What I’d ask Trotsky if he was around today

Many people pour cold water on us in the socialist party for looking back and learning from the works and ideas of Leon Trotsky but I think personally he is as relevant as ever. Facing one of the deepest if not the longest economic crisis we’ve possibly ever known many working people will be looking for ideas and a explanation why this is happening and what can we do about it. Workers will naturally be drawn back to the ideas of Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky. There is so much I’d ask Trotsky if he was still alive today such as does he feel we are posing the right questions and raisin the correct slogans in the class struggle right now. His foresight to what was necessary at each time and at every stage. Trotsky was an outstanding Marxist and a very crucial person during the Russian revolution alongside Lenin was able to steer the revolution towards a successful end. But above all, Leon Trotsky was one of the greatest theoreticians of the workers' movement. If Karl Marx was the man of the millennium, then Leon Trotsky was undoubtedly, with Lenin, Friedrich Engel’s and Rosa Luxemburg, also one of the greatest figures of the millennium, and certainly of the 20th century. His ideas, his method of analysis, and the conclusions drawn from this, are as relevant today as in the past. TAKE TROTSKY'S FAMOUS theory of the permanent revolution, which brilliantly anticipated the class forces involved in the outcome of the Russian revolution. Russia prior to 1917 was a feudal or semi-feudal system which meant virtual slavery for the population. Like India today, the majority of the population were peasants who eked out an existence on narrow parcels of land while the urban working class had no rights and were ruthlessly exploited in rapidly developing industry. Russia had not completed the capitalist democratic revolution as had England, for instance, in the 16th century, and France in the 18th century. The main tasks of this revolution were the elimination of feudal and semi-feudal relations in the land, unification of the country, and the solution of the national question. It also involved the introduction of democracy, the right to vote, the election of a democratic parliament, a free press, and trade union rights for the working class. Last but not least, the completion of this revolution would free the economy from the domination of imperialism, particularly of Anglo-French imperialism which saw Russia as a virtual colony. Marxists do not idolise 'ancient texts' no matter how brilliant they might be. However, if a theory is very 'old' and yet it correctly foresees events and processes, it is the most modern of theories. And Trotsky's ideas are as applicable today for most of Africa, and for huge parts of Asia and Latin America, as they were for Russia more than 80 years ago. The capitalist democratic revolution has not been completed in big parts of the neo-colonial world. The landlords and capitalists are incapable of solving the even greater accumulation of problems which exist today compared with 1917. TROTSKY'S ANALYSIS OF the rise of the bureaucracy and the victory of the Stalinist counter-revolution is one of the treasures of humankind. Without this Marxists would have been groping in the dark to find a way forward. In his Diary In Exile, Trotsky summed up his contribution in the following fashion: "The work in which I am engaged now, despite its extremely insufficient and fragmentary nature, is the most important work of my life - more important than 1917, more important than the period of the civil war or any other. "For the sake of clarity I would put it this way. Had I not been present in 1917 in Petersburg, the October revolution would still have taken place - on the condition that Lenin was present and in command. If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no October revolution: the leadership of the Bolshevik Party would have prevented it from occurring - of this I have not the slightest doubt! If Lenin had not been in Petersburg, I doubt whether I could have managed to conquer the resistance of the Bolshevik leaders. The struggle with 'Trotskyism' (i.e. with the proletarian revolution) would have commenced in May 1917, and the outcome of the revolution would have been in question. But I repeat, granted the presence of Lenin, the October revolution would have been victorious anyway. The same could by and large be said of the civil war, although in its first period, especially at the time of the fall of Simbirsk and Kazan, Lenin wavered and was beset by doubts. But this was undoubtedly a passing mood which he probably never even admitted to anyone but me. "Thus I cannot speak of the 'indispensability' of my work, even about the period from 1917 to 1921. But now my work is 'indispensable' in the full sense of the word. There is no arrogance in this claim at all. The collapse of the two Internationals has posed a problem which none of the leaders of these Internationals is at all equipped to solve. The