Trotskyists and the state

Leon Trotsky and his followers did not develop their ideas on the state very much. They set themselves up as oppositionists to the Stalinist regime and that is fair enough not many would hold that against them for opposing Stalinism but yet their critique of the state is very silent and often absent from many Trotskyist critiques. For me the state and an analysis of it are key for understanding capitalism and the way forward. For all my time in the socialist party of England and Wales the state got a little bit of attention it was seen as a body of armed workers essentially and nothing more. The analysis of the state or the modern state by the socialist party is hugely out of date and in my view completely irrelevant in many ways. No longer is the state just a system of ruling class rule and order. It has developed and sunk itself into greater and greater depths. For me the socialist party’s analysis of the police and the army is deeply flawed and out of step with modern thinking. Many Trotskyists refer to Lenin’s state and revolution and in many ways it is an interesting text I swallowed it whole first time round and felt the state would wither away but why would this happen and how would it happen? The more anymore i think about I find it hugely unlikely the state will just simply wither away once it has become unnecessary in terms of Marxism anyway but why would it ? The state has an independent thought and strategy of its own and ultimately looks after its own whether it’s a capitalist or a workers state point is its still a state for an all intents and purposes. The nation state as a feature of capitalism is key it almost predates capitalism and has its origin in the rise of capitalism. As the old quote goes the state makes war and the war makes the state it plays a huge role in modern society and has spread beyond even Marx’s imagination now. We even see today the state within a state with spying and surveillance states appearing under capitalism. For me no Trotskyist group out there has any up to date critique on the modern state or have begin to scratch the surface. For me the state will play a huge part in many people’s politics in the coming years as capitalism fails to progress society and develop the means of production. The state will become more and more in conflict with its base and its system it represents. The state is an important political body which needs a serious discussion on inside and outside of Marxist circles. There is much to do and to think about before we even come to taking on the understanding of the state and what it means to us and Howe we go about removing as no society which base’s itself on equality for all can exist with an existence of a state. There can be no freedom with any state; we need to address the idea of a state and what it ultimately means for the masses. Communism for me is a class less society and as such a state less society. Building a workers state is something which never sat easy with me as is a body of oppression. Ok we may need to defend ourselves against counter revolutionary forces but after that an armed group of workers is no longer needed and must go as soon as possible in my opinion. The debate will go on I am sure.

The bond of political economy

Politics and economics in my opinion as was Karl Marx cannot be separated and the two go hand in hand politics effect economics and economics effect politics. To some people certainly in the bourgeois media politics and the economy seem detached but they are really not. Karl Marx recognised this many years ago when he set about his work on political economy including his most famous works in Das Capital. Marx's critique of political economy was not a proposal for a new, 'socialist economics'-for Marx, socialism implied the withering away of economics. Nor was it a 'critique of capitalism'. I think that 'criticising' a social order is a bit like criticising the weather. (As Mark Twain complained, everybody grumbles, but nobody seems to do anything about it.) In any case, Marx never used the word 'capitalism'. As he explained, his critique is directed primarily against the categories of political economy, that is, against economics as such. (When Marx spoke of 'the system of bourgeois economy', he always meant the science of political economy.) For Marx, classical political economy, utopian socialism and the Hegelian system represented the attempts of the greatest bourgeois thinkers to grasp the nature of modern society. Their categories and methods of thought gave the highest theoretical expression to the contradictions of bourgeois social relations. Essentially, all of these contradictions, including the struggle between capital and the proletariat, express a more fundamental one: that between humanity-self-creation, selfconsciousness, sociality-and inhumanity-whatever blocks and perverts these. What economics took for granted as 'natural' and 'rational', Marx saw as the inhuman and irrational shell inside which human life was imprisoned. Marx's critique is inseparable from its struggle to smash this shell. Marx characterised the 'classical political economists' as those who, 'since the time of W Petty have examined the real internal framework [innern Zusammenhang = inner coherence] of bourgeois relations of production' (Marx, 1976 Vol.I/l: 174-5). As he wrote in a well-known letter: Once insight into the connectedness has been gained, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing conditions collapses before the practical collapse. (Marx to Kugelmann 11/7/1868, in Marx and Engels, 1983:149). There clearly is a dialectical relation between politics and economics which for Marx made perfect sense. In examining the work of the classical political economists, Marx was investigating a social illness. It was like his attitude to religion: it could not be cured by correcting some logical errors, but only by overthrowing the social order whose contradictions they expressed. His critique opened the way for 'revolutionary practice', in which 'human activity or self-change' could be seen to coincide with 'the changing of circumstances' (ibid. The greatest philosophers and political thinkers tried to systematise this ordinary consciousness. That was how political economy, when it was still a science, studied the heart of the capital relation, its 'inner coherence', and that was why Marx spent forty years on its critique. Political economy took the upside-down forms within which the inhumanity of bourgeois relations seemed 'natural' to ordinary consciousness, and tried to make them into a coherent system. But because these forms were essentially a denial of humanity, this attempt could not succeed. Just as the exchange relation itself was crazy [verruckt],4 so were the categories of the very best political economy. ('Vulgar economists' were absolutely no use for Marx's purposes.) Through the essential inconsistencies in this science, Marx sought to reveal the contradictions of those social forms. The critique of this bourgeois science thus showed that the 'integument' could be broken through by the socialist revolution, to open the way for a life 'worthy of our human nature' (Marx, 1978 Vol 3. So when we think about politics we must link it always in to economics and vice versa. Marx was right on this point and we should not forget this fact.

How I discovered Marxism

Over the last few days a lot has been going through my head and heart of how I feel about politics, socialism, parties and all the rest of it but one thing tat I’ve not been put off from understands one of the greatest thinkers possibly ever to have lived. My introduction to Marxism really started back when I was in the labour party of all places where I heard of Marxism as a term being used to insult other members on the left by the right wing at the time I thought this must be a terrible thing and something I should stay clear of. As with a lot of things I had a natural curiosity to find out what this term Marxist was and how it referred to people who go by the term. Looking up in my early political days was an eye opener I stumbled across all sorts of material from basic texts to more detailed ones. It was a minefield in many ways. As I am blind I thought I’d try and find some audio recordings of any Marxist texts. Luckily http://librivox.org/ Have a few classic Marxist texts. I did leave the labour party eventually in February 2011 to join the socialist party of England and Wales where my learning of Marxism really started. Unfortunately still to this day theory is something which doesn’t take huge priority in the party as I’ve detailed in the past on this blog so a lot of self learning had to be under taken. I first read such titles as the communist manifesto and wage labour and capital as audio recordings. Getting into Marx’s ideas for the first time felt like a breath of fresh air finally I could get how the world works or doesn’t work for us the majority. The piece’s which opened my eyes and still does till this day is the exploitation points Marx makes devastatingly. His sections on the working day in capital volume 1 put things really into a way tat makes sense to the ordinary worker to understand. To realise how foolish you have been to believe the lies from the state and the media and to finally realise o we are never paid the full price of our labour angered me and got me even more interested in reading more and finding out what we can do about this injustice. Discovering Marx was like a revelation for me. Marx is no god and Marxism is not a religion but you do get a sense of understanding that cuts through the crap tat you hear all the time on TV and in the street. You really understand how as a class based system there can never be fairness under capitalism and no amount of reforming the system can make it any less exploitative. Those who hold illusions in a nicer capitalism and making it work for us the 99% if you like can be understood in their full context now for me those who wish to reform capitalism have no will to remove it and only wish to temper its brutality of its greed, and pure blind drive for profit. Marx tells us that capitalism is a system based purely on profit making and commodities which Marx spends chapters on explaining how a commodity is formed and why it is so crucial to understand the system. Marx explains that commodities are not produced for people’s needs but the reverse they are produced to make a profit. Marx’s theories on crisis are based around profitability and the falling rate of profit. Understanding this was crucial to my recent understanding of Marxism having the ability to understand how crisis’s occur in a profit and investment cycle is key for all to understand where crisis’s originates from and ultimately what capital needs to do to restore profit rates. Marx is also explicit that the boss’s and the workers interests are separate and are opposite and can never be rectified however nice you make your boss. Your boss still wants his or her pound of flesh because in your labour is embodied surplus value and profit as a result. Finally having an understanding of Marx is one thing but using his method is another. Many Marxists think they have read all of Marx that there is but unless you apply his methods in analysis and practices knowledge is not enough. It for me is what you do with it which matters.

