Living Marxism

Bringing Marxism to life

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 3 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 6 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

Cuba Sold Out

with one comment

Xi Jinping Raul Castro

    Then Vice-President Xi Jinping and Raul Castro, Havana, June 5, 2011  (photo: Forbes)


In April 2011 in “Cuba for Sale” we reviewed the situation in Cuba following the 6th Congress of the CPC and the Guidelines which it adopted. We concluded that Raul Castro was taking Cuba down the ‘China Road’ to state capitalism. We did not think then that Cuba had reached the point of restoring capitalism. We were wrong. We predicted that Cuba was moving towards ‘market socialism’ and on the way meeting Venezuelan ‘state capitalism’. Today looking back after two years we think Cuba had already reached the point of restoring capitalism. We missed the significance of the 6th Congress in committing Cuba to a state capitalist ‘strategic partnership’ with Chinese imperialism. Cuba’s fate has always hinged on the revolution in Latin America. In the last decade the revolution has been strangled by the Bolivarian popular front with China. While the Castroist and Bolivarian regimes have made a great show of their opposition to US imperialism, in reality they have been increasingly subordinated to Chinese imperialism. We think that the intervention of imperialist China has played a key role in strangling the Latin American revolution and that as a result Cuba has gone capitalist. This means that a new Catroist bourgeoisie has emerged alongside the Bolivarian bourgeoisie as the main comprador agents of Chinese imperialist plunder of Latin American workers. A socialist revolution is necessary to overthrow that bourgeoisie and bring about a Socialist United States of Latin America!