vicissitudes of my personal fate have confronted me with this problem and armed me with important experience in dealing with it. There is now no one except me to carry out the mission of arming a new generation with the revolutionary method over the heads of the leaders of the Second and Third International". (Diary in Exile, pp53-54) There is not an atom of personal arrogance let alone 'pessimism' in these lines. Trotsky was the first real dissident, together with the rest of the Left Opposition, to oppose Stalinism. They were the staunch defenders of workers' democracy against the Stalinist counter-revolution. Trotsky points out that the basic contradiction of capitalism is that the working class cannot buy back the full product of their labour, because they only receive a portion of this in the form of wages. However, capitalism overcomes this contradiction by ploughing the surplus back into industry. But this, in turn, leads to an even greater production of goods which the working class at a certain stage is incapable of buying back. The capitalist economists dispute this even, as Trotsky pointed out, in short-lived booms, such as the 1924-29 boom in Germany, when Werner Sombat proclaimed that capitalism had overcome its contradictions (on the eve of the 1929 Wall Street Crash). Trotsky was not without his faults and the socialist party never shy’s away from pointing these out he for example didn’t see the Stalinist soviet union living on past the 2nd war which in fact actually strengthened the Stalinist system. Of course, Trotsky wrote and worked in a different historical era to ourselves. Some of the issues he was compelled to deal with are no longer as burning for the working class. You will find in his writings this or that antiquated expression or an idea which does not appear immediately relevant to our world today. However, an amazing amount of what Trotsky wrote is extremely pertinent, a thousand times more relevant to serious workers looking for an explanation of economic, political and even historical phenomena, than anything else on offer today. Trotsky never had any fetish about organisational forms. He also opposed both ultra-leftism and opportunism. His ideas were never for the meeting room alone but were preparation to intervene wherever the working class is and win them to socialist and Marxist ideas. Following Trotsky's advice, members and supporters of Militant (now the Socialist Party) patiently worked within the Labour Party in Britain. The Labour Party, as with its cousins internationally, had a dual character. Sectarians of all stripes disputed this. They took the phrase of Lenin that the Labour Party was a 'bourgeois workers' party' and turned their backs on the Labour Party and the support it then enjoyed at bottom from the working class. There was not an atom of dialectical analysis in their approach. Right from the outset, the Labour Party had 'bourgeois' leaders in the sense that even those who claimed to be 'socialist' ultimately were not prepared to go beyond the framework of capitalism. Nevertheless, at its base the Labour Party was perceived by workers as 'their' party and its creation was a step forward from a class point of view of the proletariat in Britain. Moreover, it possessed democratic features which allowed Marxists to intervene, in the case of Militant, with great success. We were able to connect the ideas of Trotsky to youth and workers. Militant was the most successful Trotskyist organisation since the Left Opposition in the whole of Western Europe. Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of workers were introduced to the basic ideas of Trotsky through the work of our organisation (now the Socialist Party). In Liverpool between 1983-87 we created a mass movement which shook the ruling class. We initiated and led the mighty anti-poll tax battle, with 34 of our comrades jailed, which ended in the defeat of the tax and the consignment of Thatcher to the rubbish heap of history. No other Trotskyist party in the advanced industrial world could claim such a record. While others are, in reality, abandoning Trotsky as no longer relevant to 'the modern world', we perceive that his ideas and methods are as vital, indeed more vital, to the struggles that are opening up. The new changed period will allow Marxism to reconnect to the working class, in the first instance, to its more developed layer, which will provide the backbone for the creation of new mass forces. The working class in Britain, for the first time in 100 years, in a mass sense has been politically beheaded by New Labour's move to a position analogous to that of the Democratic Party in the USA. This is why the Socialist Party in Britain calls for the creation of a new mass workers' party, while at the same time seeking to build its own forces within the working-class movement. We hail Trotsky as a great theoretician and leader of the working class but we do not merely acclaim past leaders. It is necessary for us, particularly the new generation of workers, to study the writings of Leon Trotsky alongside of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg but, above all, to seek to acquire his method which will allow us to create a mass Marxist force that will eradicate from the planet the scourge of capitalism and all that goes with it. Extracts taken from Peter Taaffe’s excellent the relevance of Trotsky today in socialism today http://www.socialismtoday.org/49/trotskys_ideas.html

