tradition. He is orthodox on Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall (TRPF) etc but shows he has no grasp of Marx’s method. His concept of capitalist crisis is flawed by his failure to understand that Lenin developed Marx’s concept of finance capital by graspingits fusion of banking and productive capital at the concrete level of state monopoly capital. No surprise then to find that Williams substitutes for Lenin’s concept of imperialism an eclectic empiricist fact book. For him finance capital is banking capital. So Russia cannot be imperialist because it has no major private banks. Already 100 years ago Lenin had defined Russia as a special hybrid case of imperialism in fusing its capitalist state banks with the Tsarist Empire as an example of state monopoly capital. Never mind, William’s empiricist litmus test is banking capital above per capita $100,000. So NZ is imperialist! Yet Russia and China is below the cut-off point so they cannot be imperialist. William’s second main criterion of imperialism is a military machine. Russia lacks a military machine? Such a method is a caricature of Marxism and Leninism.

Other pro-Stalinists, refusing to recognise the reality of capitalist restoration, deny that a counter-revolution has taken place, still looking for some progressive faction in the bureaucracy that will rescue the workers states from capitalist restoration. For some, Russia has undergone restoration while China has not. What accounts for the restoration of one and not the other is the empiricist ‘selection of facts’ according to some historic schema. In Russia the Yeltsin counter-revolutionary coup led to the outlawing of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), whereas in China the Communist Party (CPC) remains in power. This ‘fact’ is sufficient, backed by selected Trotsky quotes, to account for restoration in the SU but not in China. But by equating restoration with the defeat of the Communist Party, these pro-Stalinists confess to their bankruptcy in crediting the Communist Party with the ability to stop restoration and develop the forces of production as a historically progressive petty bourgeois caste.

(2) The Anti-Stalinists

Anti-Stalinists are of two sorts. First there are those Trotskyists who see the Stalinist bureaucracy as totally counter-revolutionary. The bureaucracy is a caste dependent for its privileges on workers property and it does this by usurping workers power and administering the plan on bourgeois norms. In this respect the Stalinist bureaucracy is seen as the class equivalent of the bourgeoisie. For anti-Stalinists there can be no political bloc with the Stalinists even to defend workers’ property.

The second group of anti-Stalinists are those who saw the Stalinists not merely substitute for the bourgeoisie but actually convert into a bourgeoisie in the 1920s or 1930s restoring capitalism and imperialism.

Both comprise the ‘third camp’ which Trotsky subjected to a cutting class analysis:

“…this new anti-Marxist grouping which appears under the label of the ‘Third Camp’. What is this animal? There is the camp of capitalism; there is the camp of the proletariat. But is there perhaps a ‘third camp’ –a petty bourgeois sanctuary? In the nature of things, it is nothing else.”

We will give most space to our critique of the ‘third camp’ since it was the major break from Lenin and Trotsky on the Workers State, and the concept of a new class state in the SU led to the first major revision in Lenin’s theory of imperialism. Moreover, Trotsky was quick to see the implications of the method underlying this concept of the USSR as ‘imperialist’.

‘Third camp’ vs Trotsky

For the ‘third camp’ in general, the object was to re-define the SU as not-a-workers-state since the Stalinists and not the proletariat ruled the state. Whatever ‘new society’ they arrived at it involved a major revision of Marx’s Capital so we have to retrace our steps somewhat to uncover the origins of the ‘third camp’ and why it survives today. In short the ‘third camp’ arose out of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP-US) in the late 1930’s under pressure of liberal public opinion opposed to Stalinist ‘totalitarianism’. Against Trotsky who argued that workers must defend the Soviet Union unconditionally, despite the counter-revolutionary bureaucracy, the ‘third camp’ equated the Soviet Union with its Stalinist regime. When that regime joined forces with fascism and invaded Finland, such was the liberal outrage that the ‘third camp’ had to look for a new theory of the workers state to justify refusal to defend it. What followed was an attempt to rewrite Marx theory of capitalism, so that capitalism could exist without a market, nor any of the laws of motion that capitalism is notorious for, like booms and slumps, crises and wars.