[1] Cuba, China and Latin America
The Castroist Left takes Fidel Castro’s view that the fate of the Cuban revolution depends on the Latin American revolution. We agree completely. But for most of the so-called Left in Latin America this revolution takes the form of an anti-imperialist alliance against US imperialism. Virtually none on the Left recognises the entry of China in Latin America as an emerging imperialist power. They see China as an ally in the anti-imperialist front against the US. In reality, this AIF is a popular front between Latin American workers and Chinese imperialism strangling the workers’ revolution. That is why for us China is not a “progressive” partner in the struggle against US imperialism. For us, Cuba is not ‘renewing socialism’ under Raul Castro because of support from ‘socialist’ Venezuela or ‘market socialist’ China. Rather, Cuba’s links with Venezuela and China have allowed it to force restoration in Cuba and present restoration as a ‘renewal of socialism’.
Our article Cuba for Sale written in mid 2011 concludes that the restoration process was well on the road to completion, and that a political revolution to stop it must be based on the Latin American revolution and world revolution. The Bolivarian popular front between the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) and China was a barrier to this revolution that had to be broken:
“Cuba’s ‘capitalist road’ converges with the much vaunted Chavista ’21st century socialism’. This is the key to the defeat of Latin American workers which is necessary to allow Cuba to complete its historic counter-revolution. Chavez’ Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela (and which leads the ALBA countries including Bolivia and Ecuador) has trapped Latin American workers behind a popular front with China. Chavez famously talks of walking hand in hand with China towards ‘21st century socialism’. It is the counter-revolutionary role of the Chavista popular front in Latin America that allows Cuba to complete a historic counter-revolution by the Chinese method of many defeats and repressions of workers over the decades and then to complete that historic defeat. It follows that if the Cuban counter-revolution is to be defeated before it is altogether victorious, it is necessary to smash the Bolivarian popular front. We cannot stress this enough. Chavez and Castro are part of an ‘anti-imperialist’ bloc with China and semi-colonial semi-fascists like Gaddafi and Assad to stop the new wave of workers’ uprisings against the global crisis-uprising which can play the critical role of breaking up the popular fronts and the fake ‘market socialism’ that ultimately serves imperialism.
So will the Cuban bureaucracy succeed in completing the restoration process before the world revolution destroys the Stalinist/fake Trotskyist barrier to socialist revolution in Latin America and brings a political revolution to Cuba? It depends on whether the Arab revolution deepens and spreads into the rest of Africa, into Europe, Asia and Latin America, where the strangle hold of the Stalinist/Menshevik popular front which ties the workers to imperialism is destroyed, and the international revolution advances to victory. Of course this means first and foremost a program for Political Revolution even at this late stage in Cuba.”
Yet even as we wrote these words, the “strangle hold” of the popular front was proving decisive in allowing the Cuban bureaucracy to transform the class character of the state from a deformed workers state to a capitalist state. While we expected a global struggle that was developing with the Arab Spring against paying for the capitalist crisis to influence the Latin American revolution and ultimately determine the outcome in Cuba, we underestimated the extent to which the downward pressure of the crisis had allowed Chinese imperialism to steal a march on the US and re-colonise Cuba as a semi-colony.
[2] From Workers State to Capitalist State
What we missed in Cuba in April 2011 was the insidious under-the-radar influence of imperialist China’s ‘state-to-state’ deals with Cuba. While we noted all the reforms that introduced the Law of Value (LOV) passed by the 6th Congress these could still be seen as falling short of the rejection of the Plan and a commitment to restoring capitalism. We counted all the trees (e.g. sacking 500,000 state workers, freeing up of self employment, cooperatives with legal inheritance, subcontracting of state services, monetary unity, etc.) but considered that a political revolution responding to a widening global struggle could still reverse this process. What we didn’t see was the ‘wood’ – the overall commitment on the part of the state bureaucracy to restore capitalism.
So almost immediately after the April 6th Congress introduced a number of ‘market reforms’, in June, Cuba signed major new deals with China over oil and gas investments, banking and economic planning, and negotiated the first Five Year Plan of Cuban-Sino Cooperation. It is now obvious that these deals were planned well in advance and signed when Hu Jintao visited in June. We now recognise that the decision to restore capitalism was made at the 6th Congress and that the class character of the Cuban state changed from Workers’ State to Capitalist State. We have no excuse for overlooking this since we had spent three years developing an analysis of China as an emerging imperialist power initially in a political struggle inside the FLTI. We were also preparing a polemic directed at the Spartacists showing that China’s road to restoration was via state capitalism.
This theoretical framework explains the significance of the agreements signed in June 2011 which committed Cuba to collaborate with China to develop along state capitalist lines and to set up high level age joint agencies to implement this development. These agreements marked the decisive turning point in the restoration process when the bureaucratic regime abandoned the stagnating planned economy and embarked consciously on capitalist development. The essential criterion for the change in the class character of the state was the decision of the bureaucracy to no longer defend the Plan and instead defend the Law of Value.
To explain why this determines the point at which the class character of the state changes, we have to show how the state ceases to defend workers property by means of planned prices of production and replaces these with prices of commodities set by the global market. To see how this happened we first we need to explain the Law of Value (LOV), then we need to show that the LOV doesn’t have to manifest itself in the ‘privatisation’ of state property, and that workers property can be converted into capitalist property while remaining state property, as anticipated by Trotsky. This will demonstrate how the Cuban bureaucracy has been able to use the state to restore capitalist property via the Chinese model of state capitalism.
First, what is the Law of Value? The Law of Value states that the value of commodities is equal to the Socially Necessary Labour Time expended in their production.  The LOV existed before capitalism when commodities were traded at roughly their labour cost. With capitalism the LOV became fundamental to production because commodity production was generalised to include the commodity labour-power. The exchange value of commodities was arrived at in the market. Prices responding to supply and demand fluctuated around the value of commodities. To sell, all commodities had a use-value which now included labour power, the unique commodity with a use- value to the capitalist to produce more value than it costs to reproduce i.e. surplus-value. Hence capital could expropriate surplus-value as the source of profits.  This was made possible by capitalists owning the means of production and forcing workers to sell their labour power to lower the price of production of commodities they produce (=wages + raw materials + average profit). 
This is why capitalism has a built-in motor force, the contradiction between the two classes; labour and capital, which constantly struggle over the share of the total value produced. The historical development of capitalism as class struggle is expressed in the laws of motion, the development of the forces of production, the tendency for the rate of exploitation to increase, which lead to periodic crises of falling profits (TRPF), and ultimately crises that increasingly cause massive destruction of the forces of production in depressions and imperialist wars, creating the conditions for socialist revolution.
Marx envisaged that socialism could succeed only if it overcame the destructive legacy of capitalism by developing the forces of production. To do this it must put their control into the hands of the working class to plan production to meet social needs. This means replacing the LOV (which presupposes the global capitalist market) with planned prices based on a valuation of labour not as a commodity but as a social value. In this way the working class determines how labour is distributed in society. How far the Russian revolution and the other countries that followed its model more or less achieved this is debatable. The main point is that these revolutions fell far short of realising socialism. They failed to develop the forces of production and stagnated. Most were forced to open up to the world market and the LOV and capitalist exploitation to stimulate their growth.
Such access to the LOV did not mean that planning was abandoned. That required that the surplus value brought into the planned economy be accumulated in the hands of an exploiting class to restore capitalism. To achieve this, surplus value had to be transferable or inheritable to signify the existence of an exploiting class with an interest in capitalist exploitation. Thus Lenin and Trotsky argued that because the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union did not accumulate personal wealth by this means, workers property remained, and capitalism was not restored. This is the theoretical tradition which we follow. We shall now look at how Lenin and Trotsky envisaged the restoration of capitalism allowing the bureaucracy to become a new bourgeoisie. In particular, because it is China and Cuba that interests us here, how can those who control the state convert state-owned workers property into state-owned capitalist property?
[3] What is State Capitalist Restoration?
The key to understanding restoration in Cuba is that it followed the Chinese path to restoration via state capitalism. For us state capitalism refers only to the capitalist economy where key means of production are highly concentrated in state ownership. Usually these state assets are in the form of state corporations (SOEs) in energy, transport, infrastructure or other essential services. They are owned collectively by the capitalist class since it alone benefits from their existence in providing infrastructure, utilities etc at a price of production in which the states sets a below average ‘profit’ as a subsidy to capital. This is the sense in which it is used by Lenin and Trotsky. When Lenin spoke of the Soviet Union as ‘state capitalist’ he did so to make a polemical point. To disarm those who spoke idealistically of actually existing socialism when it was not even on the horizon, he said that the soviet state resembled ‘state capitalism’ being reliant on the LOV in private agriculture and private industry. In Lenin’s specific sense then, capitalism was the private agriculture and commercial trading, yet the state was a workers state!
On the question of ‘state capitalism’ applied to the Soviet Union Trotsky says:
“To summarize: under state capitalism, in the strict sense of the word, we must understand the management of industrial and other enterprises by the bourgeois state on its own account, or the “regulating” intervention of the bourgeois state into the workings of private capitalist enterprises. By state capitalism “in quotes,” Lenin meant the control of the proletarian state over private capitalist enterprises and relations. Not one of these definitions applies from any side to the present Soviet economy.” 
It is only the first sense in which we apply the term to China and Cuba today. And here we refer to Trotsky’s discussion of the possible course of restoration via ‘state capitalism’. Trotsky writing in 1937 states that the class character of the state is defined by the social relations it defends and that capitalist restoration will have to begin with the nationalised economy:
“Should a bourgeois counterrevolution succeed in the USSR, the new government for a lengthy period would have to base itself upon the nationalized economy.  But what does such a type of temporary conflict between the economy and the state mean? It means a revolution or a counter-revolution. The victory of one class over another signifies that it will reconstruct the economy in the interests of the victors.” 
In other words the class character of the state will change from Workers state to Capitalist state, as the result of a counter-revolution, before it is possible to ‘reconstruct’ a capitalist economy! In the restoration process in the former Soviet Union (and Eastern Europe) this has proven to be the case. This process was relatively rapid and involved an open conflict between an openly pro-imperialist wing of the bureaucracy (Yeltsin and Co) and a more conservative wing of the bureaucracy (Yananev and Co) preferring a slow road in which the CPSU would guide the process. The victory of the openly pro-imperialist faction was a counter-revolution and marked a change in the class character of the state. The process of restoring capitalism then began as the state rapidly dissolved the Soviet Union, banned the CPSU, and destroyed the plan.
In the case of China however, a slower process of restoration by the CCP began in 1978 but only reached the ‘tipping point’ in 1992 at the 14th National Congress when the leadership committed itself to restoration. The new capitalist state then embarked on a process of ‘reconstructing’ the economy using the concentrated power of the nationalised economy. We analyse this process in detail in our recent paper on The Restoration of Capitalism in China. It is clear to us that China’s capitalist restoration vindicates Trotsky’s prediction. And the capitalist counter-revolution in China has become the model for the Cuban counter-revolution.
[4] State Capitalism in Cuba
In the case of Cuba the Catroist/Bolivarian Left is very confused by the restoration process. They have forgotten Trotsky’s prediction in 1937. The Castroist Green Left method is to equate capitalism with private ownership of the means of production. This is because the revolution gained control of the state and nationalised private property. Restoration reverses this process and privatises state property. Therefore so long as the state owns the main sectors of the economy there cannot be restoration. Obviously Cuba is a long way from restoration using this method. In fact the CBL claim the reforms under Raul Castro go hand in hand with the ‘socialist’ revolution in Venezuela. Unlike China under ‘market socialism’ – a concept that disguises the restoration of capitalism – the Castro Bros are held to be genuine socialists combating corruption and resisting the return of capitalism. This method is impressionistic and opportunistic and nothing to do with Marxism as we shall see.
On the other hand, equally impressionistic is the Morenoist view (LIT) that claims restoration is already complete because the state has abandoned the monopoly of foreign trade, the plan, and opened up to private agriculture and small business. The LIT seems to think that since the state has made some market reforms it has fallen short of its blueprint of a Workers’ State. The bureaucracy hand in glove with US imperialism (the LIT ignores China) has smashed the revolution. We could call this the sectarian dogmatic view of restoration. The LIT would have had great difficulty in defending the Soviet Union as a Workers State during the period when Lenin referred to it as ‘state capitalist’ as we explained above.
The key is the commitment of the bureaucracy in using the state to defend the plan, or to replace the plan with the law of value. The CBL opportunists don’t see the Castroist leadership as a bureaucracy so they take at face value its reforms as ‘renewing socialism’. They don’t understand that the bureaucracy has formed a strategic alliance with the Chinese imperialists to convert Cuba into a capitalist client state.
The sectarians on the other hand read into the intentions of the bureaucracy the plan to privatise the key sectors of the economy. But for them the evidence is the inroads of private FDI which as we shall see are relatively insignificant. They do not see the elephant hiding in the wood, the special strategic relationship built between Raul Castro, the army and the Chinese ruling class. While they are looking with contempt at the Castro’s and the expatriate gusanos in Miami, they ignore the looming shadow of imperialist China.
We argue that neither of these faulty methods arrives at the reality. Even the non-Marxist Feinberg of the Brookings Institute writing on FDI in Cuba shows that the experiments in market measures are not sufficient to show the state is sacrificing the plan for the market.  FDI is now in the form of joint ventures and since 2004 Cuba has moved to impose 51% state ownership. The restrictions imposed on FDI do not allow foreign firms to dictate world prices or transmit them into the dual economy. They have to operate within strict price controls. As Feinberg shows, private FDI into Cuba is not free to compete on the basis of international competitiveness.  The main motive for private FDI is the expectation of future windfall profits when the US embargo is lifted. Thus if projected profits do not justify current losses, major multinationals will leave as in the case of Unilever. When forced to renegotiate its contract to cede 51% control of its JV to the state and export 20% of its product at a loss, Unilever abandoned Cuba.
The free trade zones have failed because the terms were not attractive enough for FDI. This is because the state has only relinquished control over foreign trade or agreed to the dollar zone so long as these concessions earn foreign exchange. Micro-enterprises are a full employment measure and based on short-term leases so limit the formation of a new capitalist class.  It appears that the state, driven by crisis has tried to attract FDI, set up export zones, opened up a tourism industry in an attempt to produce exports and obtain foreign exchange. These are not in themselves sufficient evidence that the bureaucracy has committed itself to overturn the plan and impose the global market.
What both opportunist and sectarian approaches to Cuba’s economy do is focus on these relatively minor concessions to FDI and petty capitalism, etc., and ignore the much more fateful state-to-state deals done by the Cuban state – in particular with China. Much more decisive in pressuring Cuba towards capitalist restoration has been the decade of state-to-state deals with China which have converted it into a semi-colony of Chinese imperialism.
“The case of Cuba is instructive, as no other country is so openly condemned by Washington and so publicly praised by Beijing. With bilateral trade exceeding 1.8 billion USD in 2010 (down from a pre-GFC high of 2.3 billion USD in 2008), China is Cuba’s second-largest trading partner,[after Venezuela] and the two countries have pursued state-led cooperation in sectors as diverse as biomedicine, tourism, industrial manufacturing, nickel and oil mining, and oil refining (UN-COMTRADE 2011). The workings of Sino-Cuban initiatives are guarded as state secrets, provoking concerns from external observers about their intentions, capacities, and potential threats to the United States. These apprehensions dovetail with a broader discourse on the negative influence that China may bear on development and democracy in Latin America.” Hearn,157
Both private sector FDI and Cuban expatriate capital is extremely impatient for the US to lift its economic embargo on Cuba. Neither is able to make a sufficient profit that justifies investing in a backward, closed economy where China’s influence is dominant. If the US drops the embargo will it be satisfied with investing in tightly managed export zones while China, having moved into the driver’s seat left vacant by the Soviet Union, is able to exploit Cuba’s best resources, or will it look for a neo-liberal faction in the Cuban bourgeoisie to remove the pro-China faction and push the usual demands of a FTA to create an open economy that can be dominated by the US?
The official US embargo proved unable to break the Cuban regime or create a counter-revolutionary threat to the Catroist regime. Now that China has staged a backdoor capitalist coup, the exile community is split between hardline anti-communists and pragmatists who want the Obama administration to continue relaxing the embargo to allow US trade and capital investment. The émigrés in Miami together with the pressure from small business in the Cuban economy to demand more economic rights (e.g. private property rights of small businesses and cooperatives) and political ‘freedoms’ (i.e. multiparty bourgeois democracy) could provide a base for a neoliberal political party as a Trojan Horse to promote US interests to break China’s grip on Cuba. This would increase the pressure for the state to adopt more market reforms and privatise the profitable sectors of the economy currently dominated by China such as oil, nickel, infrastructure etc.
[5] What’s in it for China?
The Castroist/Bolivarian Left (CBL) has pink rose tinted classes when it comes to China. In the same way as some African regimes like the ANC look to China for ‘win-win’ development deals, the CBL views China as more or less ‘market socialist’ and not interested in profiteering at the expense of the development of the ALBA countries. The ‘win-win’ formula holds that China gets its resources while its clients get economic development. Not true. The ‘winners’ are the Chinese ruling class and its national bourgeois agents in its ‘partner’ states. The losers are the workers and poor peasants in the semi-colonies and China itself. The new bourgeois regime in Cuba is planning to turn workers into a source of cheap labour in collaboration with Chinese imperialism.
We denounce the muddle headedness of the petty bourgeois CBL whose tendencies continue to portray the Castros as revolutionary leaders of a healthy workers state.  Workers of the world need to know that Fidel Castro said the following in introducing the lash of large scale unemployment and in contrast to Marx’s assertion that the goal of communism is to make of work life’s chief want: “Without people feeling the need to work to make a living, sheltered by state regulations that are excessively paternalistic and irrational, we will never stimulate a love for work,” said Castro in April 2010. Since that time and especially with the 6th Congress a joint planning committee of Chinese Capitalists and PCC leaders has supervised the “rationalization” of Cuban industry. With unemployment results you can see on the following chart.
What is not admitted by the CBL is that such ‘win-wins’ are done on the terms of Chinese imperialism following the success of its own capitalist restoration. China demands repayment of its investments/loans etc on terms set by global capitalism. In our investigation of China’s relations with South Africa we asked “Can South Africa develop like China?”
“Let’s look at this prospect. The global crisis and the slump in demand for minerals as well as the hardship facing workers that led to Marikana, may speed up the China connection. China continues to keep the economies of the BRICS steaming along so long as its own economy is still growing rapidly. The current slowdown in China from 8% to maybe 7% is still a raging boom by comparison with Western imperialist states. In this sense China appears to be different from the established imperialist powers in continuing to keep the world economy from slumping into deep depression.

So is Chinese investment an alternative to imperialist super-exploitation? Is China different to the Western Powers? Can it sustain the world economy and in particular the BRICS. Will South Africa be able to attract more trade and investment out of China, and also increase its share of the rent from mineral extraction? And will he Chinese model of development reproduce in SA an increase in added value based on transfer of technology and knowledge?