The simple ideas of socialism

People often ask me what do you mean by socialism is it the brutal dictatorships that have been held up as failed states where the condemnation of socialism cannot work? I say no these are gross distortions undemocratic and not what we’d define as socialism. I’m told I’m splitting hairs and I can’t decide what is and isn’t socialism well I don’t agree to me many people in the labour movement will call themselves socialist but for me it is the simple feeling that the current system we live under capitalism does not work for the many and that we need system change. The system I stand for would be socialism democratic socialism with the highest form of democracy. I stand for choicer not less, greater participating in running of society from the bottom up and a society based on the meeting of people’s needs not the blind drive for profit. Eliminating the profit motive would instantly mean we could produce for people needs a fundamental reorganisation of society would be necessary. I do not believe we can reform the system out of existence either I think only fundamental revolutionary socialist change can see us on the path towards human enlightenment. I do not feel that humans have even began to tap into their thought and learning potential there is so much we could achieve in a more advanced planned economy where the need to make profit was not the deciding factor in if we produce something. This would not lead to mass waste or things we didn’t need as opponents would have you believe if anything it would be far more efficient as we would only produce for what we need not spend huge amounts on waste for marketing purposes and duplications of the same product. Socialism for me has always been a simple idea and something that i feel many people can understand. It is based for me on a deep sense of fairness and a complete hatred for unfairness. Understanding and discovering there was an n alternative to the madness of the market has opened my eyes up to all sorts of possibilities that could be possible if our economy was under the democratic control of the working class. I dream and fight for and a society where there are no class’s as class’s have been abolished this would mean the working class coming to power internationally and realising their potential latent power. We do not need boss’s but the boss’s need us, the wealth today created is created by the workers why should we not own and control this instead of our wages and profits being creamed off for profits of a few. Putting socialist ideas in plain everyday language is good it helps us connect with those who have not yet seen the light so to speak. Having a class consciousness is key to understanding the world and what needs to happen to change society. Once this has been awoken in people things can change very quickly indeed. Socialism is the future and the way forward, the march to power of the working class begins here.

successful socialist party 2013 congress

Just over 300 delegates and visitors took part in a very successful Socialist Party annual congress in Clacton-on-Sea from 2 to 4 March. The congress, the Socialist Party's main decision-making body, showed a party deeply involved in and often leading working class struggle in the areas, workplaces and unions where members are based. Congress provided the opportunity for delegates, elected by party members in branches throughout England and Wales, to discuss and vote on resolutions covering the main political issues in Britain today, and the work of the party. The enthusiasm to participate in this vital process was reflected in the numbers who wanted to contribute - with most sessions over-subscribed. Here we report on four of the sessions. Resolutions and amendments had been submitted by the party's national committee and by many of the branches. The resolutions agreed will serve as guidelines for the party's work in the coming year. In keeping with our democratic traditions a national committee was elected to lead the work of the party in between this congress and the next. Steve Score, regional secretary for the East Midlands, made the appeal for fighting fund and congress raised a very impressive £10,843. Sacrifice and commitment to the struggle for socialism and internationalism was again in evidence when Clare Doyle from the Committee for a Workers' International, the CWI world socialist organisation to which the Socialist Party is affiliated, made an appeal for funds to support our sister organisation in South Africa. This raised over £5,000. Over £300 a month of increased monthly donations (party