The ‘third camp’ in the SWP-US began their retreat from unconditional defence of the USSR by identifying the workers’ state with its bureaucratic regime. First they falsified the unconditional defence slogan they recently shared. Instead of defence of workers property relations despite the bureaucracy, it became defence of the bureaucracy. Then as the bourgeoisie saw the bureaucracy’s foreign policy as no different to that of Hitler, the petty bourgeois opposition agreed and Stalin’s foreign policy became ‘imperialist’. “Disagreeing among themselves on the class nature of the Soviet state, the leaders of the opposition agree on this, that the foreign policy of the Kremlin must be labelled ‘imperialist’ and that the USSR cannot be supported ‘unconditionally’. (IDOM, 99). “Our innovators cover the holes in their position with violent phrases. They label the policy of the USSR ‘imperialist’. Vast enrichment of the sciences! Beginning from now on both the foreign policy of finance-capital and the policy of exterminating finance-capital will be called imperialism. This will help significantly in the class education of the workers! (p. 75) It is necessary to add that the stretching of the concept of ‘imperialism’ lacks even the attraction of novelty. At present not only the ‘democrats’ but also the bourgeoisie of the democratic countries describe Soviet policy as imperialist. The aim of the bourgeoisie is transparent –to erase the social contradictions between capitalist and Soviet expansion, to hide the problem of property, and in this way to help genuine imperialism.” (p. 76.)

Here is Trotsky destroying the credibility of petty bourgeois intellectuals and their empiricist apologetics for refusing to unconditionally defend the workers’ states:

“Throughout the vacillations and convulsions of the opposition, contradictory though they may be, two general features run like a guiding thread from the pinnacles of theory down to the most trifling political episodes. The first general feature is the absence of a unified conception. The opposition split sociology from dialectic materialism. They split politics from sociology. In the sphere of politics they split our tasks in Poland from our experience in Spain –0ur tasks in Finland from our position on Poland. History becomes transformed into a series of exceptional incidents; politics becomes transformed into a series of improvisations. We have here, in the full sense of the term, the disintegration of Marxism, the disintegration of theoretical thought, the disintegration of politics into its constituent elements. Empiricism and its foster-brother, impressionism, dominate from top to bottom…Throughout the vacillations and convulsions of the opposition, there is a second general feature intimately bound with the first, namely, a tendency to refrain from active participation, a tendency to self-elimination, to abstentionism, naturally under cover of ultra-radical phrases. You are in favour of overthrowing Hitler and Stalin in Poland; Stalin and Mannerheim in Finland. And until then you reject both sides equally, in other words, you withdraw from the struggle, including the civil war.” (IDOM, 114-115)

Trotsky labels the opposition’s position on the USSR “conjunctural defeatism:

“Let us now check up on how Shachtman, aided by a theoretical vacuum, operates with the ‘realities of living events’ in an especially vital question. He writes: “We have never supported the Kremlin’s international policy…but what is war? War is a continuation of politics by other means. Then why should we support a war which is the continuation of the international which we did not and do not support? The completeness of this argument cannot be denied; in the shape of a naked syllogism we are presented here with a rounded-out theory of defeatism…Since we never supported the Kremlin’s international policy, therefore we ought never to support the USSR…Since we are against Stalin we must therefore be against the USSR too. Stalin has long held this opinion. Shachtman has arrived at it only recently. From this rejection of the Kremlin’s politics flows a complete and indivisible defeatism. Then why no say so?”