Deborah Brautigam of China in Africa: The Real Story sees China as different from the European powers, but still expecting a commercial advantage from its investments in Africa. China is not copying European colonisation which sucks out resources and labour power without concern for upstream or downstream development, but can see the benefits in developing Africa after the Chinese model. Not only is China exporting its model to semi-colonies like South Africa but since 2000 and the policy to “Go Out” and membership of WTO, it is demonstrating this process of going up the value stream from cheap labour to high tech in its FDI in SA. This shows that China has used FDI in semi-colonies like South Africa to launch its “Go Global”.”
So far from acting as a boost to ‘socialism’ in the ALBA countries, China has created a sphere of interest in ALBA to base its intervention in Latin America. In all of its economic deals and political agreements, it is seeking to maximise its super-profits from cheap labour and raw materials. Under the impact of the global crisis China is forced to compete with the established imperialist powers to re-divide the world economy. Its special partnership with Cuba is the centrepiece of its Latin American strategy. This is why China has put massive pressure on Cuba to restore capitalism at least since 2004 and dressed to kill as the ‘renewal’ of ‘socialism’. This is how China has provided a ‘socialist’ spin for selling the process of capitalist restoration.
[6] China ‘goes global’ with State Capitalism
Despite the secrecy over the details of its state-to-state deals with Cuba, China’s economic stake clearly dwarfs FDI from Brazil, Spain and Britain. China has taken over from the Soviet Union as the main strategic partner and pushed Cuba down the state capitalist road. As we have seen China must value its loans and investments in Cuba in terms of international prices (the LOV) as it operates in the global capitalist economy. It will always seek deals that allow it preferential prices (i.e. super-profits or monopoly rent) over its rivals calculated over a longer period than private capitalist corporations. This means that it expects to get returns at least on a par with its imperialist rivals, and its national bourgeois partners get their small share of the profits, extracted from its state-to-state deals. This is as true of Cuba as the numerous other client states where ‘nationalist populist’ governments look to China for better deals than those of its imperialist rivals.
As Hearn points out, China kept the global economy from collapsing during the GFC and added 25% of global output between 2006 and 2011. On the strength of its state capitalist development model it has influenced the IMF and the UN to accept a greater role for the state in promoting growth. It has used its prominent role in G20 and BRICS to challenge the US dominated market-driven growth model based on ripping out resources for short term super-profits, and gain support for its state driven growth model where China factors in future long-term super-profits by investing in ‘developing’ its economic partners.
China’s economic stake in Cuba reflects this approach to economic ‘development’. It involves state-to-state agreements and a high level political collaboration to steer this development. But this is not a partnership of equals but between the fast rising No 2 global imperialist power and a tiny semi-colony. ‘Development’ actually means the extraction of super-profits for China. Typically when the projected profits do not materialise, China quickly re-adjusts its ‘development’ plans. We can illustrate this point by looking at the $5 billion deal to expand the oil refinery at Cienfuegos. One of the deals signed in 2011 was for China to take over from Venezuela the task of expanding the refinery in the expectation that exploratory deep sea drilling in the North Cuba Basin would strike big oil fields and bring a huge oil boom to Cuba’s economy.  Since three major attempts to find oil have failed China has not come up with the money forcing Cuba to look elsewhere to fund the refinery. When it comes to the balance sheet there is nothing ‘socialist’ about China’s imperialism.
[7] China as Cuba’s IMF?
Our method allows us to critique the Castro-Bolivarian Left who claim Raul Castro is ‘renewing’ socialism, and at the other extreme, currents like the LIT who claim Cuba is already capitalist because of MNCs in the dollar zone are paying millions into the foreign bank accounts of a new bourgeoisie. Neither sees state capitalism as the route to restoration. So while the Cuban state is using the plan to regulate and quarantine the LOV built into the deals with private FDI, putting strict limits on its NEP-type petty capitalist agriculture, and allowing informal capital into the peso sector from expatriate Cubans, it is the state-to-state deals with China going under the radar that has re-introduced the LOV and allowed the Cuban state to restore capitalism.
We have to turn to the academic literature to find serious documentation of the influence China has exerted on Cuba, and to show how this has made Cuba a semi-colony of China. Let’s look at China’s influence in Cuba and show how this has brought about an historic defeat of the revolution in that country that can only be reversed by a socialist revolution in the whole of Latin America.
According to Hearn China and Cuba are on a “Long march to the market”:
State-to-state cooperation has focused on building critical infrastructure as a basis for Cuban economic growth. Bilateral projects have targeted the upgrading of Cuban manufacturing, the gradual opening of markets, the coordination of industrial sectors, and more recently the controlled introduction of private entrepreneurship. As Chinese enterprises become increasingly comfortable with the rules of market exchange, Cuba’s slow implementation of reforms has generated bilateral tensions. However, since Raúl Castro replaced his brother as Cuba’s president, the pace of change has quickened, and China’s domestic experience with economic reform has assumed growing relevance for the island… China’s incremental approach to market expansion in Cuba is one component of a broader strategy of state-guided development that has proven successful across East Asia (Hira 2007: 87-96). A related component is the linkage of distinct industrial sectors into an integrated system, a process that analysts argue has given the Chinese government an unusual degree of control over international production chains (Ellis 2005)”
China’s growing stake in Cuba prepared the ground for the 2011 reforms:
“Effective implementation of the 2011 reforms will require a phased and coordinated approach, and in this regard China can provide some useful lessons. Among the insights Cuba has derived from China – with varying degrees of attentiveness – are the gradual sequencing of reforms under the management of a state-appointed reform commission (Laverty 2011:65; Lopez-Levy 2011b: 9, 2011c: 43-44), the adaptation of socialist principles to national conditions (Mao et al. 2011: 199), the military management of commercial activities (Klepak 2010), the attraction of investment from emigrants (Ratliff 2004: 21-22), and the testing of liberalisation in target territories prior to wider implementation (Heilmann 2008)” Hearn, ibid.
Concluding this point, Hearn as a bourgeois academic recognises the inevitability of the ‘Long March to the Market’. However what he can’t see as he doesn’t have a Marxist method is that the class character or the Cuban state has to change to carry through this long march. At some point the Cuban state ceases to defend the workers’ plan (albeit deformed and imposed top down by the bureaucracy) and commits to restoring capitalism. Hearn’s analysis backs up our view that the change in the class character of the state came in 2011 with the 6th Congress and the first Five Year joint plan signed between China and Cuba:
In November 2010, president of the Cuban National Assembly Ricardo Alarcón visited Beijing and officially recognised the relevance of China’s economic evolution to Cuba’s development. Raúl Castro had already expressed this sentiment during his visits in 1997 and 2005, which focused on labour market reform and the creation of hybrid state–market economic structures. In China’s experience, particularly since joining the World Trade Organization, these transformations were achieved through a blend of state oversight and privatisation, an approach that Chinese officials now routinely recommend to Cuba. When Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping and CNPC President Jiang Jiemin visited Havana in June 2011, they not only signed memorandums of understanding on oil and gas investments, but also discussed banking and economic planning. According to Feinberg, the Chinese government would like to see Cuba quicken the pace of reform, and has offered to help lay the groundwork: “Cuba”, said a Chinese official, “needs assistance in making five-year plans” (quoted in Feinberg 2011: 31-32). As Feinberg notes, “Some observers opine, albeit with some exaggeration, that China has become Cuba’s IMF!” (Feinberg 2011: 42).” Hearn, ibid [our emphasis]
If we sum up the cumulative state-to-state deals between China and Cuba (and add the indirect influence of Venezuela’s subsidised oil and JVs with Cuba) it’s obvious that Cuba is as dependent on China today as it was on the Soviet Union before its collapse in 1992. But more important, China has actively steered Cuba towards re-entering the global capitalist economy as its flagship semi-colony in Latin America, setting up a confrontation with the US in its traditional ‘backyard’. This is like waving a red flag in the face of the US and the hostile ex-patriot gusanos in Miami. No doubt in their minds, despite the massive base at Guantanamo, in Cuba the ‘Monroe Doctrine’ is now checkmated by the ‘Mao Doctrine’. They will have seen the death of Chavez as a significant turning point in US fortunes in Cuba and in Latin America. Are we about to witness a revival of US imperialism re-asserting its hegemony over Latin America?
[8] Chavez is Dead: long live Chavismo?