members' subs) were also pledged. A moving memorial tribute to Robbie Segal and Roger Mackay who died last year was made by Bill Mullins, former industrial organiser. Visitors from sister sections of the CWI in Greece, Scotland, and Ireland contributed to the debates. The congress concluded with a very inspiring report of the work of other sections of the CWI. With CWI members in 49 countries - CWI general secretary Tony Saunois couldn't report on all of them - but his report touched on Europe, the US, Brazil, Pakistan and Tunisia, among many others. Capitalism 'has failed and has to be changed' Sarah Sachs-Eldridge "Portugal has entered a recessionary cycle that has no end in sight. [...] Worst of all, people have no reason to believe the future will be any better. The programme has failed and it has to be changed." Introducing the first session at the congress, Peter Taaffe, Socialist Party general secretary, quoted the Portuguese daily Público. But, as Peter and the discussion which followed showed, Portugal is far from alone in the recessionary cycle and it is capitalism that has failed and has to be changed. Devastating facts and figures stand testimony to the parasitic nature of 21st century capitalism: Peter reported that by 2020 the world's financial assets will outbalance its gross domestic product by ten to one. There will be $900 trillion of financial assets, compared to $90 trillion of GDP. According to the Economist the result will be a world economy "structurally awash with capital - and a corresponding shortage of places in which it can be invested". In this situation pro-big business governments across the world have legislated for mass privatisation of public services. Of course this leads inexorably to a social catastrophe but the capitalists demand a super-profitable outlet for their cash piles. Robin Clapp, regional secretary for the South West, among others, pointed out how none of the problems which led to the financial crash of 2007-8 have been solved, far from it. Robin quoted IMF boss Christine Lagarde when she expressed in passing the largely unspoken fear of the capitalist class: that they may have underestimated the cost of inequality. Examples of the impact of prevalent gross inequality were mentioned by many speakers: homelessness in Athens, the capital city of Greece where the crisis in Europe is most developed, has skyrocketed to 40,000, up from 2-3,000 two years ago. Katarina from Xekinima, the CWI in Greece, told a heart-breaking story of five university students who, among the thousands who can't afford to buy fuel, attempted to heat themselves with a homemade fire. Two died and three are in a coma with carbon monoxide poisoning. Leadership But the working class does not yet have mass parties with a leadership to draw the necessary conclusions from this - that there is no solution on the basis of capitalism and a struggle for power must be conducted to stop the ruthless destruction of living standards. A member who has participated in events in Egypt spoke about how the working class did make a revolution in 2011, only to see it stolen from them by the Muslim Brotherhood. However, the recent movements in both Tunisia and Egypt show that the working class has not given up on the idea of struggle. He explained that socialists must do all they can to increase the confidence of the working class to act as an independent movement for itself. The working class in Italy, a frontrunner in the closely fought contest to be the 'sickman of Europe', as Elaine Brunskill, Northern regional secretary, explained, has just registered its opposition to on-going austerity in the elections there. Clare Doyle, from the International Secretariat of the CWI, and Gianni, a new Italian member in Bristol, spoke about the Five-Star Movement of Beppe Grillo. Among its 25% vote are millions searching for a political voice for the working class. Danny Byrne, who is working with Socialismo Revolucionario, the CWI in Spain, spoke about the intensification of struggle there against eye-watering cuts to living standards. Such is the level of resistance that it is necessary for the SR to demand that the IU united left party and the left nationalist parties build a united front on the slogan of power to the working class. Moves towards building a new leadership for the working class are most advanced at this stage in South Africa. There the life or death struggle of the miners' mass strike movement indelibly etched the need for a new mass party of the working class in the minds of those involved. The Socialist Party's sister party, the Democratic Socialist Movement, was involved in the struggle and able to make conscious this urge and help form the new Workers' and Socialist Party. Alec Thraves introduced himself as the "revolutionary ambassador" from South Africa after his recent visit with Peter. He had the congress hanging on his every word. He reported his trepidations about visiting crocodile-infested Limpopo. On arrival the would-be predators were in the form of local discredited