The reason Shachtman and the opposition do not recognise this as defeatism is their empiricist method of splitting the function of war from the organ of class rule, the state:

“Shachtman hold it possible that a function, namely, war, can be studied ‘concretely’ independently of the organ to which it pertains, i.e., the state. Isn’t this monstrous? This fundamental error is supplemented by another equally glaring. After splitting function away from organ, Shachtman in studying the function itself, contrary to all his promises, proceeds not from the abstract to the concrete but on the contrary dissolves the concrete in the abstract. Imperialist war is one of the functions of finance capital, i.e., the bourgeoisie at a certain stage of development resting upon capitalism of a specific structure, namely monopoly capital. This definition is sufficiently concrete for our basic political conclusions. But by extending the term imperialist war to cover the Soviet state too, Shachtman cuts the ground away from under his own feet. In order to reach even a superficial justification for applying one and the same designation to the expansion of finance capital and the expansion of the workers’ state, Shachtman is compelled to detach himself from the social structure of both states altogether by proclaiming it to be –an abstraction. Thus playing hide and seek with Marxism, Shachtman labels the concrete as abstract and palms off the abstract as concrete! This outrageous toying with theory is not accidental. Every petty-bourgeois in the US without exception is ready to call every seizure of territory ‘imperialist’, especially today with the US does not happen to be occupied with acquiring territories.” IDOM, 162-3)

Trotsky sums up the petty bourgeois opposition as a whole just after the split in the SWP (US) in April 1940 in his article, ‘Petty-Bourgeois Moralists and the Proletarian Party’:

“The petty-bourgeois minority of the SWP split from the proletarian majority on the basis of a struggle against revolutionary Marxism. Burnham proclaimed dialectical materialism to be incompatible with his moth-eaten ‘science’. Shachtman proclaimed revolutionary Marxism to be of no moment from the standpoint of ‘practical tasks’. Abern hastened to hook up his little booth with the anti-Marxism bloc…Only the other day Shachtman referred to himself in the press as a ‘Trotskyist’. If this be Trotskyism then I at least am no Trotskyist. With the present ideas of Shachtman, not to mention Burnham, I have nothing in common…As for their ‘organisational methods’ and political ‘morality’ I have nothing but contempt. Had the conscious agents of the class enemy operated through Shachtman, they could not have advised him to do anything different from what he himself has perpetrated. He united with anti-Marxists to wage a struggle against Marxism. He helped fuse together a petty-bourgeois faction against the workers. He refrained from utilising internal party democracy and from making an honest effort to convince the proletarian majority. He engineered a split under the conditions of a world war. To crown it all, he threw over the split the veil of a petty and dirty scandal, which seems especially designed to provide our enemies with ammunition. Such are these ‘democrats’, such are their ‘morals’’!

Bureaucratic Collectivism

Trotsky’s damning verdict on the petty-bourgeois “third camp” exposed the theoretical fraud of determining the character of the workers state from the ‘concrete’ foreign policy of its Stalinist regime. This means defining social relations or production in terms of its political relations, or economics by power relations. This reduces Marxism to common liberalism. Agreement on the Soviet Union as ‘imperialist’ left the problem of what form of class society is engaged in such ‘imperialist’ expansion. Under the heat of Trotsky’s ridicule, a new theory of the class character of the Soviet Union was needed to account for Stalin’s ‘imperialism’. Max Shachtman, ever the eclectic according to Trotsky, abandoned his abstract ‘workers state’ (i.e. isolated from class relations) for a version of the theory of ‘bureaucratic collectivism’ and rise of the bureaucracy as a ‘new class’.

Trotsky critiqued the theory of ‘bureaucratic collectivism’ in ‘The USSR and War’. For Bruno R: “…the new bureaucracy is a class, its relation to the toilers is collective exploitation, the proletarians are transformed into the slaves of totalitarian exploiters…Bruno has caught on to the fact that tendency of collectivisation assumes as a result of the political prostration of the working class, the form of bureaucratic collectivism. The phenomenon itself is incontestable. But what are its limits, and what is its historical weight? What we accept as a deformity of a transitional period, the result of the unequal development of multiple factors in the social process, is taken by Bruno R for an independent social formation in which the bureaucracy is the ruling class.” [Our emphasis]