Now that Chavez is dead will Maduro be capable of holding the line? Will he balance, repress, or win further concessions from US imperialism? What is not understood by the pro-Chavista left is that Chavismo rhetorically fights US imperialism but Maduro can only continue to offer concessions to the masses by falling into the arms of Chinese imperialism. Most of the Latin American self-proclaimed Trotskyists are so fixated on US imperialism they don’t see China as a threat. Most (e.g. LIT, FT-CI) think China is still a Degenerate Workers State. Some (FLTI) see China as a capitalist semi-colony of the US. . So the FLTI position which claims that Maduro and Capriles are in a deal with Obama to keep the lid on the popular front with Obama is blind to the elephant in the wood – China. Chavismo looks to China as its saviour without realising that this is a pact with the ‘red’ devil.
We re-assert what we said in the Chavez’ Death article, that the popular front that is most dangerous in Latin America is the one with China, not the US. And this is the key to restoration in Cuba. Since 2004 with the first visit of the Hu Jintao to the region, Venezuela and Cuba have led an alliance (ALBA) as the two main regimes in a Latin American popular front with China.  Of course Chavez promoted this as an alliance with ‘socialist’ China. During these years China built up special relationships with both countries that grew out of China’s ‘Go Out’ policy. This alliance was formed as an alternative to US alliances in Latin America (FTAA, etc) As with China’s ventures in other continents the basis of these special relationships were promoted by all parties as ‘win-win’ deals and the quid pro quo was recognising Taiwan, Gaddafi and Al Assad!
Chavez death will not alter China’s interests in ALBA.  China will continue to make new loans just as it expects its existing loans to be paid off. This may allow the Bolivarian movement to make further concessions to workers. Green Left seems to think so with the new labour laws cutting hours, increasing maternity leave, etc. coming into effect.
Is this a sign that China is subsidising the Bolivarian ‘socialist’ bloc and Cuba’s ‘socialist renewal’? We don’t think so, but the CBL by promoting the Bolivarian bloc will try to keep it alive to suppress the socialist revolution in all the ALBA countries. In Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador it will continue to give left cover to the popular front regimes. In Cuba it will help disguise the underlying relationship with China that has allowed Cuba to restore capitalism, and hold back the struggle to expose and overthrow the new Cuban bourgeoisie, create workers soviets and a workers plan for the first time, opening the road to socialist revolution in all the Americas.
[9] Workers international action to smash the Castroist and Bolivarian popular fronts
A growing global antagonism between the US and China may turn Cuba into a flashpoint in Latin America dragging workers into local wars. This will not be isolated to Cuba but rather will involve all the ALBA states for the obvious reason that they form a political bloc with China. If the US and China go head to head in Latin America this will drag workers who are trapped in the CBL popular front with China to defend China against the US in any local or regional wars. The CBL claim to be ‘Trotskyists’ but all act as the servants of the popular fronts with US or Chinese imperialism.  The danger is that this popular front with China masquerading as ‘market socialism’ would in any conflict between the US and China prevent workers from organising independently of both US and Chinese imperialism. The national bourgeoisies, including the Boli bourgeoisie, and now the Cuban bourgeoisie, will pose as ‘progressive’ on the side of China against the US. We have to have a clear program for socialist revolution that is independent of both US and Chinese imperialism.  Only the independent class organisation of the working class in all the ALBA countries has any prospect for defeating the national bourgeoisies that have already shown that their class interests are with Chinese imperialism and so turn their guns on the workers.
In the wider ALBA bloc the popular front is with both US and Chinese imperialisms. But the US front is not popular among workers and peasants. In any US/China conflict the CBL will side with China. China will be seen as a victim of US global oppression. For those who see China as ‘market socialist’ this will be a clear political alliance. For those who acknowledge China is capitalist, it will be a military bloc in defence of China against the US. Few, if any, in Latin America understand that China is imperialist and that the Bolivarian bloc with China is an international popular front tying the hands of workers to make them submit to the main challenger to US hegemony.
We can see this in the core Alba countries, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador. The CBL is in popular fronts with bourgeois Bonapartist regimes where their ‘populism’ is based on ‘nationalising’ US investments, and at the same time opening up to Chinese state-to-state deals. Thus the left calls for repudiating the external debt and expropriating US property but not for the end to ‘win-win’ deals with China.  Its anti-imperialism is one-eyed. So long as populism is funded by China, the working class is trapped in a new more insidious popular front, painted as one that bankrolls the ALBA bloc to ‘develop’ along the road of the “Andean Capitalism” of Alvaro Garcia Linera or the “21st century socialism” of Hugo Chavez, and now the ‘renewed’ socialism of the Castros. Socialist revolution in the ALBA countries means breaking with both the Castroist bourgeoisie and the Bolivarian bourgeoisie and mobilising workers and poor peasant alliances for the seizure of state power and the founding of Workers’ and Peasants’ Governments.
[10] Cuba: for socialist revolution!
The CBL acts as the left cover of the popular front with China claiming that Cuba is a ‘socialist state’ in an alliance with the Bolivarian revolution and Chinese revolution. On the far left however, are the self-proclaimed Trotskyist groups who provide cover for the CBL left. As we have argued above by failing to understand the role that Chinese imperialism plays in the world and in particular, Latin America, they prevent workers from breaking with the Bolivarian popular front with China and disarm them in the front of inter-imperialist wars. In April 2011 we called for a hybrid program that combined the tasks of a political and social revolution since we did not then believe that the class character of the state had changed:
“As the capitalist restoration has been underway for some time and has now, with the firing of a half million workers, [it] has gathered speed and force, increasingly the transitional demands of the program for socialist revolution are objectively called for. As the Castroist bureaucracy goes about transforming itself into a Chinese-model ‘red’ bourgeoisie, the Cuban working class must see in itself its own best hope for reversing this historic defeat by overthrowing the usurpers of the workers’ political power and ‘expropriating the expropriators’ of the social wealth, of the labor of the revolutionary generations. Today combined tasks of the political revolution (against the bureaucracy) and social revolution (to defend social property, seize capitalist property, and put it under workers’ control) are on the agenda. To accomplish these tasks moreover, they need more than hope; they need a vanguard internationalist workers party of their own making, a new International, a World Party of Socialism, based on the 1938 Transitional Program, one which never subordinates their well being or future to alien class interests.
Today we now believe that the decisive change in the class character of the state took place at the 6th Congress which took the decision to follow the logic of restoration to completion. This decision was immediately reflected in further decisions taken by the Cuban State to enter a ‘strategic alliance’ with imperialist China. We now have to amend our program recognising that from that point political revolution was no longer sufficient in Cuba. A political revolution overthrows the bureaucracy without smashing the state. Workers property still exists despite the dictatorship of the bureaucracy. By removing the bureaucracy workers property is put under workers control and a new workers plan based on workers councils is the foundation of a healthy workers state.  Now that the Cuban state is committed to abolishing the plan and guarding state capitalist property as a new bourgeoisie, we must not only overthrow the new bourgeoisie but smash the state that defends capitalist property. Our demands must be those that are necessary to complete that historic task in Cuba and in all Latin America.
For Workers Democracy!
The democratic rights of workers have been sacrificed as the Castroist bureaucracy usurped state power from the workers substituting fake organs of popular power covered by the personality cults of Che and Fidel. The rights of socialist opposition parties have been denied while opposition inside the PCC is stifled.  The CBL, Stalinists, neo-Stalinists, Barnesites, Fraserites and Mandelista’s alike have for decades suppressed/abandoned the fight for democracy in Cuba for fear of being lumped with the Gusanos and counter-revolution.  What they did not tell you was that the lack of democracy within the PCC and the popular organizations, the constraining role of the bureaucracy would become incapable of defending and advancing the revolution and would become itself the agent of counter-revolution. What they were hiding and what these fake Trotskyists have to show is when did the Cuban workers ever vote to create the privileges the Party leadership and bureaucracy enjoyed?  When did the workers approve the agency of the separate currency paid to bureaucrats?  When did the workers approve separate shopping privileges for the bureaucracy and Party elite?  Who gets to play in the Maseratis and ride in the limousines?
The limits to workers democracy which long protected the privileged bureaucracy and the party leadership from exposure and challenge now serves to protect the restoration process and the subjugation of the workers to the LOV and the ‘development’ of Cuba into a semi-colony of the Chinese capitalist class.  Therefore the battle to improve the workers lives begins with the fight to restore the social wage and the inseparable fight for democratic freedoms of expression, assembly, the press and the independent self organization of the workers as they see fit.
  • For the right to freedom of expression, assembly, and the media!
  • For a Free Press for the working class! 
  • Free all political prisoners! For a Workers Court to penalise corruption!
  • Throw the bureaucracy and new bourgeoisie out of the PCC!
  • For the right of all anti-restorationist tendencies to form parties!
  • For the formation of democratic Workers, poor Farmers and Soldiers councils!
  • For an emergency Congress of Revolutionary Councils to make an Emergency Plan!
  • Disband the State army and Police and for the formation of a Workers’ Militia!
  • For a Workers’ and poor Farmers’ Government based on the Revolutionary Councils!

 For the Socialist Plan!

The task of revolutionaries in the DWS was to defend against counter-revolution, resist bureaucratic privileges and growth of bourgeois consumption appetites and the consciousness that goes with it. These appetites are the sea bed of capitalist restoration.  The collapse of the Soviet Union left the Castroist bureaucracy with a massive cut in their privileges. Venezuelan oil proved a stopgap but the bureaucracy found in China a new source of privilege, this time not as a bureaucracy but as a new Castroist bourgeoisie. When the bureaucrats put their own desires first this led directly to the destruction of the monopoly of foreign trade, first illegal and then with open private business; the circumvention of the plan and later the abandonment of the plan via its conversion into its opposite the 5 year Cuba-Chinese Cooperation Plan. To do this the party leadership had to refashion itself as a bourgeoisie-in-fact and further separate its decision making further away from the eyes of the masses into a high-level state institution to implement China’s imperialist plan for Cuba. The task of revolutionaries today is to fight for a Workers Government to expropriate the workers property that has been converted to capitalist property and create an Emergency Socialist Plan!

  • Jobs for All! All unemployed and self-employed provided with productive work! Reward necessary labour with a living wage! Down with the labour market!
  • For independent trades unions and workplace councils!
  • For Wage and Price committees that report to workers councils! For a sliding scale of wages that stops inflation of wages and prices to pay for the capitalist crisis!
  • Open the Books of the State, the SEOs and all Joint Ventures!
  • For an Emergency Socialist Plan!
  • Expropriate imperialist property and the property of the Cuban bourgeoisie!
  • A single State Bank under council control!
  • For the socialisation of private land! State aid to farmers’ cooperatives and collectives!
  • For the monopoly of Foreign Trade!

For Revolutionary Foreign Policy!

As a Deformed Workers State, Cuba’s foreign policy was Stalinist so that while workers property was an inspiration and support for the LA revolution, its Stalinist regime locked the working classes on the sub-continent into popular fronts which suppressed the LA revolution. Thus under the Castroist regime Cuba in Latin America backed populist regimes against arming the workers (Chile ‘73, Central America ‘80s). Today the bourgeois regime in Cuba and its CBL fake left cover acts as an agent of US and Chinese imperialism in CEPAC and ALBA to make the Latin American working class and poor farmers pay for the global capitalist crisis, and drawing them into imperialist wars. A new Cuban Revolution is necessary to overthrow the regime that provides the left cover for the popular front with China, strangling the workers revolution. A Revolutionary Cuba will lead the Latin American revolution by the example of its revolutionary foreign policy. It will also impel the US and Chinese revolutions as workers refuse to go to war and turn their guns on their respective imperialist ruling classes. For Cuban revolutionaries this means the export of revolution by any means necessary. For example, instead of providing cover for the Bolivarian popular front with China, it will expose this front and break from it by setting the example of repudiating imperialism and expropriating its property. Most important, the new Cuban Bolshevik/Leninist Party and its revolutionary program will inspire the world’s workers in the same way the Bolsheviks inspired them in 1917 with the real prospect of socialist revolution today. It will lead by example to build a new revolutionary international, a new World Party of Revolution, based on the program of the 4th international of 1938 and incorporating the revolutionary tradition of the Communist movement!

  • Open the books to all secret treaties! Repudiate all treaties with imperialist powers!
  • Down with China’s imperialist agreements to plunder Cuba!
  • Down with the Castroist foreign policy of support for bourgeois regimes! For Revolutionary Cuban aid to revolutionary movements in the Bolivarian states!
  • Down with the Bolivarian bourgeoisies in the ALBA countries who tie the workers to the popular front with China!
  • Down with the fake Trotskyists and their ‘anti-imperialist united fronts’ that subordinate the workers and oppressed masses to imperialist China!  
  • For socialist revolution and Workers’ and Poor Peasants Governments in Latin America!
  • For a United Socialist States of all the Americas!
  • For a New World Party of Socialist Revolution!

 Liaison Committee of Communists, June 30, 2013.

Beware Falling BRICS: South Africa and China
Carmela Mesa-Lago, 2005 The Cuban Economy Today: Salvation or Damnation,d.aGc
China, Cuba sign host of cooperation deals.
China: FLTI Minority Report on the Current World Situation.
China Group’s Cuban Oil Deal
China is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraqi Oil boom.
China’s Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean.  Nov 2008
Chinese Technology Companies in Cuba.
China to assist Cuba in adopting Digital TV
Cuba, China to strengthen economic, trade ties.
Cuba for Sale
Cuba hopes to keep Nickel output above 60,000 t
Cuba seeks New Socialist Model
Cuba Seeks Closer Ties with Beijing
Cuban Oil Exploration: the Revolution Digs Deep
Cuban Oil hopes Sputter as Russians give up for now on well
Cuba’s Oil Quest to continues, despite deepwater disappointment
Feinberg, Richard. (2012) “The New Cuban Economy: What Roles for Foreign Investment”
Hearn, Adrian H. (2012), ‘China, Global Governance and the Future of Cub’, in: Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 41, 1, 155-179.
Humanist Workers for Socialism Capitalist Restoration in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Good News for Cuba, the Chinese are Coming
How the Chinese are helping to transform Cuba, again.
Hugo Chavez’ Death and the way forward for Venezuelan Socialism
IWL-FI. Cuba: the effects of capitalism return.
The Restoration of Capitalism in China: A Marxist critique of the process of the CCP’s counter-revolution.
Marc Cameron
Pressure building for US to remove Cuba from Terror Sponsor List.
The Bolivarian Process after Chavez
The Danger of Dependence: Cuba’s Foreign Policy after Chavez.
The Expanding Chinese Footprint in Latin America
The Restoration of Capitalism in China: A Marxist analysis.
Trotsky, Leon (1933) The Class Nature of the Soviet State.
Trotsky, Leon, (1936) The Revolution Betrayed. Chapter 9
US-Cuba Relations. Council on Foreign Relations.
Venezuela: New Labour Law part of “transition to socialism”.
Why has China snubbed Cuba and Venezuela?