Why the underconsumptionists appear to be winning the argument

This is the perception anyway. The underconsumptionist argument detailed by myself and Bruce and Steve Dobbs in various blogs in the last few months has detailed how they as revolutionaries try to explain the crisis. It is clear that this is a popular and highly thought of position certainly within the trade unions anyway. This is a worry and not just for Marxists. If the trade union movement or the labour movement believe in reforming capitalism and that it is simply a lack of demand that is hampering the capitalist mode of production from investing then we are indeed in a very very bad place indeed. I do believe the under consumption position is so wide spread is because it is easy. It is easy to understand and then consider yourself a Marxist if you get it which frankly isn’t hard. You don’t need to read Marx or Lenin or any Marxist economist if you believe that there is no such thing as a falling rate of profit or if you do and just consider it maybe as part of a multi causal cause of a crisis under capitalism then you nod to yourself and carry on This was in fact my position for a long time and due to me not critically thinking and not questioning the position and the economic analysis of my own party I just took this explanation as read. I have now met a fantastic group of Marxists and have now started to root out the causes of capitalist crisis and Marx himself provided us with a brilliant and well thought out explanation and it is an amazement that more Marxists do not and refuse to take this up. I do wonder why. Maybe the implications of what Marx says is too much for some and the status quo is something however much some may detest it maybe just too great to get rid of all together ? But as I say holding a under consumptions view on the cause of the crisis and all crisis's is a quite simple and yet it is not a view that is helpful to the labour movement. Under consumptionism which in affect is a Keynesian idea and as a result is a bourgeois idea and even Keynes was not on the side of the workers so why some bring this into the labour movement I have no idea. Maybe they fear the socialist revolution more than the capitalists themselves? As I say this is an easy position to get to grips with all be it not a Marxist position at all as I shall explain. “For Marxists, capitalism goes into economic slump because profitability drops so much that the mass of profit starts to fall. This leads to capitalists stopping investment in real production. If credit is provided, investors use their money to invest in other assets that are not productive like property or speculating in shares. Thus this capital becomes fictitious. It will not stop the eventual slump but merely delay it. Once enough capital value (of money, labour and plant) is destroyed and profitability is restored, those capitalists that are left will start to invest again and the ‘liquidity trap’ will end. Just as huge dollops of credit will not stop a slump under capitalism; neither will huge dollops of credit revive capitalism, if profitability is not right.... Slumps cannot be avoided under capitalism, because they are necessary to restore profitability when it gets too low.” The laws of motion that Marx identified in the capitalist mode of production, including the Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall (LTRPF), are responsible for booms and slumps and crises. Quite often you will get arguments like this below on the left and must be taken to task as Steve Dobbs a fine comrade and a comrade I have huge respect for has done in his blogs repeatably . “The reality is the capitalist system has reached its limits. In the past, it was able to develop the productive forces at a colossal pace. The recent period of globalization and intensification of world trade reflects the latest efforts of the system to overcome its contradictions. Credit was used to extend the market beyond the limits of capitalism but this has now reached its limits..... While corporations are flush with cash, they are not prepared to invest given the lack of markets but without investment there can be no recovery. This, in turn, adds to a collapse in demand. It is a vicious circle.” The capitalist system has reached an impasse. Sound familiar? It gets better: “Marx analysed capitalism long ago. He explained the contradictions of a system based upon the drive for profit. The capitalists employ workers in order to squeeze surplus value from their labour. This surplus value is then reinvested by the capitalists to make more money which serves to develop the productive forces. However, the barrier to capitalism is capital itself. The outpouring of commodities seeking new markets reaches a crescendo at the height of the boom. However, there comes a point where the limits of the market come into collision with the unlimited production of commodities. This leads to an inevitable crisis of over-production, as witnessed in 2008-9. Everything comes to a complete standstill. The capitalist system is paralyzed, not because people do not want things, but because of a shortage of effective demand, i.e. money to buy the products.” So now the problem is the limits of the market – there is not enough demand for all these commodities produced, so there is overproduction of commodities. This is nonsense. Workers can never afford to buy back the goods they produce, so how can this be a cause of crisis? Overproduction is never in relation to consumer demand, as I explained previously. “A fall in the rate of profit and accelerated accumulation are different expressions of the same process only in so far as both reflect the development of productiveness.... Those economists, therefore, who, like Ricardo, regard the capitalist mode of production as absolute, feel at this point that it creates a barrier itself, and for this reason attribute the barrier to Nature (in the theory of rent), not to production. But the main thing about their horror of the falling rate of profit is the feeling that capitalist production meets in the development of its productive forces a barrier which has nothing to do with the production of wealth as such; and this peculiar barrier testifies to the limitations and to the merely historical, transitory character of the capitalist mode of production; testifies that for the production of wealth, it is not an absolute mode, moreover, that at a certain stage it rather conflicts with its further development.” (Marx, Capital vol 3, Chapter 15, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch15.htm) As Marx states, the capitalist mode of production becomes the barrier to itself because of the falling rate of profit, which means that capital can no longer accumulate at the same pace. This is rooted in production, not the market. In fact, Marx explicitly cites the falling rate of profit as the underlying cause of over-production and crises: “On the other hand, the rate of self-expansion of the total capital, or the rate of profit, being the goad of capitalist production (just as self-expansion of capital is its only purpose), its fall checks the formation of new independent capitals and thus appears as a threat to the development of the capitalist production process. It [the falling rate of profit] breeds over-production, speculation, crises, and surplus-capital alongside surplus-population.” (Marx, Capital vol 3, Chapter 15, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch15.htm) Clearly, having large amounts of debt in itself does not cause crisis. Remember, the highest percentage of debt to GDP, 250%, the British government had was after WW2, but it was able to pay off most of the debt over the proceeding decades on the basis of the high rate of profit. http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsocialismiscrucial.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F08%2Fuk-debt.jpg&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFxiv0oIittK6-hP5A1Ey7cg2wT6w With thanks and links and references to comrade Steve dobbs who blogs at http://wp.me/p2NvOP-36

The long term view of capitalist development or degeneration

There is much talk in the financial press and among economists of the risk that the major capitalist economies could be slipping back into recession. Economic data for the US and Europe are indicating a significant slowdown in economic growth and a weak recovery in employment and investment. Is this just a temporary blip or does it represent a significant downturn? I would like to answer that by returning to the long view. The long view I’d describe is Karl Marx’s law of the tendancy of the rate of profit to fall which I believe is the underlying cause of the capitalist crisis and indeed is the cause of most if not all crisis’s and is Marx’s 3rd law of capialistmotion which we must look at to understand the changes in capitalism and how we stand today. Just taking the post-war period, there was a Golden Age of profitability from 1946 to 1965 when the rate of profit (ROP) was high and even rising. During this period, economic recessions were few and relatively shallow. Then there was a period of crisis when profitability fell steadily until it reached a nadir in 1982. During this period, economic recessions were more frequent, violent and deep i.e. 1969-70, 1974-5 (the first simultaneous post-war economic recession) and 1980-2 (the deepest recession since the 1930s). After 1982 there was a recovery in profitability right up to 1997. This was the period of so-called neoliberalism that many have argued constitutes a completely new structure of capitalism based on ‘financialisation’ and neoliberal policies of privatisation and weakening of the labour movement (see my comrade Steve Dobson’s excellent post “neo liberalism a new stage of capitalism” a http://socialismiscrucial.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/neoliberalism-a-new-stage-of-capitalism/ There was only one significant economic slump in 1990-1. What next? Once the ROP starts falling, it takes a few years before an economy moves into recession. The ROP has usually been falling for three to four years before that happens. On that basis, the US economy will not drop into a new recession until about 2014 onwards. The debate continues among Marxist economists, but if the underlying cause of capitalist crisis is a falling ROP, then a new slump is unlikely to develop until 2014. But it confirms that even the Great Recession of 2008-9 was not big enough to restore a sustained rise in the ROP. That is because it has not destroyed enough value in accumulated capital or in the excessive build-up of debt (fictitious capital) before 2007. More destruction of value is necessary to do that. That there is still much fictitious capital in the system is revealed by the value of the stock market relative to a measure of the real value of the companies the stock prices represent. James Tobin, the leftist economist, developed a measure to tell if the stock market was overvalued or not and whether it would be heading down. It is called Tobin’s Q, measuring the stock market’s value against the replacement value of all the assets of the companies in a stock market index –for the US S&P-500 stock index (the top 500 companies It is difficult to fully predict how the economies of the world will develop by focusing on Marx’s works in volume 3 of capital and especially the chapters on the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall are crucial to understanding crisis I feel. I am studying all sorts of facts and figures trying to get to grips with crisis and Marx understands there are many views out there with lots of figures which prove something different. We must be careful to pay attention to all sides of the debate and be sure to uphold the law of Marx who was sure of the cause of capitalist crisis’s despite not finishing volume 3 all his work was there if not published it was in draft form ready for Engel’s to publish and edit and place in order the content was always there. Marx didn’t call this law the most important in political economy for no reason at all. Let’s get with the programme and take up Marx’s ideas again and apply them to 2013.

An outspoken socialist

Some may think I’m outspoken and have ideas above my station. But I have always been the same I wear my views and opinions on my sleeve passionate may be one word to describe me but I truly do put everything into things I believe in. I may not always be right and can accept when I’m wrong if given the facts to show I am wrong but when I believe in something I am strong and forthright in my views. People around me will more often know what I think on things it is quite easily understood my opinions and people round me are left in no uncertain terms. I am a Taurus who is a passionate character by nature and I live up to this tag. People have always tried to pin me down as this or that but I’m constantly updating and refreshing my thoughts and feelings. As the world changes so do our opinions. Even as a Marxist you have to take into consideration the changing times and new events as anyone would do. But being outspoken shouldn’t always be viewed as a bad thing as a radical and loose cannon. Many see someone who thinks for themselves and isn’t dictated to as someone to watch out for but I’d beg to differ. I like to think and read as much as I can I always have done and always will. I’m currently in the socialist party and I hope I can develop my thinking within the party if at some point I can no longer develop my thinking and understanding of the world I may end up outside the party I do hope this won’t ever happen but who knows what will happen in the future. I am proud to think for myself and not readily accept a party line all the time. Whilst I agree with a lot of what the socialist party says and puts across as its demands I still like to think I can think for myself and develop my own ideas and decide if they are the right ideas. Whilst I understand fully democratic centralism, others may not agree I do understand its true meaning and not the bureaucratic centralism that we are often used to in parties of the left these days. I am keen to learn the works of Marx, Engel’s, Lenin and Trotsky to formulate rounded our Marxist position. I may be a loose cannon or someone the party isn’t so keen on as I like to think outside the box and not just swallow the line but I think this is healthy I think we should all think critically about everything. Be cynical if you like I think its healthy and good for us to dies trust means you are thinking and thinking is a good start to changing things. I may not always be liked I accept that I try my best t put forward the ideas of Marx and his thinkers. Being careful to take every argument on its merit and not just pump out propaganda you may or may not fully get is interesting so far I’ve tried to assess every argument as it comes and I think this is the right way to go. An independent mind is important for all and especially Marxists the party is one thing but being in control of your own ideas whilst striving hard to represent the party is absolutely essential I feel.