Bruno R equates the regimes of Stalinism with fascism and the ‘New Deal’. He abstracts this form of collectivist regime from two specific social formations, capitalism and a new social formation. But he produces no analysis in support of a new bureaucratic collectivist social formation in which a new class of bureaucrats exploits workers as slaves.  Shachtman attempts to adapt Bruno R’s concept. He says that in 1939 Stalin became “Hitler’s agent” in an “aggressive military alliance.” This means that Stalinism is an “imperialism” peculiar to the Stalinist bureaucracy in its present stage of degeneration”. The basis of this imperialism is ‘bureaucratic collectivism’:

“Now to summarize our position: What then exists in Russia? We call it a bureaucratic collectivist state – anti-proletarian and anti-socialist, but also anti-capitalist. The ruling class is a bureaucracy. The possibility of such a bureaucracy was foreseen by Marx. I’ve already published without challenge that the leader next to Trotsky of the Russian opposition said in 1931 that in Russia there is a unique ruling class. Bukharin said that in degeneration a peculiar ruling class could emerge. Trotsky allowed for its possibility and concluded therefore that if it occurred Marxism would have proved to be a utopia. I don’t agree with his conclusions but nevertheless he allowed for the theoretical possibility. Our theory arose from our analysis of the developments in Russia. It is impossible for the working class to maintain power indefinitely in one country and it is impossible to create socialism in one country. We thought that the capitalists would be restored but the Russian bourgeoisie proved to be too weak to retake power. Capitalism can come to Russia primarily from the outside. But world capitalism didn’t and couldn’t do it because it was too weak and too torn by its own internal contradictions. In the midst of this mutual impotence, to maintain the revolution or to re-establish bourgeoisie rule, the unique ruling class brilliantly foreseen by Bukharin came to pass by smashing both the working class and the remnants of the bourgeoisie in Russia. The bureaucracy came to power and expanded production – not socialist production or capitalist production, as the international capitalists know it. The working class does not exist in its capitalist form or in its workers’ state form. Even less does the old bourgeoisie exist.”

Shachtman develops Bruno R to characterise Stalinism as imperialism to justify rejection of unconditional defence of the SU. This is the eclectic/empiricist method in full view. On the one hand he quotes Lenin to say that imperialism always existed. “Every war in which two belligerent camps are fighting to oppress foreign countries or peoples and for the division of booty must be called imperialist”. On the other hand, Stalinism is a ‘peculiar’ form specific to a degenerated ‘bureaucratic collectivism’. The SU does not live up to Shachtman’s definition of capitalism or socialism as neither a property owning bourgeoisie exists, nor does the proletariat control state power, so he must invent a new society. He never developed this theory beyond an outline sketch of a new society to fill in the blank page in his blueprint. Meanwhile, the ‘third camp’ had already largely abandoned ‘bureaucratic collectivism’ for the theory/practice of ‘state capitalism’. Note that we are using ‘third camp’ here in Trotsky’s class sense as the ‘sanctuary’ of the petty bourgeoisie.

State Capitalism vs Trotsky

(1) Dunayevskaya vs Trotsky

Dunayevskaya was Trotsky’s secretary in Mexico but resigned in 1939 when Stalin signed a pact with Hitler. She was a prominent member of the opposition in the SWP (US) that rejected unconditional support of the SU. After the split in SWP the opposition formed the Workers Party. Dunayevskaya was the first to develop the state capitalist theory within the 4th International against Shachtman’s ‘bureaucratic collectivism’ theory. Despite his blueprint approach to reality, Shachtman was correct to reject the state capitalist position as misrepresenting the LOV under capitalism. The LOV cannot operate under capitalism unless commodities are produced for sale in the market. Value is thus only realised or valorised by means of exchange. Dunayevskaya abstracts from the market and quotes Marx to say that the LOV does not require a market to be produced and valorised. She argues Marx theoretically anticipated the concentration and centralisation of capital to the point of a single state capitalist. This is a general tendency within capitalism globally so the SU is not an isolated case. But while the tendency has not yet under fascism or the New Deal reached the point of a fully developed state capitalism, in the case of the SU there are no theoretical grounds against such a development where a single ‘collective’ capitalist in the form of the state can both produce and exchange value in terms of the LOV.