ANC councillors attempting to obstruct a DSM meeting. Far from being intimidated the determined members used the opportunity of the meeting to pledge to build a hundreds-strong organisation - in that region alone. Danny and others commented on the complications of the national question that are emerging - which in reality can be workers' expressing the need for fundamental change to the capitalist system. In replying to the debate Lynn Walsh, editor of Socialism Today magazine, explained that the crisis in the EU showed how capitalism was incapable of overcoming the limitations of the nation state. He also reiterated that the present crisis is a deep structural crisis and that capitalism cannot be reformed into a better fairer system. In the post-war period the existence of the planned economy in the USSR, ie an alternative model (in our view not socialist due to the absence of workers' democracy), helped the workers' movement in the west to force concessions out of capitalism and there was a certain redistribution. But since the collapse of Stalinism triumphalist capitalism has shown its true parasitism - even the capitalists have given up on the idea that they can overcome their system's problems. 'We won't be a lost generation' Bob Severn "The conditions faced by young people today are creating a powder keg that could explode at any time," said Socialist Party national youth organiser Claire Laker-Mansfield, when introducing the discussion on youth and student campaigning. There have already been explosions - student protests against £9,000 fees and EMA cuts in 2010, the riots in 2011, the Occupy! movement. The lack of a strategy by the National Union of Students contributed to the 2010 movement dissipating, but anger is now swelling against the results of the Con-Dems' higher education policies. Jack Poole reported on meetings, protests and an occupation at Sussex Uni against privatisation and job cuts. Kyle Williamson reported on the Socialist Students campaign against the University of East London's "three strikes and you're out" draconian attendance policy. Edmund Schluessel from Swansea University spoke on why he and Neil Moore from Belfast Metropolitan are standing for the NUS executive elections. They are the only ones proposing that NUS organises a mass national student demo. Many others reported on how Socialist Students' campaigning record and openly socialist programme were winning improved votes in local union elections and higher number of NUS conference delegates for over a decade. Mike from Leeds explained that the small drop in unemployment figures hid the rise of insecure and low-paid jobs. Ian Pattison, Socialist Party youth organiser, in his reply to the debate, reiterated how young people often expect such jobs to be stop-gaps but, with no decent jobs available, they become permanent fixtures. This is why Youth Fight for Jobs is launching the 'Sick of Your Boss?' initiative to fight for basic rights - such as breaks, decent pay - and trade union rights. Matt Whale from Hull said there was an "instinctive togetherness" among young people, with the potential to unionise workplaces and find new, combative, union branch and workplace leaders. The highest support for the 30 November 2011 public sector pensions strike was among young people. Jamie from Cardiff spoke about getting a fast food job and how, with support from Socialist Party members, unionisation could be possible. Call-centres are today's equivalent of 19th century 'dark satanic mills'. Tracy Edwards, a full-time organiser for the PCS civil service union, reported that there was now 95% union membership at HMRC call-centres. There, young workers are fighting to improve the "crap" conditions, with gains won on flexible working hours. The young Socialist Party members who spoke in this session showed how fighting for a decent future means fighting for a socialist alternative to the profit driven capitalist system. At least 40% of young people are either unemployed or underemployed 1 in 28 workfare programme participants have become employed as a result Britain: beware volcanoes of anger below the surface Dave Carr What are the key economic, political and social issues which will shape Britain in the coming months? In particular, what effect will the recessionary crisis, government austerity measures, and the trade union leadership have on workers' struggles and hence, the campaigning work of the Socialist Party? Socialist Party deputy general secretary Hannah Sell introduced the session by making the point that although the scale of the capitalist crisis and class struggle in Britain is not on the level of southern Europe there is, nonetheless, a groundswell of anger beneath the surface which could explode at any time. Delegate Jim Thomson, in the discussion, characterised 2012 as "the year of them and us". Even if the road to widespread struggle, including general strikes, is blocked at this stage by the right in the trade union leadership, local struggles are still breaking out. Hannah pointed to the