Written by raved

July 16, 2013 at 11:07 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Rebooting Lenin

with 5 comments

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”  Marx and Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party.


Lenin or Kautsky?

Today we are facing a massive retreat from Leninism on the left. Under attack from the global crisis the working class and the oppressed are moving to the left in opposing its effects – austerity, ‘precarity’, mass unemployment and political repression – and launching Arab Springs, riots, occupations and armed struggles against bourgeois dictators.  The masses are hungry for ideas on how to challenge and overcome capitalism. Yet there is no revolutionary mass party to turn to. The ostensible revolutionary left moves to offer this leadership. However this left is afraid to be identified with what is perceived as a failure of 20th century socialism and communism. It runs a mile from the ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’. To appease the radicalised masses most of the left is re-inventing its Marxism along the lines of the Chavista 21st century socialism, or the broad Marxist party of the 2nd International ‘democratic socialism’ associated with Karl Kautsky. It either renounces Bolshevism as an historic dead-end, or attempts to make the Bolsheviks and Lenin in particular, no more than Russian Kautskys.  Trotsky is also a target because he renounced his conciliation with the Mensheviks and Kautsky to join Lenin and the Bolsheviks in 1917. Trotsky stands or falls with Lenin.

As we will see with bourgeois professors professing Marxism, the WSJ Roubini interview, TIME magazine cover story ‘Rethinking Marx’ , Hugo Chavez painted as ‘Marxist’ with links to Cuba and China, the left has no credibility unless its stakes a claim to the Marx franchise. So is this Marx with or without Lenin? That is the question. How do we know? Who was the real Lenin? Was he the heir of Marx and a proponent of fusing theory and practice, or was he a renegade from ‘authentic’ Marxism rather than the ‘renegade Kautsky’?  Was the Marxist party a vanguard party in Marx’s sense of not being ‘separated from the working class’?  Was the ‘democratic centralism’ Lenin practiced democratic or was it a precursor to Stalin’s dictatorship. Was Lenin responsible for the degeneration of today’s political sects and their isolation from the masses? It sounds confusing but it’s not really. We don’t have to ‘rediscover’ or ‘reload’ Lenin, his history is written by the Bolshevik Revolution.

Without the Bolsheviks and their undisputed leader Lenin, there would have been no Russian revolution so the left as we know it today would not exist. The history of the 20th century would be very different. Marxism would not have been kept alive in the 20th century and remain a powerful class ideology today. There would be no Marx revival, symbolic or real. But because the Bolsheviks and Lenin did exist they and he will continue to inspire the masses today in the belief that socialist revolution is not only possible but necessary.  If we do not defeat the all out attack on Lenin and Bolshevism, reactionaries ranging from centrists who claim to be Marxists (the new batch of Mensheviks) to reformists and anarchists, in the name of ‘democracy’, horizontalism, of ‘not taking power’, and so on, will lead new layers or revolutionaries back into the swamp of reformism, reaction and climate catastrophe. Against all anti-Leninists our task is to Reboot Lenin. This means restoring Lenin as the leading champion of Marx (and Engels) in the 20th century.

For Marx Program came first

“The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.” Manifesto of the Communist Party

The Communist Manifesto competed in the workers movement of its time with the rival programs of the Bakuninists, Proudhonists and the Blanquists. For Marx the program was a fusion of scientific theory and socialist practice. Marx’s critique of capitalism revealed its laws of development and provided a programmatic guide to the development of the proletariat as the revolutionary class.   Marx was almost alone as the drafter of Communist program and of developing that program on the basis of class struggle. In his 18th Brumaire of Louise Bonaparte written 4 years after the Manifesto, Marx revealed the class interests of the bourgeoisie which despite its factions united to maintain its class rule by concentrating state power in the figure of a Bonapartist dictator.  But as the Bonaparte personified state power as ‘above classes’, he also represented its fallibility, as the state became ripe for ‘smashing’ and replacement by a proletarian state –the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”.

This development of the Marxist program was based on Marx’s observations derived from his theory of the class nature of the state as the state of the ruling class. But as a guide to revolutionary practice it had to be tested in the class struggle with the active collaboration of the members of the party. Unless the Marxist program won the support of a majority of politically active workers there could be no revolution. Its first major test came with the Paris Commune of 1871.

Marx wrote later in a Letter to Krugelmann during the days of the Paris Commune:

If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire you will find that I say that the next attempt of the French revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is essential for every real people’s revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting. What elasticity, what historical initiative, what a capacity for sacrifice in these Parisians! After six months of hunger and ruin, caused rather by internal treachery than by the external enemy, they rise, beneath Prussian bayonets, as if there had never been a war between France and Germany and the enemy were not at the gates of Paris. History has no like example of a like greatness [Our emphasis]

Marx had written 20 years earlier at the conclusion of the 18th Brumaire “…when the imperial mantle finally falls on the shoulders of Louis Bonaparte, the bronze statue Napoleon will crash from the top of the Vendome Column”. This was now put into practice by the Communards as they took steps to ‘smash the state’.

As Engels puts it:

From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment.

Engels describes this process as the “shattering of former state power and its replacement by a new really democratic state”. (Engels, Introduction to The Civil War in France.)

The Commune was a watershed that tested the Marxist program in the throes of civil war and proved that the smashing of the state and its replacement by a workers state was necessary to complete the proletarian revolution, and to defend it from the bourgeois counter-revolution. The failure to smash the state would inevitably mean defeat. The program proved its superiority in practice over the Proudhonists, Blanquists, and the Anarchists in front of the world working class. All had a program that would lead to defeat. The Proudhonists had no conception of organising the proletariat as a class to smash the state and take power. The Blanquists organised as a conspiratorial elite separate from the proletariat. The Anarchists thought that capitalist exploitation derived from its state power and once the state was smashed the proletariat did not need a state to defend its class rule. (Engels, Introduction to  The Civil War in France)

Marx found two weaknesses in the Commune in its failure to implement the Dictatorship of the Proletariat fully. Despite forming a popular militia, it failed to march on Versailles to take advantage of the enemy retreat.  “They did not want to start a civil war, as if that mischievous abortion Thiers had not already started a civil war with his attempt to disarm Paris!”  .“The Central Committee surrendered its power” to the Commune too soon. [Letter to Krugelman].

In The Civil War in France Marx explains that the Central Committee (made up of a Blanquist majority and Proudhonist minority) was not prepared for an insurrection and tried to compromise with the bourgeois regime. It lacked a firm Marxist leadership and did not understand the necessity to take power.  That is why it failed to march on Versailles.

Lenin writing on the Commune comes to the same conclusion – the absence of a Marxist party in the leadership meant the reformists prevailed:

But two mistakes destroyed the fruits of the splendid victory. The proletariat stopped half-way: instead of setting about “expropriating the expropriators”, it allowed itself to be led astray by dreams of establishing a higher justice in the country united by a common national task; such institutions as the banks, for example, were not taken over, and Proudhonist theories about a “just exchange”, etc., still prevailed among the socialists. The second mistake was excessive magnanimity on the part of the proletariat: instead of destroying its enemies it sought to exert moral influence on them; it underestimated the significance of direct military operations in civil war, and instead of launching a resolute offensive against Versailles that would have crowned its victory in Paris, it tarried and gave the Versailles government time to gather the dark forces and prepare for the blood-soaked week of May. [Our emphasis]

Even in defeat the Commune proved the fundamental correctness of the Marxist program; only the working class organised by a Marxist vanguard was capable of smashing the state and introducing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (the “really new democratic state”).

20 years later in his Introduction to The Civil War in France, referring to the ‘opportunism’ trend in the 2nd International, Engels concluded:

Of late, the Social Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. [Our emphasis]

Though the Marxist program was proven correct in by the Commune, the International Workingmen’s Association (the ‘First International’) did not survive long. In the ebb in the class struggle that followed, two Marxist tendencies emerged both drawing on the Paris Commune, one to advance to revolution and the other to retreat to reformism. In the Second International the revolutionary wing came to be associated with Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg. The reformist wing was associated with Bernstein and Kautsky.  Both trace their Marxist credentials back to the Commune and the revised Communist Manifesto. (Karl Korsch, Introduction to the Critique of the Gotha Program)

Lenin and Trotsky: Kautsky and the Paris Commune 

It is no accident that both Lenin and Trotsky went back to the Paris Commune and Marx and Engels for guidance during and after the Bolshevik seizure of power. Lenin did so to get to the roots of the Kautsky’s ‘centrism’ and betrayal of revolution in Russia and Germany. Trotsky did so during the height of the civil war in response to Kautsky’s attack on the ‘Red Terror’. They both traced the ultimate split in the Marxist movement over the question of the proletariat’s ‘authority’ to impose a Dictatorship of the Proletariat back to the Paris Commune.

Engels writing in the immediate aftermath of the Commune’s defeat in 1873 put his finger on the fear that held back the proto-Mensheviks from the military seizure of power:

Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part of the population by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which it arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?  [On Authority]

Both Lenin and Trotsky follow Marx and Engels’ view that the leaders of the Communards made “too little use of that authority” and “stopped halfway” (Lenin’s phrase) because they lacked a Marxist leadership and were still influenced by petty bourgeois socialism (Proudhon’s reforms, Blanqui’s adventurism) and Bakunin’s petty bourgeois hostility to the proletarian dictatorship. They shared the view that conditions were not ripe for revolution, but that once the armed workers were forced to defend Paris from the Prussian and French armies, it was necessary to pursue the civil war to the end. They agreed with Marx and Engels that the failure to do this was due to the absence of Marxist majority in the Central Committee of the National Guard.

In drafting The State and Revolution, Lenin traces Kautsky’s break from the Marxist program back to the Commune. While Marx and Engels amended the Manifesto to incorporate the “smashing of the state” and the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, Kautsky is opposed the “destruction of state power” and instead speaks of “shifting the balance of forces within state power”.