Unfortunately for Dunayevskaya, Marx used the term state as ‘collective capitalist’ as an abstraction. The state is derived from production relations where capitalists compete at the level of the firm, at the level of monopoly, and at the level of the nation state to destroy their rivals! In the workers state the LOV as managed by state planning and exchanging of value according to administrative prices is no longer the form of the LOV that defines capitalism, any more than it is the LOV under feudalism or an imagined ‘bureaucratic collectivism’. It is the ‘collective labourer’ in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx’s theoretical projections are at a level of abstraction that only bear fruit when the capitalist laws of motion are concretised by experience and observation as the ‘many determinations’ that manifest at the level of everyday society.

Lenin and Trotsky applied Marx’s method through the theory and practice of an organised revolutionary international party to both ‘interpret’ and ‘change’ the course of events of the ‘uneven and combined development’ of global capitalism in all of its everyday reality. They took the TRPF that Marx theorised in the mid 19th century to show how this produced periodic crises of overproduction that gave rise to the epoch of imperialism and monopoly state capitalism which determined the historically specific struggle between classes and nations. A long time before Marx’s theoretical ‘collective capitalist’ could become a reality then, capitalist crises, wars and revolutions would bring about the revolution and the transition to socialism.

Far from the SU becoming the first case of the realisation of the ‘collective capitalist’, it was the result of capitalist crisis exploding imperialism at its ‘weakest link’ where workers rose up to expropriate the bourgeoisie and build a workers’ state. Compared with Dunayevskaya’s attempt to cut and paste Marx’s abstraction of ‘collective capital’ to the concrete, complex, reality of a specific, isolated and backward workers’ state, Lenin and Trotsky applied Marx’s dialectics to the practical problem of making and defending the revolution from the ongoing counter-revolution. The qualitative point at which the revolution would turn into a counter-revolution would be reached when the LOV was re-established in its capitalist form. That is, whatever the level of centralisation or ‘statification’ of the economy, when the LOV is no longer expressed by administered prices, but determined by the market.

(2) Cliff vs Trotsky

The next move was made by Tony Cliff. After the war Trotskyists tried to explain the expansion of Stalinism into Eastern Europe, and Cliff succumbed to anti-Stalinist liberal public opinion that saw this expansion as that of a ‘communist empire’. To overcome the logical fantasy of a ‘new class society’ that mysteriously appears between capitalism and socialism Cliff takes the easy way out and invents a new theory of state capitalism dating back to 1929. Cliff said that capitalism was restored at precisely the time that Stalin smashed the limited market of the New Economic Policy (NEP) and collectivised agriculture. Capitalism arose with Stalin’s ruthless suppression of the law of value. In this respect Cliff was closer to Marx than Dunayevskaya. It is obvious that the LOV under capitalism requires exchange value and therefore a market. Since it was not operating inside the SU, Cliff tried to rescue his version of state capitalism by claiming that the LOV was introduced into the SU through its foreign trade. It was enough for the SU to compete on the world market to be dominated by the LOV! This is Cliff’s claim to fame. Yet obviously, state monopoly of foreign trade negated the LOV and its effects inside the SU. So there is no way that the sale of military goods on the international market was a transmission belt to mean that the capitalist LOV operated in the SU. Cliff’s ‘innovation’ was to junk Marx.