Reclaiming Marx the need for a debate on the current capitalist crisis

I am increasingly hoping we get a debate on the current cause for the capitalist crisis. I think within the CWI the debate is needed as there is some confusion over how we understand the current crisis. There has been a statement put out late last week in regards to Bruce Wallace of the Scottish section of the CWI. I’ve been told this statements puts the record straight I think it does anything but that. The statement is full of inaccuracies and smears on comrade Bruce sadly. The CWI seem to want to have the debate on the cause of the crisis but on their terms and seem confident they have the right ideas which I am still unconvinced of. My regional full timer the other day tried to explain the CWI’s position and what they see as the cause but I was left feeling less than convinced by the ideas I was being told. In the CWI statement they statee : ‘’We are confident that a calm and thorough debate will show that the political approach of the CWI leadership is correct on these issues. And that the position of Bruce Wallace is a one-sided, dogmatic interpretation of Marxism and is therefore false.’’ If the CWI are so confident I am not sure still till this day why Bruce has been banned from attending the CWI school this summer in Belgium. He wished to debate the crisis and for me someone who attended last years school I would have thought this would be a excellent opportunity to debate the ideas of marx and if we have the right analysis or not. I see no problem withallowing Bruce to go and debating with others there. Even the sects have picked up on this debate now in the weekly worker the CPGB line up with the CWI in attacking Bruce sadly. Bruce explains what debate should be all about here “‘’Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premises, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn’t the case, or rhetoric, which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior “context” and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. Debating is commonly carried out in many assemblies of various types to discuss matters and to make resolutions about action to be taken, often by a vote. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates.’’ This form of debate is more in keeping with bourgeois notions of democracy. In the Marxist movement the actual method of reaching correct conclusions in relation to the waging of the class war is ‘’polemic’’. Polemic is different from debate as it is a clash of completely opposed ideas. A polemic is a contentious argument that is intended to establish the truth of a specific understanding and the falsity of the contrary position. Polemics are mostly seen in arguments about very controversial topics. The art or practice of such argumentation is called polemics. A person who often writes polemics, or who speaks polemically, is a polemicist or a polemic. The word is derived from the Greek πολεμικός (polemikos), meaning “warlike, hostile”, which comes from πόλεμος (polemos), “war”.” I would like to see this debate properly take place comrades have told me there are more important things to focus on but what could be more important than understanding the current crisis and knowing how to react best to it ? I think many have criticised Bruce and his blog for its so called tone and having a go at other comrades in the party whilst I can understand Bruce’s frustration in the lack of a debate it hink talking on the tone and his so called behaviour is a red herring and miss’s the politics which is what this has got to be allabout. I’ve never met Bruce but I’ve never had a problem with him personally I find him a well read good thinking Marxist who has stayed loay l to the CWI. I think we should value good well read Marxists like Bruce who can offer us insight into marx and help others learn in the process. I certainly don’t think his tone is rude or anything like that it’s a question of how you interpret his blog I find it a mine of information and I’ve learnt much from it already. The CWI accuse Bruce of a one sided dogmatic approach but this is the same approach of Marx so I am not sure what they mean by that Bruce is simply returning marx from the grave to help us today with the current crisis and to help us understand the system in which to over throw it. Marx didn’t call the law for the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall the most important political economic law for nothing I think we should take marx’s works very seriously afterall we claim marx to be right so lets look again at his works especially capital. ‘’This law, and it is the most important law of political economy, is that the rate of profit has a tendency to fall with the progress of capitalist production.’’ Grundrisse The MOST IMPORTANT LAW! ‘’So where does this tendency for the general rate of profit to fall come from? Before this question is answered, one may point out that it has caused a great deal of anxiety to bourgeois political economy. The whole of the Ricardian and Malthusian school is a cry of woe over the day of judgement this process would inevitably bring about, since capitalist production is the production of profit, hence loses its stimulus, the soul which animates it, with the fall in this profit.’’ Grundrisse Comrades must have the right to raise disagreements at anytime the party itself doesn’t have the right to say when is right and when isn’t to raise concerns. Surely the summer when there is traditionally a quieter time could be a good opportunity to discuss this and the nature of the capitalist crisis. Those who have confidence in their ideas surely have nothing to fear lets have this debate out in the open for all members to learn from. ‘’It is ridiculous to say that Bruce Wallace must first raise such a debate in the Scottish Section before it can be discussed elsewhere. This is not a Scottish issue, it’s an International issue of our analysis of the current crisis and where it is sorely lacking in Marxist terms. We should, as an organisation internationally welcome the discussion and grow from it, rather than dodging the issue and hoping it will go away. If we cannot discuss Marxist analysis of the economic crisis openly and confidently before the membership and the wider working class then frankly what can we do?’’ With thanks to bruce Wallace and his excellent blog which you can read at http://69.195.124.91/~brucieba/