Lenin exclaims:

This is a complete wreck of Marxism!!  All the lessons and teachings of Marx and Engels of 1852-1891 are forgotten and distorted. “The military-bureaucratic state machine must be smashed”, Marx and Engels taught. Not a word about this. The philistine utopia of reform struggle is substituted for the dictatorship of the proletariat. [Lenin, Marxism on the State: preparatory Material for the book The State and Revolution. 78 [Not online]

Lenin goes on to point out that the old bourgeois state has to be replaced by a new proletarian state so that the proletariat as a class can “suppress the bourgeoisie and crush their resistance.” While the Commune immediately took on the form of a proletarian state by replacing the standing army with armed workers, it could not complete its task of workers democracy (in which all officials were elective, responsible and revocable) because it failed to crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie. The Central Committee feared imposing the ‘terror’ of their class authority on the class enemy. It sought ‘compromise’ instead. As Trotsky found in Kautsky’s writings on the Commune, he agreed with the Central Committee!

Trotsky, onboard his military train in 1921 replying to Kautsky’s attack on Red Terror [the Red Army putting down counter-revolution ruthlessly], found Kautsky’s fear of the ‘authority’ of the proletarian dictatorship in Russia during the Civil War was already rooted in his fear of the ‘Red terror’ of the Civil War in France.  Kautsky could easily agree with Marx that in 1871 the revolution was premature because the conditions were not ripe and the workers unprepared. Yet when facing an actual civil war, instead of following Marx and Engels into battle to defeat the non-Marxist leadership and impose a strong central military command, Kautsky would have sided with the ‘compromisers’ who hoped to do a deal with Thiers by holding an election to make the Commune ‘legal’!

As Trotsky argues, Kautsky put the ‘democracy’ of the Commune ahead of the Central Committee’s military campaign to defeat the National Assembly:

In supporting the democracy of the Commune, and at the same time accusing it of an insufficiently decisive note in its attitude to Versailles, Kautsky does not understand that the Communal elections, carried out with the ambiguous help of the “lawful” mayors and deputies, reflected the hope of a peaceful agreement with Versailles. This is the whole point. The leaders were anxious for a compromise, not for a struggle. The masses had not yet outlived their illusions.

Nor had Kautsky , whose pacifist confusion would have done nothing to help smash those illusions. Trotsky ‘gets’ Kautsky:

When one considered the execution of counter-revolutionary generals as an indelible “crime”, one could not develop energy in pursuing troops who were under the direction of counter-revolutionary generals. [The Paris Commune and Soviet Russia],

In other words Kautsky was already a ‘centrist’. He quoted Marx in theory but then drew reformist practical conclusions. He put bourgeois democracy ahead of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, because the “workers were not prepared”. His centrism was to go unchallenged for decades by Engels and others in the 2nd International though Engels selected Bebel in his place as literary executor of Marx and Engels after the latter’s death.

Gotha Program abandons Marxist program

Four years after the defeat of the heroic C0mmunards which put the Marxist program to its first test in a revolutionary situation, Marx was forced to come to the defence of the Communist Manifesto in his Critique of the Gotha program in 1875.  Having dispensed with the Proudhonists who rapidly declined, and split with Bakunin in 1873, Marx was now facing a split with the German ‘Marxists’ the Eisenarchers, who at the unity congress with the Lassalleans turn out to be more followers of Lassalle than Marx.  Marx argued that the resulting United Workers Party of Germany abandoned the “Communist” program for that of Lassalle which ignored social relations, surplus-value, internationalism, and the class nature of the state, and “returned” to a reformist view of the German state redistributing ‘aid’ to workers on the basis of ‘equal right’. It was an “extremely disorganized, confused, fragmented, illogical and disreputable Programme”, and had it been perceived as such by the enemies of the proletariat, Marx and Engels stated they would have been forced to dissociate themselves from it. (cited in Korsch, Introduction to the Critique of the Gotha Program)

Marx writes in the Critique:

Since Lassalle’s death, there has asserted itself in our party the scientific understanding that wages are not what they appear to be — namely, the value, or price, of labor—but only a masked form for the value, or price, of labor power… And after this understanding has gained more and more ground in our party, some return to Lassalle’s dogma although they must have known that Lassalle did not know what wages were, but, following in the wake of the bourgeois economists, took the appearance for the essence of the matter. [Our emphasis]

Marx reveals here that against his own dialectic science, Lassalle’s theory is pre-Marxist ideology going back to Malthus and Ricardo.  Wages are the price of labor (not labor power) so the basis of exploitation is the underpaying of the exchange value of labor. This is the ‘appearance’ since the ‘essence’ of capitalist social relations of production ‘appear’ (are inverted) as relations of exchange. If exploitation occurs by paying labor less than its value, then it can be rectified by ‘equalising exchange’ through state aid. However, Marx had already proven scientifically that this cannot be the case in Capital, and more popularly in Wages, Prices and Profits. Exploitation occurs when the commodity labor power is bought at its value, and yet because it is the only commodity with a use value that can produce more than its own value, the capitalist appropriates a ‘surplus-value’. Hence the state cannot become the basis of reforms that guarantee the “undiminished proceeds of labour” by means of a “fair distribution” of income based on an ideal of “equal right”. It is necessary to overthrow the state and expropriate the expropriators!

Thus, Marx makes clear that the Gotha Program is a retreat from his Marxism to the petty bourgeois reformist utopia of a ‘vulgar socialism’:

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of non-workers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again? [Our emphasis]

Lenin recognised that Marx’ Critique was a powerful analysis that developed the program of the Communist Manifesto on the transition from capitalism to communism. Not only did he critique Lassalleanism as a vulgar socialism tied to the German capitalist state, he showed how the capitalist state must be overthrown and give way to a period of transition to socialism (the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) that creates the conditions for communism and the withering away of the state.

“The whole theory of Marx is the application of the theory of development – in its most consistent, complete, considered and pithy form – to modern capitalism. Naturally, Marx was faced with the problem of applying this theory both to the forthcoming collapse of capitalism and to the future development of future communism…it is possible to determine more precisely how democracy changes in the transition…” (The State and Revolution Chapter 5)

Thus Marx in his Critique, destroys all possibility of a peaceful transition from bourgeois to proletarian democracy at the very time when German Social Democracy is opportunistically vulgarising Marxism into a reformist utopian program. First, Marx shows how bourgeois democracy is a formality for the big majority (the working class) because bourgeois democracy can only be a bourgeois dictatorship of the minority over the majority. Second, to bring about proletarian democracy the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is necessary to smash the bourgeois dictatorship.

“Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has been completely crushed, when the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e. when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relations to the social means of production), only then “the state…ceases to exist” and “it becomes possible to speak of freedom”. Only then will a truly complete democracy become possible and be realised…Only then will democracy begin to wither away.” (ibid)

Korsch spells the wider reasons why Marx and Engels took their critique so seriously:

“In the middle of the 1870s, then, Marx and Engels thought it was far more possible than they had ten years earlier for the socialist and communist movement in the advanced countries to return to the ‘old audacity’ of the 1847-8 Manifesto by exhibiting a ‘declaration of principles’. In any case, they thought that the movement had developed to an extent that any retreat from what was said in 1864 must appear to be an unforgivable crime against the future of the workers’ movement. Thus Marx himself says in the note accompanying his Critique of the Gotha Programme:there was no need to make a ‘declaration of principles’ when conditions did not allow it, but when conditions had progressed so much since 1864, it was utterly impermissible to ‘demoralize’ the party with a shallow and unprincipled programme.

This illustrates some of Marx’s preoccupations when writing the Critique of the Gotha Programme. He demanded from the ‘Declaration of Principles’ of the most advanced Socialist Democratic party as a minimum the same level of principle and concrete demands as he himself had been able to insert into another declaration of principles, ten years earlier. This had been drafted under much less favourable circumstances and was designed for the common programme of the various socialist, half-socialist and quarter-socialist tendencies in Europe and America. Wherever the Gotha Programme failed to meet this minimum condition, Marx considers it to have fallen below the level already reached by the movement. Hence, even if it appeared to suit the state of the Party in Germany, it was bound to harm the future historical development of the movement.”

Yet, neither Marx’s ruthless critique nor his development of the Marxist theory of transition to communism was understood. It was ignored and the Gotha Program emerged virtually unchanged in a rising tide of opportunism. The ‘vulgar’ Marxist program that mistook exchange relations for production relations was to lead to the betrayal of 1914, was adopted.  “Why retrogress”? Marx asked. Engels and Lenin provided the explanation later. The emergence of German imperialism could now afford to create a labor aristocracy bought off by rising living standards paid for by colonial super-profits. German Social Democracy was adapting to the formation of a labour aristocracy which voted for state reforms paid for by the super-exploitation of colonial workers and peasants. If the Gotha Program turned its back on the Communist Manifesto and founded German social-democracy as pre-Marxist ‘vulgar socialism’, was the Erfurt Program of 1891 any better?


Engels and Lenin critique the Centrist Erfurt Program of 1891

The Erfurt program in 1891 fails to break completely from the Gotha Program in its central aspects. It is a centrist program at best. Engels’s letter ‘On the Critique of the Social Democratic Draft Programme of 1891 (the Erfurt Programme)’ is a continuation of Marx and Engels critique of the Gotha Program. Engels was clearly prepared to continue the fight for the Communist program against the emerging opportunist German Social Democracy and its main theoretician, Karl Kautsky, while Kautsky delayed Engels critique for 10 years. He published for the first time Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program alongside his own Introduction to Marx’s: The Civil War in France in 1891 to publicly champion the lessons of programmatic development since 1947, yet his Critique of the Erfurt program was not published by Kautsky until 1901! The substance of Engels critique, like that of Marx at Gotha, was ignored. The gulf between the Communist Manifesto and the reformist German SPD, behind the hollow Marxist phrases, was growing wider.

Engels main critique is of the “opportunism” of the political demands:

These are attempts to convince oneself and the party that “present-day society is developing towards socialism” without asking oneself whether it does not thereby just as necessarily outgrow the old social order and whether it will not have to burst this old shell by force, as a crab breaks its shell, and also whether in Germany, in addition, it will not have to smash the fetters of the still semi-absolutist, and moreover indescribably confused political order… In the long run such a policy can only lead one’s own party astray. They push general, abstract political questions into the foreground, thereby concealing the immediate concrete questions, which at the moment of the first great events, the first political crisis, automatically pose themselves. What can result from this except that at the decisive moment the party suddenly proves helpless and that uncertainty and discord on the most decisive issues reign in it because these issues have never been discussed? … This forgetting of the great, the principal considerations for the momentary interests of the day, this struggling and striving for the success of the moment regardless of later consequences, this sacrifice of the future of the movement for its present may be ‘honestly’ meant, but it is and remains opportunism, and ‘honest’ opportunism is perhaps the most dangerous of all… [Our emphasis]

Kautsky evades the critique. He claims that Engels critique was of the first draft and not of his draft which was the one adopted. Yet a comparison of the two shows that Kautsky’s version does not reflect Engels critique of the political demands. Kautsky’s book Class Struggle, an extended commentary on his Erfurt draft, was published in 1892. It becomes the popular presentation of the Erfurt Program.  Do Engels criticisms still hold of Kautsky’s book?