As Paul Morris points out, far from the SU foreign trade (largely in military goods) transmitting exchange value into the SU internal economy, its trade and foreign relations were designed to reproduce ‘use-values’ inside the SU. That is, even though the SU had to ‘compete’ on the global market it did this on the basis of bureaucratic price setting at the expense of the workers’ wages:

“… Cliff concedes that Russia’s [SU] military competition with the West forced it to produce useful weapons and not accumulate large sums of value. In the end, therefore, the whole argument hinges on the following assertion: ‘Because international competition takes mainly a military form the law of value expresses itself in its opposite, viz. a striving for use values’. Cliff gives the example of a capitalist society in war subordinating the production of butter to the production of guns, introducing technical innovations which in peacetime are prevented by the profit making needs of cartels. Is this an example o the law of value expressing itself through its opposite? Only if we consider why the capitalist state goes to war, namely to expand its sphere of extraction of surplus value, to expand its sphere of capital accumulation.”ibid

In other words, only if the SU is competing globally to expand its sphere of capital accumulation, rather than expand its production of use-values domestically, could it be seen as capitalist and imperialist. Capitalist imperialism negates the LOV in the production of military use-values for destruction as a means of defending, reproducing and expanding the accumulation of exchange values. But the SU does not suppress the LOV in its military competition since it is defending a system of producing use-values. “It is producing use-values to defend the production of use-values”. ibid

This is important because it completely knocks out any attempt to claim that the SU was ‘imperialist’ in reproducing the LOV and super-exploiting its ‘colonies’ like capitalist imperialism. If the LOV had actually operated in the SU it would have led to the super-exploitation of its labor power to, and its colonial servitude by, imperialism. But the SU was neither a capitalist imperialism nor were its ‘satellites’ capitalist semi-colonies. The form of ‘exploitation’ that took place inside the SU and within its satellites was based on administrative price fixing.

Thus all the other questions that arise about the nature of the SU as state capitalist: are its workers exploited capitalistically?   Is the bureaucracy a new ruling class? Is state capitalism the highest stage of capitalism? Does the SU exhibit the capitalist laws of motion, in particular crises of overproduction, etc., and how to explain the collapse of Stalinism etc., become nonsensical in the absence of the LOV. Labour power is not a commodity; the bureaucracy does not collectively own the means of production; state capitalism does not replace state monopoly capitalism as the highest stage; crisis in the SU is not the overproduction of commodities but stagnation in the production of use-values; and the collapse of Stalinism exposes the myth that the LOV existed in the SU and that it reproduced it as a ‘soviet imperialism’. ibid

Today the Cliffites continue to claim continuity with Marx and Lenin to explain the existence of Russian imperialism and the its role in conflicts such as the breakup of the Ukraine. They say the cold war was an inter-imperialist struggle between two imperialist super-powers. ‘Soviet imperialism’ was defeated in 1990s by US imperialism only to see imperialism return as a revived Great Russian imperialism mounting a challenge to US hegemony? This is a dizzy switchback ride for the Cliffites and any workers who unfortunately fall for them.

(3) Daum vs Trotsky

Neither the wartime ‘third camp’ nor the post-war Cliffites could provide a convincing alternative to Trotsky’s theory/practice of the Degenerated Workers State (DWS). Not until the collapse of the SU in 1991 did another ‘innovation’ appear on the stage. This was Walter Daum’s Life and Death of Stalinism’.Much of what follows is drawn from the critical review of Daum’s book by the LRCI in 1994.  Daum recognised that earlier attempts to ‘improve’ on Trotsky while he was alive ran into the problem of Trotsky’s powerful Marxist method. Trotsky had ridiculed both ‘bureaucratic collectivist’ and ‘state capitalism’ theories. Neither Shachtman nor Dunayevskaya had been able to prevail against Trotsky’s theory of the ‘workers state’ and his polemics against the ‘petty bourgeois opposition’. Cliff revived ‘state capitalism’ after the war but in doing so was seen to be breaking from Trotsky in the process. Daum revived the theory of state capitalism at a time when Trotskyism was facing the historic defeat of the SU. He claimed that state capitalism had existed since the ‘counter-revolution’ in 1939, and what is more, the theory of state capitalism, corrected elaborated, was in true continuity of Marx’s method and the tradition of Lenin and Trotsky.