Marx’s theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall

This is Karl Marx’s basic ideas of financial crisis. It’s not something which is easily understood and many on the left today fail to grasp Marx’s teachings sadly. But here I will point readers in the right direction. Marx described his idea of how crisis’s come about and how they can be counters acted and how they will eventually be overcome. This is basic Marxism which all comrades must try and grasp if we are to understand the current economic crisis and produce a well rounded Marxist analysis and a alternative to the crisis which as Marxist’s must be nothing less than the over throw of the current order the removal of the capitalist system in place of a socialist planned democratic economy based on the needs of the many. The tendancy for the rate of profit is basically summed up in the notion thatcapitalits as technology advances naturally uses’s more machinery to help produce comodites and as Labour is the source of profit the capitalist use’s less of labour power variable capital if you like the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall is thus. One blog I would point you in the direction of is my comrade from Scotland Bruce Wallace http://69.195.124.91/~brucieba/ Bruce is a highly developed comrade in terms of political economy and Marxist economics that the CWI should treasure and look to. Bruce’s blog is excellent in expressing and educating other socialists on the ideas of Marx and Marx’s ideas of crisis. Bruce like others remains true to the ideas of Marx and Marx’s ides in volume 3 which I’d advice all comrades to read closely the ideas of crisis and how Marx understands crisis’s to develop. To quote from Bruce’s excellent blog below. “We must clarify exactly what is meant by the rate of profit in capitalism because the term profits can be quite misleading. The rate of profit is determined by the rate of return on the amount of capital invested (advanced in Marx’s terminology). If a capitalist advances a capital of £100 and the rate of profit is 20% they will get their original investment back plus £20 in profit. The rate of profit is therefore a percentage rate of return on investment. The £20 the capitalist reaps as profit at the end of the production process is what is regarded as the mass of profit. From this it is easy to see that if the rate of profit falls to say 10% but the capitalist advances £1000 that the mass of profit will be £100. So even with a lower rate of profit the capitalist can recoup a greater mass of profit. This is an important point to remember as we proceed with Marx’s theory. What is clear is that the rate of profit is what the capitalist expects to make on the investment of their capital based on the existing rate of profit. So caution is required when reading economic literature that refers to the abstract term ‘profits’ as the rate and mass of profit are two distinctly different things. The rate is the expectation and the mass is the result. Capital is attracted to the areas of industry which are making the highest rate of profit. This is not based on the independent decision making of individual capitalists. In modern capitalism there is a free flow of capital to the most profitable sectors and this process is automatically governed by the stock market. Through the coercive force of competition the rate of profit tends to equalize and to fall across the economy as a whole. This applies to the world economy and not just within national economies. The less productive, and hence less profitable, industries go out of business or are absorbed by rivals. So it is the rate of profit which is the motive force of competition and for a greater and greater concentration and centralisation of capital. There is a growth of larger corporations and monopolies with their integration into banking and finance. This is what Marx means by an increase in the mass of accumulated capital although a fall in the rate of profit means a decline in the rate of accumulation. In other words economic growth slows but the concentration of capital (its mass) increases. This is very much like the evolution of a black hole in physics. How the LTRPF, in tandem with accumulation, works out in practice to produce crisis is explained by Marx in a chapter in Capital Volume III titled “Development of the Law’s Internal Contradictions”. Let’s look at how it works? How it Works in Practice The continuous downward pressure on the rate of profit brings forth what Marx called counteracting influences or tendencies and these are the main ones. • More intense exploitation of labour (increasing productivity) • Reduction of wages below their value (wage cuts) • Cheapening of the elements of constant capital (reducing the cost of machinery) • The relative surplus population (using unemployment to force down wages and conditions)) • Foreign trade (the expansion of global capitalism) • The increase in share capital (the growth of banking and finance/debt” All these points above are crucial to understanding how the tendency for the rate of profit LTRPF, can be delayed and held up. But as we know this can only delay the v LTRPF to fall. The general tendency is for this to eventually fall. The addition of credit in the capitalist system in the last 10- 20 years extending this process was a method adapted to the capitalist system only to stem the crisis and put it off for another day. Bruce in his superb blog goes on to explain what this means in practice “The LTRPF is primarily a historical law whose influence is felt over a protracted period of time resulting in major periodic crisis but it also is the underlying reason for ‘normal’ periodic recessions. In this sense the law has two aspects. Marx analysed the impact of the counter tendencies on the long term operation of the law. As he explains in relation to increasing the exploitation of the working class either through improving productivity or lengthening the working day: ‘This factor does not abolish the general law. But it causes that law to act rather as a tendency, i.e., as a law whose absolute action is checked, retarded, and weakened, by counteracting circumstances’. (Capital Vol III ) Earlier, in relation to the reduction of surplus value embodied in commodities due to accumulation offsetting a fall in the rate of profit by cheapening the cost of both productive and consumer goods he wrote: ‘But in reality, as we have seen, the rate of profit will fall in the long run. In no case does the fall in the price of any individual commodity by itself give a clue to the rate of profit. Everything depends on the magnitude of the total capital expended in its production’. (Capital Vol III ) And: Thus the law acts only as a tendency. And it is only under certain circumstances and only after long periods that its effects become strikingly pronounced’ Recourse to credit and finance was a particular feature of the neo-liberal boom. There was a huge growth in both consumer and government debt which extended the period of the boom but it did not negate the general law. Thus recourse to what Marx called fictitious capital laid the basis for a sovereign debt and fiscal crisis. This is fictitious i.e. imaginary value, because it is based purely on paper assets, promissory notes on future profits, yet the root of the crisis lay in production and the long term decline in the rate of profit. The law appears to operate cyclically and governs the onset of recessions. This has been proven in excellent research by José Granados (2012): ‘‘Data on 251 quarters of the U.S. economy show that recessions are preceded by declines in profits. Profits stop growing and start falling four or five quarters before a recession. They strongly recover immediately after the recession. Since investment is to a large extent determined by profitability and investment is a major component of demand, the fall in profits leading to a fall in investment, in turn to a fall in demand, seems to be a basic mechanism in the causation of recessions.’ Thus we have periodic booms and slumps. Normally there are recessions approximately every eight years or so that are quickly overcome but the process is also cumulative. As accumulation proceeds the historical operation of the law builds up pressure for major generalised crises over a longer timescale. We have seen this in the history of capitalism where there have been four major generalised crises; the Long Depression of the 1870’s, the Great Depression of the 1930’s, the crisis of the 1970’s and todays Long Depression. The falling rate of profit is the underlying and indirect force driving these crises all of which have specific and unique features. In some ways this is akin to the movement of the earth’s tectonic plates that build up pressure at fault lines in the earth’s crust eventually causing earthquakes. The LTRPF is exactly like this; an indirect force acting on the dynamics of capitalist development that causes economic earthquakes! “ Bruce finnish’s with this section “The crisis is far from over as more sober economic commentators have pointed out in a world loaded with geopolitical and economic risk. It is just as Karl Marx predicted for capitalism: ‘Its historical mission is unconstrained development in geometrical progression of the productivity of human labour. It goes back on its mission whenever, as here, it checks the development of productivity. It thus demonstrates again that it is becoming senile and that it is more and more outlived’. (Capital Vol III ) Capitalism is senile and outlived because its motive force, the rate of profit, is weak. In order to restore it and usher in a renewed period of dynamic growth there must be the mass destruction of capital value and intensified exploitation of the working class, a renewed major global economic slump is therefore inevitable at some point. Even a major recovery will sow the seeds for a renewed downturn and these are becoming ever more violent and catastrophic in their effect. Only One Alternative Marxists are in favour of revolution not because capitalism is an unjust or unequal form of society. Of course capitalism is just that but there is another more pressing reason. Marx showed that capitalism leads to ever more destructive economic crises. Capitalism’s lust to expand endlessly inevitably hits ever more insurmountable barriers due to the crisis tendency that is inbuilt into the very logic of the system itself. As Marx stipulated the barrier to capital in these terms is capital itself. Unless capitalism is overthrown the prospects for humanity are grim including the exhaustion of the earth’s natural resources or destructive war but there is an alternative: ‘The contradiction between the general social power into which capital develops, on the one hand, and the private power of the individual capitalists over these social conditions of production, on the other, becomes ever more irreconcilable, and yet contains the solution of the problem, because it implies at the same time the transformation of the conditions of production into general, common, social, conditions. This transformation stems from the development of the productive forces under capitalist production, and from the ways and means by which this development takes place’. (Marx Capital Vol III) The only alternative to the deepening crisis of capitalism’s ‘creative destruction’ is its abolition as a social system and its replacement with a socialist plan of production on a global scale. Other solutions, such as limited nationalisation, state control of the banks and policies aimed at redistributing wealth for example are completely utopian. Provided capitalist production continues i.e. a system which aims at the production of value, of abstract wealth, in favour of a small minority of society and not to meet general human need more destructive crises are inevitable. Marxists do of course struggle for immediate reforms such as halting the austerity cuts, an increase in wages and a program of public works but only as part of a general strategy towards the overthrow of the capitalist system itself. To argue otherwise, as some on the left have done, that capitalism has somehow solved its problems in the advanced countries negating the need for revolution is flying in the face of reality. The epicentre of the current capitalist crisis is precisely in the advanced capitalist countries where there is such a historic accumulation of the mass of capital. In the advance countries the prospect for the working class is increasing misery and exploitation and the historic decline of the economy. The Greek and Spanish crises show the more advanced European countries an image of their own future as the crisis begins to grip France who’s unemployment has hit 10%. Across Europe more that 20 million workers are jobless and the depression is deepening. Neither will the rise of capitalism in the emerging markets offer a way out as this will lead to exactly the same working out of Marx’s law. China, the world’s second biggest economy, is preparing a massive slump with its huge growth of constant capital. The interconnectedness of the global capitalist economy heralds further conflagrations of more intensity and depth on a world scale than ever before. The long term choice for the working class is stark, socialism or barbarism, and only in the works of Karl Marx can a thought out scientific answer to the way forward be found.” So we can see that the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall is a long term affect with several counter acting measues which can be taken but ultimately can only put off the crisis for another day. The ultimate choice is of a widespread destruction of capital resulting in huge redundancies, mass unemployment and therefore a driving down of labour power to a point where capital can feel confident enough to start to reinvest. Not when the ground is clear for reinvestment will this happen. It is clear that left Keynesian demands will only go so far that we have to take a much bigger look at the overall picture of production and the capitalist system as a whole to understand the long term trends within the system itself. For Marxist’s this should be Marxism 101 but not for an all sadly. A fear of theory and economics leads others to blindly follow others yet a examination of Marx’s works will show many experienced Marxists that the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is spot on and however had they try to disprove it Marx always comes back stronger and even more correct. Lastly I don’t fully understand this myself but am developing my understanding all the time I therefore encourage other comrades and beyond to educate themselves too in the teachings of Marx and Engel’s in economics as it’s crucial to understanding the period we are living through. With huge thanks to comrade Bruce Wallace and his excellent blog for extracts and help. Do check him out if you can. References Marx, K. (2013) Capital Volume I Marxist internet archive http://www.marxists.org/ Marx, K. (2013) Capital Volume II Marxist internet archive http://www.marxists.org/ Marx, K. (2013) Capital Volume III Marxist internet archive http://www.marxists.org/ Marx, K. (2013) Theories of surplus value Marxist internet archive http://www.marxists.org/ Marx , K. (2013) Grundrisse Marxist internet archive http://www.marxists.org/ And lastly comrade Bruce Wallace’s blog http://69.195.124.91/~brucieba/2013/06/11/the-basic-mechanism-of-capitalist-crisis-part-ii/

