A split ruling class

From how I see it the ruling class nationally and internationally is split. More or less down the middle anyway on how to react to the crisis of their own capitalist system. Do they go for growth or austerity? It is something which features heavily within the European Union as also with intervention from the IMF The IMF echo’s America’s calls for growth but on what basis it doesn’t make clear. Clearly we live in a time of global economic melt down with no sign of a way out of the present crisis that anyone can see. Even China has seen its growth rates cut by the World Bank today too. There have been concerns whether China can sustain its high growth rate amid a global slowdown The World Bank has cut its growth forecast for China amid warnings of slower but more stable global growth over the coming months. The bank now expects the China to grow 7.7% in 2013, down from its earlier projection of 8.4%. It also cut the forecast for global economic growth to 2.2% from 2.4%. The bank said growth in China, the world's second-largest economy, had slowed as policymakers look to rebalance its growth model. Over the past few decades China has relied heavily on exports and government-led investment to boost its economy. However, a slowdown in key markets such as the US and Europe has seen a decline in demand for Chinese exports, prompting concerns whether China can sustain its high growth rate. This is not just a case of world governments being split and undecided to what to do but whole sections of the bourgeoisie who are finding themselves torn further and further apart on solutions for the crisis. Also take the example of Europe with some parts of the bourgeoisie wanting to make a hasty exit from the EU in order to boost our own competitiveness in terms of pushing down wage labour even further than possible at present whilst others warn against leaving and attack the others for even daring to suggest a exit. The euro zone does not work. No measures have been introduced in order to make it work. In any economic union of the kind that was being envisaged, it is obvious that there will be some areas that are richer and some that are poorer. There will be some areas that import more from the richer areas and vice versa. You will consequently find an economic balance that will reflect itself in a series of economic data. Unless the richer areas are prepared to accept that, as in the US, the centre must in some way or other assist parts of its union - with the richer areas in effect subsidising the poorer areas - then it simply cannot work. This is all rather obvious and many people have been making this point for some time. The overall result of these differing viewpoints amongst the bourgeoisie is a muddle. Whereas it is actually possible to get out of the present downturn, that will not happen, because ultimately this would be tantamount to suicide on the part of the capitalist class. Its difficult to know which way the bourgeoisie will turn next there’re signs of a heightened turn towards protectionism in protecting your own markets with the recent flare-up of solar panels with the EU and China. I am thinking we may see more incidents like this when nations and economies start to get desperate to restart growth further and further desperate measures may be attempted. In Japan right now they are trying a plan which is noted by many economists as radical and risky so waiting to see how that one turns out will be interesting too. What is clear though is that we are in a log jam across the world. No country, government or organisation has the magic formula for getting out of this crisis and many expect things to get a lot worse before they get better. Something will have to give eventually as jams in the system cannot last forever. Watch this space for heightened tensions between global super powers in order to deflect the blame for a lack of growth in their own country on others. A split ruling class as Lenin once said is just one part of a successful revolution. The other parts were a middle class also awake and not sure which way to turn in support of the capitalist or the working class. Lastly a mass revolutionary party which we are far from in any country in the world. Things are just hotting up. Our time may come soon. We must prepare for all eventualities.

The Weekly worker

Over the last few weeks I have I must admit been reading the weekly worker. Shoot me down burn me at the stake I admit it. Yet there is nothing to admit. The weekly worker is an interesting look at the week’s events in the labour movement and doesn’t hang back in telling things as they are. They openly accept criticism which the Socialist party a and the SWP do not outside their ranks. I do accept a lot of what the CPGB weekly worker say and they are right in many ways including the need for amass Marxist revolutionary party. That is in a way our end goal. But yet I’ve not joined them and I am still a committed member of the CWI and socialist party and the Trotskyist tradition. The weekly worker whilst providing a somewhat gossipy section in their paper do offer some very good theory and technical sections which I feel the CWI could do better on which I’ve previously explained yet my main gripe and hang up and the reason why I did not go further and go and join the CPGB is their day to day activity. Whilst theory is important and I hold it up as a very important piece of Marxist understanding it is not everything. The day to day struggles being among workers and workers struggles are the nitty gritty which I get the impression the CPGB tends to shy away from. Are they for example on the picket lines with the PCS ? Are they attending TUSC steering committee meetings despite their misgivings? Are they active within their unions and helping to build the fight back? Sadly I do not see this. I do have my disagreements and reservations with the Socialist party on a number of issues but yet we are and I still think the best party to put into practice the ides of Marx and Lenin and Trotsky to not only understand the current situation is one thing to put into practice what needs to be done is far harder. I do not imagine there are any better class fighters out there than the SP. Our party is made up of majority working class people with the best militants in our ranks I do believe. We may not always be right and no one is but I’ve come to the conclusion that the socialist party are the best party to stick with for now who have the best rounded out Marxist programme for the period ahead. The weekly worker is always worth a read and is best engaged with I feel rather than writing off as another sect and saying they have nothing to contribute how about engaging with them putting a letter in their letters section for example ? Gets some debate going perhaps? I feel the socialist party tends to regard other smaller left groups as “the sects” and dismisses them and ok some may be not worth bothering with but yet others may be and to clarify our position may help us establish our position in the movement better in some ways. Or in other ways may not but I don’t think good well meaning Marxist thinkers such as those with the weekly worker can be dismissed so easily I think some of what they say is correct other parts not so much. There is a sense of arrogance with our party sometimes which needs to be tackled as we don’t know it all and new and fresh thinkers should be welcomed and taken up. Yet all this I am still as 100% a member of the CWI and continuing my leaning as a Marxist as ever. Marx taught us to think critically so I am sometimes I have criticisms of our own party I feel I should be free to raise these in order to clarify my own understanding and to benefit others too. A democratic party is a healthy party the socialist party must fight to be the most democratic party of all. If a member has concerns on democracy they should be able and feel to raise these issues. Remember everything is a process reading other parties materials and works is not a bad thing sometimes comrades may be wishing to clarify their ideas and challenge themselves and others. We should look to work with these free thinking comrades not write them off but look to encourage them to read and read our own material and provide more when it isn’t there. For example I wish to read more Peter Taaffe yet it is not available in an accessible format for me so I’m lead to go by hear say and quotes unfortunately. Marx was never afraid to say how he felt and I think all comrades should be encouraged to speak out if they have any concerns for the party to look to bridge that gap in thinking. Marxism is a constant science and is not dogmatic in any way it must constantly be examined critically and updated to fit the day to day demands. Do read the weekly worker if you can but also read it with a critical eye as I have done whilst being a open forum to many it can also lead you astray be aware of this but also not dismiss things out of hand without asking questions and challenging anything you pick up and read . Lastly keep reading and keep challenging yourselves and others. Marxism is a tool to aid workers lets make the most of it.

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