His theory was not new. It was a development of that of Dunayevskaya. First, Daum had to argue that the LOV existed under the workers state. He did this by re-defining the workers state in transition to socialism as a stage of capitalism. This rests on the fact that the workers state is the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Since the proletariat still exists (but as the ruling class) then so did wage-labor and wage exploitation. What constitutes an advance over earlier stages of capitalism, however, is that the workers who are now in power decide how their surplus-value is distributed on the basis from each according to the work, and to each according to the labor; i.e. bourgeois norms of distribution. However, when that power is gradually hijacked by the Stalinist bureaucracy after 1924 it leads to bourgeois norms of distribution being transformed into capitalist property relations in the form of state capitalism. In Daum’s view the qualitative turning point in restoration of capitalism was Stalin’s elimination of all proletarian opposition to the bureaucratic dictatorship in 1939.

However Daum’s claim to improve on Trotsky falls at the first hurdle by misrepresenting Marx’s concept of the capital-labor relation at the level of production. The proletariat certainly survived in the SU as the ruling class. After all the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is another name for a workers’ state. But this is not a proletariat defined by the labor-capital relation. The labor- capital relation was obliterated except for exceptional forms where capitalist firms were allowed to survive or the NEP which encouraged peasants to produce food to sell on the market. But such exceptions proved the rule that the labor-capital relation was subordinated to administrative prices under the proletarian dictatorship. Second, Daum rewrites Marx at the level of exchange. The LOV can only operate by means of market exchange. Value is not realised as value unless it is exchanged on the market. Hence even where exceptional forms of capitalist production survived, subordinated to the plan in the SU, the LOV did not set the prices in the whole economy. When Lenin talked of a ‘bourgeois state’ without the bourgeoisie, he was faithfully developing Marxism. The workers were in power but under the conditions of an isolated, backward economy, the workers state was forced to use of bourgeois methods of production and distribution norms, subordinated to and directed at creating the pre-conditions for socialist production.


We can conclude that post-war Trotskyism contributed to the defeat of the legacy of the Bolshevik revolution by abandoning the proletariat as the revolutionary class, and liquidating the Bolshevik-Leninist-Trotskyist party. In its place the main currents of post-war Trotskyism degenerated into a petty-bourgeois Menshevism, worshipping the objective development of the revolution under the subjective leadership of Stalinism and the labor bureaucracy; the conservative, indeed reactionary, layers of the working class that acted as the agents of the bourgeoisie in the labor movement. One camp of pro-Stalinists, the Pabloists, worshipped Stalinism as a progressive force in the labor movement. Another camp of anti-Stalinists, the ‘third camp’, turned the SU into a capitalist imperialism between 1929 and 1939; their intent was to paint the SU as imperialist so that it did not need to be defended. Fortunately, the vast majority of the world’s workers did not equate the SU under Stalinism with fascism and willingly defended the SU against fascism. As we have seen such was the role of Stalinism in defeating fascism that it was widely seen as ‘progressive’ even by a large section of the Fourth International.

The original ‘third camp’ inside the Workers Party (US) had no great influence during the war as it merely mirrored one current of petty bourgeois opinion, and its adherents soon abandoned Trotskyism. Dunayevskaya and Cliff revived the ‘third camp’ however, as forms of state capitalism and ‘soviet imperialism’, abandoning the defence of the SU and appealing to workers to take no side during the Cold War. Daum arrived only at the funeral of the SU, perhaps to assuage the guilt of those who did not defend the SU over the previous 50 years, and today justifying this betrayal as a qualification for leading the class struggle against Russian (but not yet Chinese) imperialism! The Daumites are unique in the ‘third camp’ since they can claim a spurious unbroken continuity with Marx since for them Russian imperialism today is a continuation of Tsarist and Soviet imperialism! Hypocritically, they refuse to take any responsibility for the betrayal of the DWSs and their world historic defeat at the hands of capitalist imperialism, and yet claim credit for the world historic defeat of Stalinism.