a brief look at merchants capitalism

Right across the world some of the biggest well known brand names including Nike, Apple, Benetton, Gap and others have huge power now with allot of them acting under a merchant capitalist mode of production. What I mean is that the likes of Nike and Apple do not produce anything at all. They do not produce any surplus value to speak of the sub contract all their work out to companies in Asia or Central America where the rate of exploitation is huge. This means that the merchant capitalist such as Nike does not have to enter into labour negotiations rather rather it is the sub contractor who deals with labour negotiations which usually means not recognising unions and making their workers work in some of the worst conditions known to man on the planet all in the pursuit of profit for themselves but also Nike or whoever is the merchant capital putting their capital into circulation in the homeland. It is a quite strange thing to say thing to say when you say Apple doesn’t actually produce anything at all but it is the case all of their products are made in China with the likes of Foxcom who saw huge workplace riots just last year due to Apples drive for lower wages and harder and harder rates of exploitation. Due to the huge demand for their commodities their products in other words in the western world their workers who are sub contracted not actually employed by Apple as such but Apple do extract the mass of surplus value or a cut of that value for their own profitable ends. As Karl Marx wrote in capital volume 3 “Hitherto we have considered merchant's capital merely from the standpoint, and within the limits, of the capitalist mode of production. However, not commerce alone, but also merchant's capital, is older than the capitalist mode of production, is, in fact, historically the oldest free state of existence of capital.” “Since merchant's capital is penned in the sphere of circulation, and since its function consists exclusively of promoting the exchange of commodities, it requires no other conditions for its existence — aside from the undeveloped forms arising from direct barter — outside those necessary for the simple circulation of commodities and money. Or rather, the latter is the condition of its existence. No matter what the basis on which products are produced, which are thrown into circulation as commodities — whether the basis of the primitive community, of slave production, of small peasant and petty bourgeois, or the capitalist basis, the character of products as commodities is not altered, and as commodities they must pass through the process of exchange and its attendant changes of form. The extremes between which merchant's capital acts as mediator exist for it as given, just as they are given for money and for its movements. The only necessary thing is that these extremes should be on hand as commodities, regardless of whether production is wholly a production of commodities, or whether only the surplus of the independent producers' immediate needs, satisfied by their own production, and is thrown on the market. Merchant's capital promotes only the movements of these extremes, of these commodities, which are preconditions of its own existence.” Understanding merchant’s capitalism is quite important as I believe and as I’ve understood laid the basis for capitalism to develop on a larger scale. It is the point in which capital is put into motion by those financial capitalists with the capital to invest in new areas of industry to socialise more labour power to then convert this into greater and greater surplus value. Being such an old system it is interesting to look into the ways merchant capital progressed. Merchant capitalism is a term used by economic historians to refer to the earliest phase in the development of capitalism as an economic and social system. Early forms of merchant capitalism were developed in the medieval Islamic world from the 9th century, and in medieval Europe from the 12th century. In Europe, merchant capitalism became a significant economic force in the 16th century, depending on point of view. The mercantile era drew to a close around 1800, giving way to industrial capitalism. However, merchant capitalism remained entrenched in some parts of the West well into the 19th century, most notably the Southern United States, where the plantation system constrained the development of industrial capitalism (limiting markets for consumer goods) whose political manifestations prevented Northern legislators from passing broad economic packages (e.g. monetary and banking reform, a transcontinental railroad, and incentives for settlement of the American west) to integrate the states' economies and spur the growth of industrial capitalism.[4] Merchant capitalism is distinguished from the mature variety by the lack of industrialization and commercial finance. Merchant houses were backed by relatively small private financiers acting as intermediaries between simple commodity producers and by exchanging debt with each other. Thus, merchant capitalism preceded the capitalist mode of production as a form of capital accumulation. The transformation of merchant capitalism into industrial capitalism necessitated, according to Karl Marx, a process of primitive accumulation of capital, upon which commercial finance operations could be based and making application of mass wage labor and industrialization possible. This period was also more commonly known as Mercantilism a primititive stage in capitalist production. With extracts from Wickepedia and Karl Mars’s volume 3 by penguin books.

Why theory matters

In the day to day struggle of making a living and just getting by the matter of theory can sometime seem abstract and not relevant. I think this is a mistake I. Recently I’ve been shocked and surprised at the level of political understanding that your average socialist party member has when it comes to Marxism. Whilst I don’t think this is uncommon the left due to the driving back of workers consciousness is at a very low point as we stand. No amount of talking ourselves up and saying things are good just around the corner will do I’m afraid. Things are very poor for us and we must face up to that not continuously con ourselves into thinking if only the trade union leaders were better and more militant we would have a chance. This completely fails to understand the role of trade union leader’s labour aristocracy if you like in the class struggle. Very few if any are revolutionaries and most are out and out reformist and some have even brought into the idea there is no alternative to the market and capitalism. What saddens me most though is the attitude towards theory. Of course our day to day struggles are important probably more so at the moment with the bedroom tax and the other huge cuts on their way. But even within more so called advanced members of our party I’ve found a big lack of theory and understanding. Most get that capitalism is bad and needs to be replaced that’s a g even or should be at least. # Yet you start to talk about Marxist economics and many run a mile a sort of fear of Marxism a fear of theory and economics. Few I know have actually read or even tried to read capital one of Karl Marx greatest works. I’m currently working my way through volume 3 myself and I haven’t found it easy but I believe it is fundamental and absolutely necessary for a comrades understanding of the system we are looking to over throw. I genuinely feel you cannot over throw something you have very little understanding of. Few comrades I note have even tried to read capital fearing its s size and its complicated language actually it isn’t that bad once you get into it I found. Some parts are hard there is no getting away from that but you must endeavour and once I finish reading it there is much to understand from it I will no doubt read it again at some point as it is a very rich text with plenty of lessons for workers today. Take for example Marx’s theory of labour value most comrades know the workers are being mugged but mention surplus value or necessary labour time they mostly haven’t a clue. An understanding of theory doesn’t have to be academic far from it it is the basic under pinning of any good party and membership. A failure to grasp what we’re up against will result in coming up short I have to say. This is not a plea to start reading everything Marx ever wrote but a plea for the party to take the idea of theory far more seriously than it currently does. There is always time to read and read some more. We even try new member’s schools which need to be developed for more advanced comrades too who want to develop their ideas further taking on bigger and bigger ideas if they can. Whilst some will say to me we need to be relevant and talk to workers in ways they can understand this misses the point I’m not saying we are about to go out and start talking in Marxist terms about excess surplus value or variable capital on the picket lines no not at all but this is something we as a party must get to grips with. If we can understand things better about the way capitalism works or doesn’t work depending on your point of view the better chance we have of convincing workers putting things into a way they can understand things as I do believe many workers can understand Marx it is not something that is way out or very hard to read. Sure Marx wrote it in a day where language was very different but there are so many help books lectures by the likes of Prof David Harvey who help you understand things much better from capital that there really isn’t any reason why ordinary workers could start to get this sort of stuff. Also understanding and learning the lessons from history is key reading and learning workers struggles from the past including the Russian revolution the Spanish and what happened in Chile is also key. I think understanding Trotsky’s writings on fascism what it is and how to fight it will become key in the future too but that’s for another post. Theory is important and should be given more time and thought certainly for me a good Marxist understanding should be fundamental to any good revolutionary worth their salt today. I mean I am starting to understand a bit more why can’t others?

Remembering the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederich Engel’s