Kautsky’s Class Struggle expounds ‘orthodox’ Marxist ‘economics’ from surplus-value to crises of overproduction which create the conditions for the transition to socialism. But there are no dialectics, only an evolutionary schema of capitalist development. The proletarian side of the class struggle is rendered ‘objective’ as the subjective agency of the proletariat is suppressed and replaced by the petty bourgeois socialist intelligentsia. Capitalist ‘development’ is expressed by Vulgar Marxist intellectuals who lecture the workers on their level of development. The transition to socialism is managed by a socialist bureaucracy that reforms the transition of the capitalist state into the socialist state.

From the recognition of this fact is born the aim which the Socialist Party has set before it: to call the working-class to conquer the political power to the end that, with its aid, they may change the state into a self-sufficing co-operative commonwealth.” [Our emphasis]

So for Kautsky “conquering political power means “change the state”. How? There is no armed insurrection or ‘smashing of the state’ but rather a relatively peaceful transition through the gradual take-over of the state or as Marx put it the “transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another” (18th Brumaire).  Therefore the political demands of Urfurt as presented by Kautsky for the transition to socialism fall far short of the Communist Manifesto and the critical development of the program in the period 1852- 1875 spanning the Commune to Gotha.

Lenin’s recognition that the Erfurt program was centrist did not come until after the great betrayal of 1914. From that point he went back searching for the material roots of the degeneration of German social-democracy. State and Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky were the result. In this process Lenin revisits Engel’s suppressed critique of Erfurt and in the process finds that Kautsky, the German leader who bases his authority on Erfurt, actually rejects all the decisive developments in the Marxist program since 1847. Referring to Kautsky, Lenin exclaims in marginal notes in his drafting of State and Revolution “This is as a complete wreck of Marxism...a step back from 1852-91 to 1847”! [Marxism on the State: Preparatory Material for the book The State and Revolution. Not online]

Why was Lenin taken in by Kautsky’s centrism for so long? The short answer is, first centrism itself, and second, Tsarism. It is the nature of centrism that it disguises its treachery in hollow phrases. While Engels chided the German Social-Democracy as ‘opportunist’ he thought this was an aberration probably resulting from self-censorship to avoid triggering Bismarck’s anti-socialist law. However, centrist opportunism is not exposed as a counter-revolutionary retreat from Marxism until it is tested in revolutionary conditions and is exposed by its treacherous actions. So the revolutionary phrases carefully qualified by vague euphemisms such as “conquering political power” in Kautsky’s program were not put to the revolutionary test of practice in Germany until 1914.

Second, developments in the SPD were not central to the class struggle that was developing in Tsarist Russia. The SPD was a legal party with millions of members, a large official apparatus, and many elected MPs in the Reichstag. Formally, it was standing on the Erfurt program and the “conquest of political power”.  In Russia however, the pressing task for the Marxists was the smashing of the Tsarist state bringing with it a whole set of challenges to the program and to the form of revolutionary party needed to overcome these challenges. The necessary debates over theory and tactics became the focus of the factional disputes and machinations in the RSDWP. This is evident in the fact that the RSDWP leaders while in exile in Europe conducted disputes in their own papers and congresses almost independently from the 2nd International parties in their host countries.

Currently a debate around whether the RSDWP was a Marxist party in the mould of the SPD of Kautsky, the ‘mother’ party in the 2nd International, or a party of a ‘new type’ as a result of Lenin winning a majority in 1902. The SPD was a ‘mass’ party but it was also a ‘broad’ party of Marxists, centrists, and reformists where the Marxist faction was marginalised by the centrists and were unable to defend the Marxist program of the dictatorship of the proletariat against the opportunists. This question was glossed over since workers were experiencing rising living standards via parliamentary reforms and the program was watered down by the reformist wing of Bernstein under the cover of Kautsky’s centrist wing. So while the reformist wing was critiqued by the centrist Kautsky at the same time he opens the door to the retreat from ‘smashing the state’.

Lenin asks: How, then, did Kautsky proceed in his most detailed refutation of Bernsteinism? He refrained from analyzing the utter distortion of Marxism by opportunism on this point. He cited the above-quoted passage from Engels’ preface to Marx’ s Civil War and said that according to Marx the working class cannot simply take over the ready-made state machinery, but that, generally speaking, it can take it over—and that was all. Kautsky did not say a word about the fact that Bernstein attributed to Marx the very opposite of Marx’ s real idea, that since 1852 Marx had formulated the task of the proletarian revolution as being to “smash” the state machine. (Lenin Chapter 6, State and Revolution)

In Russia the “task” of the RSDWP was not the working class “conquering political power” from the bourgeoisie, but that of leading all the oppressed masses in the overthrow of the Tsar. The RSDWP began as ‘broad’ party like the SPD but its Marxist faction (Bolsheviks) from 1902 dominated the opportunists (Mensheviks) and the conciliators (Centrists) in its militant defence and development of the Marxist program. The showdown between Marxist and opportunist factions came to the surface in Russia even before 1905 as theoretical differences on strategy and tactics had life or death practical consequences in combating the Tsarist autocracy.


Lenin and ‘What is to be Done?’

Unlike the SPD which could vote its representatives into Parliament, the Russian party faced a Tsarist autocracy. The immediate task was that of ‘political freedom’, that is the bourgeois revolution, in which the proletariat would be the leading class. Lenin’s conception of the party was not as a professional elite separated from the mass membership, but of both intellectuals and workers who took the Marxist program to the workers already organising against the Tsarist regime. The differences in the RSDWP didn’t arise over the program to overthrow of the Tsar but over the role of the proletariat in this revolution. For Lenin and the Bolshevik faction the proletariat must be independent of the bourgeoisie and lead all the oppressed classes. For the Mensheviks, like the centrists of the SPD including Kautsky, the proletariat was not capable of taking the place of the bourgeoisie in leading the bourgeois revolution alone.

Thus between 1902 and 1917, the main fight inside the RSDWP was between those who argued over whether that working class was ready or not to take the place of the bourgeoisie in overthrowing the Tsar.  The Bolsheviks thought it was ready, the Mensheviks thought that the workers would have to ‘compromise’ with the bourgeoisie.

On the question of the nature of the vanguard party, this is determined by the Marxist program in which the proletariat is the only revolutionary class capable of fusing Marxist theory and practice as the agency of revolution. Specific national conditions are the immediate concrete workings of this historic and international class dialectic.  The Tsarist regime oppressed not only workers but poor and middle peasants. It also oppressed elements of the bourgeoisie. Lenin argues that the working class will lead the revolution bringing behind it the poor and middle peasants. The rich peasants are becoming capitalist and they and the weak bourgeoisie cannot lead a revolution against the Tsar. Thus the proletariat will be ‘hegemonic’ in leading all the oppressed classes. For that to happen the Marxist party must include the vanguard of workers who have a ‘socialist consciousness’ and not those who are only ‘trade union’ conscious.

In What is to be Done (WITBD) Lenin famously says that this ‘socialist consciousness’ is brought from outside to the workers. Rather than an admission that the Marxist party is separate from the workers, the so-called ‘dictatorship of the Party’ criticised by Luxemburg and Trotsky, it’s the opposite. Both the workers movement and the Marxist intellectuals must ‘converge’ and ‘fuse’ for the revolution to happen.

That is why the Bolsheviks split organisationally from the Mensheviks in 1912, while the Marxists in the SDP failed to build a Bolshevik type faction until the KDP (Spartacists) in 1919. The party that would lead the overthrow of the Tsar and organise the socialist insurrection became a ‘mass’ Marxist party in which the members were in agreement with the Bolshevik program for Russia. Tragically, in Germany the Spartacists founded the KDP too late in 1919 but were ‘smashed’ by the SDP reformists and by Kautsky’s USDP who joined a popular front bourgeois government in the ‘peaceful transition to socialism’ that was neither peaceful nor a transition.

So in 1902 Lenin is already providing answers to the questions posed above: the RSDWP is not yet a vanguard party.  Its leaders and members are Marxists but there are differences on how to overthrow the Tsar. After 1905 the party fragments into numerous weak factions but around 1909 the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks reform and their differences deepen over strategy and tactics. A split looms and comes to a head over whether the working class will lead the overthrow of the Tsar or do so in a political coalition with the bourgeoisie. Lenin mobilises to reorganise the RSDWP on a Marxist program of a worker-led revolution, against Mensheviks and others who want a cross class coalition. The program comes first and the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks split in 1912.  From this point on both factions organise and meet separately presenting a clear choice for Russian workers.  They enter the period of rising struggles and prove to the masses which program is correct and which class will lead the revolution against the Tsar. This will happen first in 1914 when the Bolshevik faction becomes the core of the Zimmerwald Left and an embryonic new international. It will come to the ultimate test when the Bolsheviks convince Russian workers to make a revolution, and the Mensheviks side with the peasant petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie to oppose the revolution. This is democratic centralism in practice and it was tested in practice, and in its absence, with positive and negative results in the Russian and German Revolutions.

Some neo-Kautskyites today who want to recruit Lenin to the ‘broad’ party fail to grasp that while the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks did not form separate parties in 1912, they split as factions over a fundamental principle of the Marxist program.  The RSDWP that resulted contained two parties, except in name, the Bolsheviks standing on the principle of worker ‘hegemony’, the Mensheviks on ‘class conciliation’ (what is called today the popular front with the bourgeoisie) in the Russian revolution. Far from being a ‘broad’ party that tolerated all political differences, a split over this question was a matter of life and death. The failure to form the Bolsheviks as a separate political organisation would have wrecked its ability to implement democratic centralism and prevented it from rapidly developing its program and winning the masses support in the Soviets for a workers’ revolution. Even so, in the Bolshevik faction in April 1917 all the leadership apart from Lenin were conciliating with the Provisional Government – that is, proposing a popular front with the bourgeoisie! The situation was rescued by Lenin because he could appeal to the mass base of the Bolsheviks won to the faction/party since 1912 on a Marxist program, and convince them of the correct strategy and tactics. Had the RSDWP not split and stayed as a ‘broad’ party of Marxists and class collaborationists like Kautsky’s SPD the outcome would have been a defeat for the Russian revolution at the hands of Kerensky and Kornilov! The Russian and German revolutions are the ultimate testimony to this fact.