Other anti-Stalinists, who ‘defended’ the SU despite the Stalinists, like the International Committee under Gerry Healy, substituted for the hated Stalinists, ‘progressive’ nationalist petty bourgeois leaders like Paz Estenssoro in Bolivia and Gaddafi in Libya who betrayed the colonial revolutions with their popular fronts with imperialism. In other words they were fake Trotskyists who substituted for Stalinists to bloc with the national bourgeois and imperialism in popular fronts for ‘national roads to socialism’. While they did not abandon the SU, they propped up the Western imperialists against the SU, rather than defend it by Leninist-Trotskyist means – making the world revolution! They were not alone. The pro-Stalinist Pabloists also abandoned the proletariat and the Leninist Party for petty bourgeois social movements, propping up imperialism while handing over by default the leadership of the political revolution to the Stalinists for centuries.

We stick with Trotsky. We defended the SU, China, Vietnam and Cuba until their defeat at the hands of the counter-revolutions of the imperialist powers, aided and abetted by the petty bourgeois renegades of Trotskyism. These renegades have no credibility as Marxists, Leninists or Trotskyists, having abandoned the unconditional defence of the SU they attempt to take credit for explaining imperialism in Russia and China today, junking Marxism, Leninism and Trotskyism. The theory of state capitalism cannot sustain the notion of ‘Stalinist imperialism’ or ‘Maoist imperialism’. There is no continuity between ‘soviet imperialism’ and Russian and Chinese imperialism today. It is their history as degenerated Workers States that explains why both Russia and China have re-emerged as imperialist powers today.

That is why we insist that the question of Russian and Chinese imperialism is at the heart of the transitional program today. We arrive at our analysis using Trotsky’s dialectics to demonstrate that the qualitative transformation of Russia and China from DWSs into new imperialist states accounts for the fundamental reality today. It is a betrayal of one’s revolutionary duty to turn ones back on the current terminal crisis of capitalism in which two imperialist blocs led by the US and China battle each other to re-divide the world in the struggle for survival. All concrete political and social questions posed today are in the last analysis determined by this inter-imperialist rivalry. To fail to understand this is to fail to build a new world party of socialism on Trotsky’s transitional method, and to doom the international proletariat, and with it humanity, to destruction, and almost inevitably, extinction.


Selected References

Dunayevskaya and Shachtman on the Russian Question

Tony Cliff

Paul Morris, The Crisis of Stalinism and state capitalist theory

Imperialism & the anti-capitalist Left: Ukraine in Context

Walter Daum ‘Life and Death of Stalinism’

Review of Life and Death of Stalinism by Walter Daum,

Barry Sheppard Three Theories of the USSR

Sam Williams ‘Is Russia Imperialist’

Roger Annis, ‘Discussion: The ‘Russia is Imperialist’ thesis is wrong.’

Trotsky, Petty Bourgeois Moralists and the Proletarian Party.

Trotsky, In Defence of Marxism.

Written by raved

June 25, 2014 at 3:24 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Brazil! Stop the World Cup! Break the Popular Front!

leave a comment »

Communist Workers Group (CWG-USA)

This is the workers big fight against the capitalist crisis in Brazil!

Down with the popular front of the PSTU etc. with the PT and the bourgeoisie!

Build Working class councils and militias to defend the class from the state forces!

For the General Strike to unite the proletariat and to fight for a Workers and Peasants Government!


Since the opening of the new world crisis in 2007 Brazil experienced a big hit to its economic growth shared by all the other BRICS except China and Russia which are rising imperialist powers and making the other BRICS semi-colonies. Facing the crisis the workers began to fight against paying for the crisis with loss of their wages and mass sackings. All workers began to see the need for unity, but how would that happen? Fearing that workers would unite from below, the reformist and centrist left parties and left bureaucrats…

View original post 2,120 more words

Written by raved

May 22, 2014 at 1:37 am

Posted in Uncategorized