Today is the anniversary of one of the most famous text’s ever written. On Febuary21st 1848 Karl Marx and Frederich Engels published what would go on to be known as one of the greatest works for the working class ever wrote. Here I’ll look at its relevance today and how we can learn from the text back then to apply to today’s struggles. A product of the genius of the young Marx and Engel’s (Engel’s was 27, Marx 29); the Manifesto stands out as one of the greatest examples of world literature. With its brilliant summing up of history, the class struggle, the role of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, it marked the entry of the ideas of scientific socialism onto the stage of world history. But the Manifesto is not just of historic interest. Its most important parts are fresh even today. In simple words, it depicts the realities of late 20th century capitalism far more accurately than the millions of words daily churned out by its defenders. Above all, it is in the method of Marx and Engel’s, so clearly elaborated in this document, that are to be found the tools to combat capitalism and build a new socialist world. Obviously, in a document written 150 years ago there is much now outdated. However, it is with astonishment that we discover how much in the Manifesto describes the situation today. To have made such a claim at the beginning of this decade would have invited scorn from the representatives of capitalism. Against the backdrop of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Marxism, that is scientific socialism, was 'dead and buried'. The collapse of the Stalinist regimes, and with them the planned economy, resulted in unbridled capitalist triumphalism. The Wall Street Journal, organ of the ignorant American financial barons, proclaimed, 'We've won', while Thatcher and Reagan, the twin stars in the capitalist firmament at that time, boasted that 'the lesson of the 1980s is that socialism has failed'. It is not just 'antiquated' Marxists who look to the authors of the Manifesto for an explanation of today's world. Individual commentators, confronted by the desolation and chaos of modern capitalist society, are turning back to Marx. Neil Ascherson, in the Independent on Sunday, despite his scepticism about Marx, recently confessed that, "in spite of everything, I feel a spirit moving again under the floor boards... this was the man who saw that every social order carries the seeds of its own destruction, above all when that order seems universal and invincible. Now is the moment to remember that lesson". Commenting on the 90th anniversary of the Manifesto, Leon Trotsky, referring to Marx's materialist conception of history, wrote that it had "completely withstood the test of events and the blows of hostile criticism. It constitutes today one of the most precious instruments of human thought. All other interpretations of the historical process have lost all scientific meaning. We can state with certainty that it is impossible in our time to be not only a revolutionary militant, but even a literate observer of politics, without assimilating the materialist interpretation of history". MARX AND ENGELS showed that the development of capitalism went together with the creation of the world market which bound together the world into one interdependent whole. In the process, the capitalists developed their own 'gravediggers' in the form of the working class. This class was not restricted to one country, but developed on a world scale. From these ideas of Marx and Engel’s developed the idea of socialist and working class internationalism. The Dockers in Liverpool, the French truck drivers, the Danish and Bangalore bus workers, in seeking to spread their struggles on a continental and world basis, all stand on the shoulders of the authors of the Manifesto. The tendencies which Marx traced out in the Manifesto have been taken to a level which could not have been anticipated. Marx referred to the growing concentration of capital, but only in his monumental work, Capital, did he show how free competition tended towards monopoly. Since Marx's day, and particularly in the era of globalisation, the growth and power of monopolies is transparently obvious. An estimated 150 giant firms - monopolies - dominate 80-85% of the British economy. Undoubtedly, Marx and Engel have made a mistake in their prognosis on the imminence of revolution when they wrote the Manifesto. They also overestimated the preparedness of the working class to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism at that stage. Marx maintained that no social system departed from the arena of history before exhausting all its possibilities. In the Manifesto he attacks capitalism for retarding the development of the productive forces. But at that stage, this retardation was only relative in nature. Undoubtedly, if the working class had taken power in the second part of the 19th century, industry and society would have developed at a much greater tempo than it did. Nevertheless, capitalism did develop the productive forces on a world scale. In other words, at that stage, capitalism was relatively reactionary. It became absolutely reactionary only with the onset of the First World War, when it became clear that the productive forces had completely outgrown the narrow limits of private ownership, on the one side, and the nation state, on the other. Only then did capitalism become an absolute barrier to the full utilisation of the potential of the productive forces. This was reflected in the aftermath of the First World War. The booms were weaker and more anaemic than before 1914, and there were deeper slumps and protracted economic stagnation. It is true that capitalism experienced a spectacular structural growth in production between 1950-73. This unique and special period in the development of capitalism arose from the destruction of the second world war, the slaughter of value, both of constant capital and the literal slaughter of variable capital - that is the working class - combined with other factors: the utilisation of technology, which had lain fallow before then, and the economic strength and power of US capitalism. The end of this long boom signified that world capitalism had entered a depressionary phase. The 1980s boom seemed to superficially contradict this, but it was lopsided; the relative position of the working class declined, as did the living standards of the peoples of Africa, Latin America and large parts of Asia. The growth rates of the 1980s were far inferior, as was the rate of investment back into industry, to the 1950-73 upswing. But the trend towards globalisation, particularly in the 1990s, has enormously 'internationalised', speeded up and synchronised economic processes throughout the world economy. The international bourgeoisie, particularly in the USA and Europe, tried to pretend at the beginning that the Asian economic crisis was a 'little local difficulty'. Trotsky's phrase, 'Tobogganing towards disaster with their eyes closed,' comes to mind. ONE OF THE ideas of Marx, elaborated in the Manifesto, which has been the subject of vicious distortion and constant attacks by bourgeois and social democratic politicians alike, is the so-called 'theory of increasing misery'. Marx did not advance such an idea. He was well aware that there were periods when the working class was able to extract concessions, and important concessions, from the capitalists. But even in these periods, superficial appearances disguised the fact that often the share of the working class of national income actually declined. In other words, there was a relative decline of the masses' standards of living. Even during the spectacular structural upswing of 1950-73, when the absolute standards of living of the working class grew substantially in the advanced industrial world, the same was not true in the colonial and former colonial world, where two-thirds of humankind is concentrated. THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO was conceived by its authors not just as a sweeping condemnation of capitalism and an abstract advocacy of socialism and communism. Above all, it was a call for action in the imminent revolution which Marx and Engel’s were expecting. It was directed particularly at the adherents of the Communist League. It is this, the call for revolutionary action, which even the most sympathetic bourgeois commentators on the Manifesto oppose or keep quiet about. Undoubtedly, Marx and Engel’s overestimated the possibility of a socialist revolution in 1848, and the preparedness of the working class to take power then. It took events, particularly the Paris Commune, to show that only by the creation of a mass socialist revolutionary party at the head of the working class could such a social overturn be completed. This was borne out, moreover, by the Russian revolution, which would have been impossible without the existence of a mass revolutionary party in the form of the Bolshevik party, and the far-sighted leadership of Lenin and Trotsky. The task of creating such a party is even more urgent today than at any other time since the Manifesto was written. At the time of the 100th anniversary of the Manifesto, in 1948, the British Labour Party reproduced the Manifesto, with an introduction by Harold Laski, identifying the party with the aims of its authors: "Few documents in the history of mankind have stood up so remarkably to the test of verification by the future as the Communist Manifesto. Essentially, after its publication, no one has been able to seriously contravert any of its major positions. All over the world, the crises of capitalism have grown both more frequent and more profound". How far New Labour has travelled to the right since then! Blair and Brown view the Communist Manifesto as the devil views holy water. They have converted the Labour Party from a vehicle for working people into another capitalist party. This has put the need to create a new mass party of the working class on the agenda. The new generation of workers, youth and radicalised intellectuals, who will raise on their shoulders such a party, will inevitably turn back to the marvellous and brilliant generalisations, the crystal-clear ideas of Marx and Engel’s. In place of the duplicitous and cloudy phrases of reformists, of 'liberal' deceptions, which are now the stock-in-trade of the official leadership of New Labour, they will find clarity. They can read Marx's broad generalisation which has stood the test of time: With extracts taken from http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/manifesto/m2frame.htm?150.htm

The Marxist view of individuals in history

All throughout history we learn of various kings and queens who played vital roles in the changing of history but the bourgeois view of history doesn’t take into consideration the role of class forces in society the moving of one class against another and the role of revolutions. At socialism 2012 this weekend I attended the session on historical materialism which was a fascinating discussion hosted by Ken Douglas of the socialist party. The discussion was very interesting too. A Few people raised the role of the individual and the role of Stalin for example. As Trotsky Stalin did not win a personal battle with Trotsky or was the stronger leader or anything like that he was propelled to power due to the fact of the material conditions at the time. The combined isolation of the workers state, the degeneration and the rising bureaucracy due to Russia being attacked from all angles lead Stalin to be put in that position due to the conditions. If not Stalin it would have been someone else. Trotsky answers this when he says if I had removed Stalin from his rise and taken the position myself then i’d have ended up like Stalin, The fact Trotsky could see this and with Lenin on his death bed Lenin urged the removal of Stalin but it was too late the material forces were working against the left opposition at the time and very little could stop this slide apart from the political over throw of the bureaucracy and resuming the movement which started in October. CAPITALISM THE system we live under today is unequal and undemocratic. This is because capitalism is a class society, based on the exploitation of the working-class (the majority of the population) by the capitalist class (a small minority of the population) who own and control industry and financial institutions, and dominate governments and the political establishment. We are told that capitalism is the best way of organizing society; that socialism is impossible. We are told that history is made by famous individuals like kings, queens and politicians, and that working-class people have no power to change society. We are even told by some people that there is no way of understanding how society develops: followers of post-modernism, a theory which gained popularity in the 1990s, believe that there are no general laws that govern the development of society. None of these things are true. The theory of historical materialism, developed by Marx and Engels, provides a framework for analyzing human society and the laws of its development. It explains that class societies have not always existed; that in fact the earliest human societies were classless ones based on co-operation not exploitation. MARX AND Engels worked out their theory of how human society develops in a struggle against 'idealist' philosophers. Many people think of socialism as being 'idealist' - that is that it is a nice idea, but unrealistic (what Marx and Engels called 'utopianism'). On the contrary, the ideas of socialism and Marxism are very practical and realistic because they are based on analyzing the real world and how it works. Unlike the way most people understand the word today, 'idealism' originally meant a trend within philosophy. The idealists believed that ideas come first, and that material reality comes into being as a result of these ideas. An idealist (in philosophy) would say that changes in material reality are caused by ideas, not by material forces; that ideas have an existence that is independent of an unrelated to material reality. While we recognize that ideas play an important part in social change, Marxists are materialists (again, in the philosophical sense). To a materialist, human society and history is shaped by material social and economic forces - real things and processes - and ideas are the reflection of this material reality in human consciousness. Change i.e political change comes about due to mass social forces from below every change in society even bourgeois society capitalism was born from below over throwing feudal systems aspects of feudal society still remain in parts today with institutions such as the Monarchy in some nations still today. Marxists believe that human society is based on material forces. In other words, in order for any human society to exist, humans must produce the necessities of life which enable us to survive: food, shelter, water, etc. These are material things without which we would die out. But the way we interact to produce these necessities, who controls the products of our labour and how they use them, determines the type of society we live in. At the beginning: evolution WITHOUT CERTAIN physical factors, human society as we know it could not have developed: the large human brain, the voice box and the opposable thumb. The development and growth of the brain and the voice box happened because of the way early humans evolved in interaction with their environment. They were less well adapted to their environment than many species and compensated for this by working together in large groups and developing tools. The growth of the physical size of the human brain, which is much larger than any other animals’ when compared to our body weight, was both a result of the growth of human intelligence (driven by the need to co-operate and make tools) and a cause of its further growth. With a larger amount of brain available for use, early humans had more potential to develop their intelligence further. The opposable thumb allows us to hold, make and use tools. Without the fine handling skills it made possible, early humans wouldn't have been able to develop and use the sophisticated tools that allowed them to survive and prosper in a changing environment. "THE MOST indubitable feature of a revolution is the direct interference of the masses in historic events. In ordinary times the state, be it monarchical or democratic, elevates itself above the nation, and history is made by specialists in that line of business - kings, ministers, bureaucrats, parliamentarians, journalists. But at those crucial moments when the old order becomes no longer endurable to the masses, they break over the barriers excluding them from the political arena, sweep aside their traditional representatives, and create by their own interference the initial groundwork for a new regime . . ." Preface, the History of the Russian revolution, Trotsky. Revolutionary change - how society develops OVER TIME the contradictions built into the economic, political and legal structures of each class society grow. Eventually they become a block on the productive forces (the productivity of human labour), holding back their development. The old ruling class try desperately to block change in order to cling on to their privileges and power. In this situation the only way that society can move forward is for the old ruling class to be removed from power and a new way of organizing society to be put in its place. This means a revolution. A socialist revolution to free the working class and humanity as a result. Excellent quotes and extracts taken from http://www.marxism.org.uk/pack/history.html

5 years into the crisis any signs of improvement ?