Bolshevism and the Russian and German Revolutions

In April 1917 Lenin proved that the RSDWP were really two long term factions in name only and in reality two separate parties. Moreover he proved that the Bolshevik ‘faction’ was not free of would-be Mensheviks in the leadership ready to ‘conciliate’ with the bourgeoisie. It was necessary to go to the mass membership of the RSDWP. He read his April Theses to the Bolsheviks and then to both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks together. Lenin goes outside the Party Leadership and addressed the Petrograd branch of the party directly. He won them to the socialist insurrection. (Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution, (HRR) Chap 15).

Again in October Lenin is in a minority of one in the Central Committee. He demands an insurrection and the Central Committee burns his letter. Accusing the Central Committee of ‘Fabianism’ he then goes to the Petrograd soviet and the Regional Conference of Northern soviets and speaking on his own authority demands “an immediate move on Petrograd”. (Trotsky, HRR, Chap 24.). Then when the Central Committee finally agrees to the insurrection, Zinoviev and Kamenev disclose these plans in Pravda, the Menshevik newspaper.  Lenin calls for their expulsion but is defeated on the Central Committee. This was how the Bolsheviks under Lenin’s leadership and organised as a de-fact0 mass vanguard party were able to not only survive a revolutionary crisis, but win the leadership of the workers and peasants, defeat the counter-revolution and make the first socialist revolution in history. Not so in Germany.

Not till August 4, 1914 was the theoretical bankruptcy of 2nd International put to the test and exposed as a ‘stinking corpse’ (Luxemburg cited in Lenin). The centrists around Kautsky and the Zimmerwald Left revolutionaries around Luxemburg and Liebknecht split to form the united SDP (USPD) but the left Spartakustbund faction in the USPD failed to break away to found an independent Bolshevik-type party until 1918. Only in 1917 did the paths of the Russian and German revolutions converge in a Marxist leadership that understood the revolutions must unite to succeed. But the German ‘old guard’ around Luxemburg lacked the experience in organising a mass base. Their reliance of on ‘spontaneity’ against Lenin’s ‘centralism’ meant that when the soldiers and sailors rose up against the Junker regime there was no Bolshevik-type democratic centralist party at its head to ‘smash the state’. Like Lenin, Luxemburg facing a revolutionary crisis in Germany, returned to Marx and Engel’s to draw the lessons about the ‘smashing of the state and refound the Communist program:

“…Down to the collapse of August 4, 1914, the German Social Democracy took its stand upon the Erfurt programme, and by this programme the so-called immediate minimal aims were placed in the foreground, whilst socialism was no more than a distant guiding star. Far more important, however, than what is written in a programme is the way in which that programme is interpreted in action. From this point of view, great importance must be attached to one of the historical documents of the German labour movement: the Preface written by Fredrick Engels for the 1895 re-issue of Marx’s Class Struggles in France.  It is not merely upon historical grounds that I now reopen this question. The matter is one of extreme actuality. It has become our urgent duty today to replace our programme upon the foundation laid by Marx and Engels in 1848. In view of the changes effected since then by the historical process of development, it is incumbent upon us to undertake a deliberate revision of the views that guided the German Social Democracy down to the collapse of August 4th. Upon such a revision we are officially engaged today….” (On the Spartacus Program [our emphasis]

Too late! The delay of the revolutionary Marxists in splitting from the USPD was fatal. It meant that they did not have time to build a Marxist vanguard and win a mass base before the revolutionary crisis came to a head. By the time the Spartacists founded the KPD in 1919, the SPD and USDP were collaborating in a Bourgeois government led by the SPD leader, Ebert. The revolution, its main social democrat leaders were murdered and its armed workers’ militia ‘smashed’ by the Freikorps.

So the problem of the party is not that Lenin abandoned the ‘broad’ party for an elitist party, but that without a revolutionary program tested in the struggle the vanguard party is sucked back into opportunism and conciliation with the bourgeoisie.  The problem is not therefore historic Bolshevik/Leninism but its absence. Russia and Germany are the test cases. The Bolsheviks won the masses in Russia because they split from the Mensheviks, but in Germany where they failed to split from the Kautskyites until too late, the revolution was defeated.

For both Marx and Lenin the vanguard party is the party of the Marxist workers not the party of non-Marxist workers. This was true even when the vanguard was no more than one; Marx on Gotha, Lenin on the April Theses. But at the same time the Marxist vanguard is obliged to fight to win the non-Marxists to the vanguard. But to do this the backsliding compromisers, opportunists, centrists, Mensheviks etc have to be defeated. This is what the Russian revolution proves. Like Marx confronting the retreat into Lassalleanism at Gotha, Lenin also finds himself alone in April 1917 carrying the banner of the Marxist vanguard.

As the crisis of war and revolution unfolded Lenin drew further conclusions. After 1914 he writes a series of articles and pamphlets he accuses Kautsky of reneging on the 1912 Basle Manifesto on war. (See Preface to …Renegade Kautsky). In his Imperialism written in 1915 Lenin shows that Kautsky’s opportunism explains his theory of ‘ultra-imperialism’. During the 1917 July Days when he is in hiding, he drafts the State and Revolution. He now shows that Kautsky abandoned the theory of ‘smashing the state’ in 1871. He “wrecks Marxism” and goes back to 1847.  Then in 1918 Kautsky’s condemnation of the Bolshevik revolution in his pamphlet ‘The Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ provokes Lenin’s brilliant The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, in which he sums up Kautsky in the phrase “How Kautsky turned Marx into a Common Liberal” by reducing the ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ in the Paris Commune to ‘bourgeois (i.e. pure) democracy’ i.e. and electoral majority! The final nail in Kautsky’s coffin is that his centrism is exposed as the key to the defeat of the German Revolution. It is Kautsky and the USPD that delays the founding of the German KDP until it is too late, then takes responsibility for the state repression of the Communists, defeats the revolution and thus prevents the Russian revolution from spreading to the world.  Yet this is the Kautsky of the Erfurt program that the neo-Kautskyists like the CPGB wants to return to today!


The Party embodies the Program

For Marx the proletarian party is the Marxist party. The Gotha Program retreated from Marx’s method and his critique of Capitalism to Lassalle’s pre-Marxist exchange theory. The Erfurt Program restored the Marxist critique of Capital formally by returning to the production of surplus-value, but didn’t escape the Gotha Program in its reformist approach to the capitalist state. In the SPD the ‘broad’ party submerged the revolutionaries in a rising tide of opportunism. Engels critique was ignored as was Marx’s at Gotha. Kautsky vulgarised Marx, ignoring the laws of capitalist development, the crises of overproduction and the growing competition between the imperialist powers. The approaching imperialist war was something that could be stopped by a SPD majority in the Reichstag acting with ‘legality’! This had tragic practical consequences for millions of workers the world over 1000 times that of the Paris Commune. And this time it was done in the name of Marxism!

Today against the program and party of Kautsky, we need program and party of Marx. From Marx and Engels in 1847 to Lenin in 1924 the Marxist mass party was always based on workers who understood that to escape inevitable capitalist crises and imperialist wars they had to smash the bourgeois state and impose the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. If it fell short of that when its leadership adapted to imperialist super-profits and the labor aristocracy then it’s ‘party’ would end up being used by the bourgeoisie to destroy the revolution. Such a retreat into vulgar socialism was inevitable unless a Marxist vanguard was built capable drawing the important lessons of organising and arming the proletariat to smash the state and replace the crisis and war ridden capitalist system with socialism. The German Revolution was defeated because it lacked a revolutionary program and party. Marx and Engels fought to test and develop the communist program all of their lives against non-Marxist and then revisionist Marxist currents. Lenin and Trotsky took on the responsibility of defending and developing that program after Engel’s death. Lenin in particular took the lead in the fight against opportunism in the period before WW1. That is why the Bolsheviks under Lenin and later Trotsky, and not the German SPD under Kautsky and Co. was the only Marxist party to defeat reformism and centrism and make a revolution.

Let Lenin have the last word on Kautsky: “Kautsky takes from Marxism what is acceptable to the liberals, to the bourgeoisie (the criticism of the Middle Ages, and the progressive historical role of capitalism in general and of capitalist democracy in particular), and discards, passes over in silence, glosses over all that in Marxism which is unacceptable to the bourgeoisie (the revolutionary violence of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie for the latter’s destruction). That; is why Kautsky, by virtue of his objective position and irrespective of what his subjective convictions may be, inevitably proves to be a lackey of the bourgeoisie.” (The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky)

Who is the renegade, Lenin or Kautsky! The renegades of Marxism are those who abandon the program for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Most of what passes for the revolutionary left today are longstanding centrists known for their revolutionary phrases and reformist practice! They emerged out of WW2 with Stalinism intact and a ‘2nd world’ opposed to the imperialist 1st world. The Trotskyist Fourth International lacked roots in the working class and its efforts at keeping the Leninist/Trotskyist program alive founded on the long boom and reformism of Stalinist and Social democratic parties. Most revised Marx’s Capital into some form of exchange theory and drew the practical consequence of a minimal program of ‘equal rights’ via ‘state aid’. Thus most became adjuncts of social democracy, Stalinism, or 3rd World freedom fighters. The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and other former ‘degenerate workers states’ has deprived them of their defence of workers property. Some like the Spartacist family insist that hope lives on in China. Others liquidate into ‘anti-capitalist’ formations which are ‘broad parties’ including reformists and revolutionaries. Those who still pay lip service to Leninism (and/or Trotskyism), and those who are anti-Leninist, all end up on the same centrist swamp. They are a new batch of Mensheviks with minimum programs and petty bourgeois leaderships that they substitute for the Marxist vanguard.  For example, the Spartacists substitute the Maoist bureaucracy in China; the Morenoists substitute the trade union bureaucracy; the Cliffites, the student intellectuals; and the Woodites, populist demagogues like Chavez–all trapping the proletariat in popular fronts with the bourgeoisie.

Yet these petty bourgeois pretenders cannot suppress the class contradictions as they re-emerge in current and future crises, wars, revolutions and counter-revolutions. Revolutionaries have to act as a vanguard of hundreds and thousands to expose the centrists by building militant internationalist united fronts everywhere with demands that advance the workers cause and force the centrists to declare themselves as class traitors. In the process the embryonic vanguard will like Lenin’s Bolsheviks, converge, and fuse with the millions of rising militants to build a new world party of revolution. A Marxist revolutionary international will be reborn as the terminal crisis of capitalism exposes the new batch of Mensheviks as class traitors. Arising out of the ashes of historic betrayals and defeats of the 20th century marked by the first Bolshevik revolution will be the revolutionary Marxists based on the Leninist/Trotskyist program of 1938 who go into the working class to build the Marxist vanguard to make the second Bolshevik Revolution in the 21st century.

“The victory of communism is inevitable, Communism will triumph!” Lenin, ‘Greetings to the Italian, French and German Communists’. October 1919

Written by raved

April 3, 2013 at 12:07 pm