Some date the crisis to August 9 2007, the day it became clear that Europe’s banks were up to their necks in US housing debt. The ECB flooded markets with €95bn of liquidity. It seemed a lot of money then. We have since seen a lot lot more money pumped into the banking system to plug the huge gaps that will not go away. 5 years into one of the biggest capitalist crisis’s ever possibly eclipsing the great depression in the 30’s industrial output has still not picked up. There is no country in the world that this crisis has not affected in some shape or form, Be they strikes, demonstrations, cuts, austerity tax hikes everywhere is being affected to some extent. China is sufficiently alarmed by the flint hardness of its "soft-landing" to talk up trillions of fresh stimulus. The European Central Bank is preparing to print “whatever it takes” to save Spain and Italy. Markets are pricing in an 80pc chance of yet more printing by the US Federal Reserve in September or soon after. The world remains in barely contained slump. Industrial output is still below earlier peaks in Germany (-2), US (-3), Canada (-8) France (-9), Sweden (-10), Britain (-11), Belgium (-12), Japan (-15), Hungary (-15) Italy (-17), Spain (-22), Greece (-27), according to St Louis Fed data. By that gauge this is proving more intractable than the Great Depression. Investors were pulling money out of America’s $2.5 trillion money market industry in panic. This was the long-feared heart attack in the credit system, even if the economic malaise behind it did not become clear for another year. The original trigger for the Great Recession has since faded into insignificance. America’s house price bubble -- modest by European or Chinese standards -- has by now entirely deflated. Warren Buffett is betting on a rebound. Fannie and Freddie are making money again. Five years on it is clear that subprime was merely the first bubble to pop, a symptom not a cause. Europe had its own parallel follies. Britons were extracting almost 5pc of GDP each year in home equity by the end. Spain built 800,00 homes in 2007 for a market of 250,000. Iceland ran amok, so did Latvia and Hungary. The credit debacle was global. If there was an epicenter, it was Europe’s €35 trillion banking nexus. Stephen Cecchetti at the Bank for International Settlements concludes that debt turns “bad” at roughly 85pc of GDP for public debt, 85pc for household debt, and 90pc corporate debt. If all three break the limit together, the system loses its shock absorbers. “Debt is a two-edged sword. Used wisely and in moderation, it clearly improves welfare. Used imprudently and in excess, the result can be disaster,” he said. Right now it’s the working class that is being saddled with this mountain of debt and being forced to pay through what seems like endless austerity. This what we are living through now austerity is the norm now before the crisis it was a debt field credit boom which was unsustainable and many knew this but were unprepared to speak out. Marxists knew this as we understand the fundamental workings of capitalism. Karl Marx uncovered this in the 1800’s. Many modern economists turned to Marx when the financial crash happened saying ah ha Marx was right. They are no longer saying that as his analysis of capitalism was far greater than they can imagine and get their pro capitalist heads around. Their system is bankrupt and has no life left in it. It will continue but at the expense of the 99% the workers. It will drag itself with its claws to life again sucking the life out of workers for life. We must not let it bring itself back to life. As Marx correctly pointed out there is no “final crisis” in capitalism it will not collapse on its own it‘ll find a way to recover most likely at the expense of us, ordinary working people. It must be over thrown and only the working class has the power to do this. I read in the Telegraph today that even one of their writers is suggesting debt needs to be written off. We can fully support that that is one of the things we’re calling for. Make the rich pay, cancel the debt, Nationalise the banks and the commanding heights of the economy, and put controls on capital flows in and out of the nation as first steps towards changing society towards a socialist world... With extracts and references from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9471018/Five-years-on-the-Great-Recession-is-turning-into-a-life-sentence.html

Solidarity on international workers day happy may day to all

On the 1st of May around the world workers are uniting together to stand together on international workers day.

Otherwise known as May Day. In Britain there will be many rally’s marches and events held to celebrate this day where we can feel our strength and unity together as a collective force.

Fewer and fewer times we get to feel this feeling. I felt it last year on November 30th where 2 million workers took strike action that day. The labour movement hasn’t fully realised its power for sometime I hope this is about to change.

The power working people have when we unite is huge. One of the greatest movements there is when workers get up off their knees and fight back against their exploitation.

With the crisis of capitalism deepening everyday let’s remember we are far stronger united than divided lets fight every attempt to divide and rule us by the ruling class. We are far greater in numbers but let’s unite on grounds of our class all races, genders, ages, sexualities and religions. We are all workers and all want a better life for the human race.

This May Day let’s remember those workers who have given their lives to the struggle for a better society a fairer world and a world free of injustices.
Let’s double our efforts to fight for a socialist transformation of society putting peoples social needs first.

As Karl Marx prescribed workers of the world you have nothing to lose but your chains, workers of the world unite!

What are the most favourable conditions for the working class under capitalism?

It is often said capitalism from a left wing position is a awful, evil and exploitative system but I’d like to examine which conditions under capitalism would be favourable to the working class for winning concessions and gaining under the system not that they could ever really gain but for a time gain bit on their employing masters.

In Karl Marx fantastic pamphlet wage labour and capital the last chapter describes this brilliantly for me.
As we know the interests of labour and capital are in total opposites of each other and fighting in two different directions.

As Marx’s chapter 8 of wage labour and capital quoted here shows us
“A rapid growth of capital is synonymous with a rapid growth of profits. Profits can grow rapidly only when the price of labour – the relative wages – decrease just as rapidly. Relative wages may fall, although real wages rise simultaneously with nominal wages, with the money value of labour, provided only that the real wage does not rise in the same proportion as the profit. If, for instance, in good business years wages rise 5 per cent, while profits rise 30 per cent, the proportional, the relative wage has not increased, but decreased.
If, therefore, the income of the worker increased with the rapid growth of capital, there is at the same time a widening of the social chasm that divides the worker from the capitalist, and increase in the power of capital over labour, a greater dependence of labour upon capital.
To say that "the worker has an interest in the rapid growth of capital", means only this: that the more speedily the worker augments the wealth of the capitalist, the larger will be the crumbs which fall to him, the greater will be the number of workers than can be called into existence, the more can the mass of slaves dependent upon capital be increased.
We have thus seen that even the most favourable situation for the working class, namely, the most rapid growth of capital, however much it may improve the material life of the worker, does not abolish the antagonism between his interests and the interests of the capitalist. Profit and wages remain as before, in inverse proportion.
If capital grows rapidly, wages may rise, but the profit of capital rises disproportionately faster. The material position of the worker has improved, but at the cost of his social position. The social chasm that separates him from the capitalist has widened.
Finally, to say that "the most favourable condition for wage-labour is the fastest possible growth of productive capital", is the same as to say: the quicker the working class multiplies and augments the power inimical to it – the wealth of another which lords over that class – the more favourable will be the conditions under which it will be permitted to toil anew at the multiplication of bourgeois wealth, at the enlargement of the power of capital, content thus to forge for itself the golden chains by which the bourgeoisie drags it in its train.
“

Marx is explaining that the greater growth of capital and the capitalist mode of production is in an upswing and is increasing its means of production to a point more workers can be employed from the mass reserve army and the workers can therefore go on the offensive within the trade unions to fight for better working pay and conditions. As socialists we look to expose the capitalist system at any chance we get but it’s a two fold approach from what I can tell when the capitalist system is in decline as we are now the system becomes far more exposed and workers can realise how little stake in society they really have whereas if the capitalist system is in a incline the workers can gain more as a slice of the pie but find it harder to recognise the contradiction of the system as they are benefiting from in the short term.
As the rich get richer the poor get constantly poorer even during the so called better times. So my argument would be even though an upswing in the capitalist system can benefit the workers in a sense this will not challenge the contradictions of the system and ultimately do nothing to defeat the wage labour system and lead to a breaking of the workers chains for their ultimate road to freedom.
But of course workers would prefer periods where they can go on the offensive and gain rather than periods they are set to defend what they have gained and to not loose anymore.

Remembering Leon Trotsky one of the greatest class fighters of all time

Down the years people have stood out against oppression and exploitation including the likes of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Lenin, Robert Owen George Orwell and many more to mention here but I would like to focus on Leon Trotsky.
A comrade born into a middle class environment dedicated his whole life to struggle for ordinary poor people and his life story featured in my life by Leon Trotsky highlights exactly this. The struggles that Trotsky took up was a never ending battle with people who he opposed. Trotsky didn’t oppose people for the sake of it he opposed them on principle and never ever let his principles drop until his death in 1940 at the hands of the Stalinist regime.

Leon Trotsky, the greatest living revolutionary of the time, was murdered by Josef Stalin's hit man Ramón Mercader in 1940. Previous attempts on Trotsky's life had failed. But this time a fatal blow from an ice-pick successfully destroyed the 'brain' of the working class and the symbol of implacable opposition to capitalism and to totalitarian Stalinism.
This event, celebrated in the Kremlin by Stalin and the bureaucratic elite he represented, also brought joy to the capitalist governments of Europe, America and the world. At the time of the notorious Moscow Trials, which laid the basis for Trotsky's murder, Winston Churchill said to the Russian ambassador in Britain: "I've kept an eye on his activities for some time. He's Russia's evil genius, and it is a very good thing that Stalin has got even with him."
If by killing Trotsky they thought they could destroy his ideas they were profoundly mistaken. For succeeding generations, when the most politically aware layers have moved into struggle against capitalism and Stalinism, they looked for explanation and inspiration in the works of Trotsky. Even in the post-1989 period of ideological counter-revolution his ideas still proved attractive.
Now, confronted by the worst economic crisis of capitalism since the 1930s and the resulting inevitable mass revolt of the working class and poor, the ideologues of capitalism fear the influence of the ideas of Trotsky. They are conscious, or at least half conscious, that figures like Che Guevara, seen as fighting for socialism and national liberation while opposing the Stalinist bureaucracy, and Leon Trotsky will be looked towards. Thus a campaign to discredit Trotsky is necessary. This is the purpose of books like those of Robert Service, reviewed in The Socialist, and others that have been produced in the last year.

Trotsky, along with most of his family and the heroic generation he represented, was assassinated by Stalin. But nevertheless Service seeks to create the unbelievable impression that Trotsky is a blood-brother of Stalin and the system of bureaucratic terror Stalin represented. For Service and his ilk, like Stalinism, Trotsky's ideas are also an 'outgrowth' of Bolshevism which was 'inherently' totalitarian and authoritarian in character. This, of course, is a gross slander against the Bolshevik party Lenin led, the most democratic party of workers in history, which led the Russian Revolution. Stalinism, with its totalitarian methods (including the wiping out of the Bolshevik party itself) rather than being a continuation of Bolshevism represented its negation.
Stalinism cannot act as a pole of attraction, as it did for instance in the 1930s and, to some extent, in the immediate period after 1945. Then a new generation moving into struggle was, unlike today, largely ignorant of the crimes of Stalinism. In this new explosive period Trotsky can provide a way forward through his heroic struggle for workers' democracy and his method of analysis, not just on the vital issue of Stalinism, but also on the general struggles of the working class today.
This does not mean that Trotsky was 'infallible', no more than were Marx, Engels and Lenin. But he was more correct, sometimes spectacularly so, on the major issues which confronted the workers' movement in his day. Witness his colossal contribution through his dissection of fascism in the 1930s. Even then he was prepared to openly correct his earlier comments on 'fascism' from the 1920s when it was a new phenomenon.
Then, with a broad brush, even Trotsky tended to describe dictatorial regimes - like that of Primo de Rivera in Spain - as 'fascist'. Later he recognised that this was mistaken and gave a much more precise definition of fascism, which annihilated workers' organisations, and its differences with military bonapartist regimes, which, although reactionary, had not managed to destroy all democratic rights and organisations.
But Trotsky's ideas are 'outdated', it is argued. This is the refrain of the professors and defenders of the present system. 'Trotskyism' is, in fact, a modern manifestation of the ideas of Marx.
From its inception, the hirelings of capitalism tried to imply that Marxism is inapplicable to 'democratic' societies, particularly after the experience of the 20th century.
If Marxism is so 'outdated' why was it possible that we, the Marxists, better understood the workings of the system of capitalism than the defenders of the system themselves? They argued, through the mouthpiece of Francis Fukuyama, that the "end of history" had arrived. The Wall Street Journal declared in 1990 following the collapse of Stalinism that: "We (capitalism) won".
Marxists, of course, recognised that the liquidation of the planned economy, flowing from the collapse of the totalitarian system that existed, was a historic defeat for the working class. Economically at least, the planned economies of Russia and Eastern Europe, despite the drag of the bureaucracy, was a point of reference, a glimpse of what could have been possible on the basis of workers' democracy.
Many 'Marxists' were either in denial of the earth-shattering event of Stalinism's collapse, while others evacuated the field of struggle. The CWI understood that while it was a defeat, in the main of an ideological character in the first instance, it nevertheless was not on the lines of the destruction of the workers' organisations by fascism in the 1930s.
We predicted, virtually alone apart from a handful of capitalist commentators, such as Nouriel Robin, who arrived at the same conclusions empirically, that the very methods which boosted capitalism following the collapse of Stalinism would savagely recoil on the system at a certain stage. The colossal injection of credit, fictitious capital, led to the biggest economic bubble in history.
In 1987, following the collapse of Stalinism, we said, that by using the reserves of Germany and Japan, capitalism could temporarily find a way out. However in 2007 we said that the system would go into a deep crisis. And so it has proved to be. Our analysis was not based, as it is with the economic witch doctors of capitalism on alchemy, but on a scientific analysis of their system. This in turn is reliant on the approach of Trotsky which was also based upon the methods of Marx.

, the capitalist system is based upon production for profit for a handful of millionaires, multimillionaires and billionaires - economic plutocrats - and not social need. The ultimate contradiction of the system is that the working class cannot buy back the full value of what it produces. This arises from the fact that the working class only receives a share of the value it creates in the form of wages, the surplus Marx described as 'unpaid labour'. The system can go ahead so long as this surplus is productively invested into industry, science and technique - the means of production.
However this situation at a certain stage develops into a crisis, resulting in the overproduction of both 'consumer' goods and capital goods. The very idea of 'overproduction' would have been seen as absurd in all previous economic systems, in a world of dire poverty and need. But the main motive force of this system is profits not human need. The struggle over the surplus is the catalyst for a programme to decrease wages and the share of wealth that the working class receives.
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating". Every day, almost, confirmation of the analysis of Marxism can be found in the press.


Marx's criticism of capitalism, stubbornly defended by Trotsky, was very simple. If the system can deliver the basics of jobs, shelter, food, the abolition of war and racism, the overcoming of national divisions, etc, then it will maintain itself. But the essence, surely, of the current situation of world capitalism is that it is incapable of solving even the basic needs of humankind, particularly for the two thirds living in the neo-colonial countries.
This was summed up by the manifesto of the previous Haitian president, Aristide, who pledged to abolish the "obscene poverty" which affected his country but, after his assumption to power, replaced it with "acceptable poverty"! Not even this was achieved as the catastrophic situation following the earthquake in Haiti demonstrates today.
Trotsky's idea of the 'permanent revolution' retains its validity for countries in the neo-colonial world. This holds that the democratic revolution in the modern era cannot, ironically, be carried through by the capitalists. The tasks of land reform, a real parliament and democracy, freedom from the economic and political shackles of imperialism are impossible for the weak ruling classes in these countries and regions.
Only the working class in alliance with the poor peasantry is capable of completing the national democratic revolution. But then it has to secure its victory by going over to the tasks of socialism both on the national sphere and internationally. This was the effect of the Russian Revolution which eliminated landlordism and capitalism but also provoked a revolutionary wave worldwide.
But cynics say "you'll end with some kind of bloody dictatorship" as in Russia. This is a lie. Russia in 1917 was a beacon, not only for planning and socialism, but for spreading workers' democracy to the masses worldwide. Stalinism flowed, not from the Russian Revolution in its initial period, but from its isolation. Some, like Service, argue that Trotsky, if he had been victorious against Stalin, would have established the same 'personal power' as that ultimately established by Stalin.
This begs the question that Trotsky, given the isolation of the Russian Revolution, the consequent rise of the bureaucracy and destruction of workers' democracy, could have taken the place of Stalin without violating his democratic and socialist programme both for Russia and internationally. Incredibly, some Marxists go further today and argue that Trotsky should have taken power when it was offered to him by Antonov-Ovseyenko the chief commissar of the Red Army in the 1920s.
After all, Trotsky at that time enjoyed immense authority, much greater than Stalin, with the Red Army, not only amongst the ranks, but also in the upper echelons of the officers who had fought with him in the civil war and defeated the 21 armies of imperialism.
But Trotsky understood that by accepting 'power' from this source he would have ultimately become a prisoner of perhaps a worse 'military bureaucracy' which would have inevitably developed given the isolation of the Russian Revolution at the time.
This demonstrates that Trotsky understood, as Marx, Engels and Lenin did, and that it is not through manoeuvres, cliques or alleged coups that socialism and Marxism will grow. It is only by basing ourselves upon the consciousness of the working class - its political understanding at each stage - and attempting to take that forward with a clear programme, slogans and organisation that socialism and Marxism can genuinely grow. The CWI, for instance, did fall back after the collapse of Stalinism and particularly with the liquidation of the planned economy. It could not be otherwise given the orgies of capitalist propaganda which flowed from this.
However, the Socialist Party and the CWI maintained the democratic, socialist banner of Trotsky, not without experiencing opportunist splits or ultra-left ones. This is not unusual in a period such as we have been through. Lenin and Trotsky were engaged in similar struggles in the period between 1907 and 1911. But inevitably, as we foresaw, capitalism would break down and usher in a new period. Political struggle, not just during the high tides of working-class movements but also in periods of retreat, is necessary in order to prepare for future, mighty events.

What are the lessons for today? There is an urgent need to create a new mass force that can gather together the struggles of the working class both on an industrial plane but also in the political arena itself. This requires the 'dual task' that the CWI set itself in the early 1990s of fighting for the rehabilitation of the ideas of socialism for the mass movement and of maintaining the clear programme of Marxism-Trotskyism.
We are in one of the most explosive periods in history. If the economic crisis has proved 'contagious', spreading to one country after another, how much more will socialism spread? Globalisation has created the basis for this to an extent unimagined by Marx himself. In the Vietnamese revolution, imperialism developed the theory of the 'domino' effect, which held that if one country was lost to capitalism, there would be a similar collapse throughout south-east Asia. To some extent this was borne out.



with extracts from the socialist party's website www.socialist party.org.uk