recent large protests over the NHS and council cuts and anger over the 'bedroom tax'. These issues were added to in the discussion with contributions from Claire Job, Roger Keyse, Gavin Marsh, Phil Culshaw and others. Evidence of anger at the rotten political establishment and the widening inequality in society abounds. However, in the absence of a mass working class political alternative such anti-establishment sentiments can be hijacked by parties such as Ukip who promote divisive anti-migrant worker policies and right-wing nationalism. At the same time they, and the capitalist-owned press, present themselves as a repository for protest against the hated main parties. Despite the government's credit rating downgrading and the deepening unpopularity of the coalition, it's 'business as usual' for Chancellor Osborne as far as continuing austerity is concerned. Big business also wants the government to persevere with this failed policy. British capitalism is ailing and all the 'fixes' of quantitative easing, more bank loans, a devaluing currency, etc, are not reviving the economy, which continues to flat line. But why then is UK unemployment not as high as elsewhere in Europe? This is partly due to government measures bolstering 'zombie' companies. But it is also due to 'labour hoarding', in the false hope that this is a temporary crisis, while cutting workers' pay and conditions. There has been an increase in part-time casual work and people abandoning the jobs search and registering as self-employed. Young workers Helen from east London spoke about how young people, at the sharp end of this process, are being politicised by it. Having done what they were told, studied hard, they find themselves struggling in rotten jobs with no hope of anything better. This can lead to more young workers drawing the conclusion that they will have to organise and fight to improve their working conditions. Politically, Cameron is also under conflicting pressure over Europe, migration and 'modernising' the Tory party. Many of his backbenchers want out of the EU in a referendum and also oppose same sex marriage. Big business largely opposes leaving the EU. The Tories' third place in Eastleigh will increase this pressure. And as the fault lines deepen between the Tories and Lib Dems in the Coalition, a government collapse still couldn't be ruled out. The independence referendum in Scotland can provide another complicating factor. Although Labour retains its lead over the Tories in opinion polls there is little enthusiasm for Labour among working class people. And, as Hannah remarked, the Labour leadership's continued commitment to cuts may mean they are not be able to marshal the anti-Coalition mood at the next general election, which could still take place before 2015, such is the instability in the situation. Nick Chaffey pointed out in the discussion that Labour spectacularly failed to pick up the opposition protest vote in the Eastleigh byelection. Despite this many trade unions continue to financially back Labour as the 'only show in town'. However, some militant sections of the organised working class understand the need to construct a new mass left formation rooted in the trade unions. In replying to the debate, Clive Heemskerk dealt with amendments to the national committee's document on Britain and resolutions, including on the 2014 European elections. Clive pointed out that, at bottom, the EU exists to facilitate the multinationals at the expense of the working class. Indeed, neoliberalism is enshrined in its constitution. Ukip may well make gains in this election but it is not guaranteed that it will remain the receptacle for the growing protest vote. Encouraging trade unionists and anti-cuts campaigners to stand for the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition can help to make the case that workers should represent themselves. Nancy Taaffe referred to the magnificent 30% vote for the Socialist Alternative candidate in Seattle last November. She reported that CWI supporters had initially underestimated the support, even within the Obama vote, for socialist policies until a stand was made. The session made clear that, while we may be in a temporary and relative lull in the class struggle, we must be prepared to play an increasingly important role in a situation that can change rapidly. Let's build on our successes Sarah Wrack An excellent Party Building session introduced by Judy Beishon and replied to by Jane James, both from the Socialist Party's executive committee, showed that in many areas of the country and in many types of work, the Socialist Party is going forward. Judy pointed out that we have more Socialist Party branches meeting more regularly and with bigger meetings than at the same time last year. She also suggested steps that could be taken by branches, as well as by the national centre to continue our growth such as assistance with Marxist education. All branches should have a strategy for developing in size and influence, setting targets as a guide. The discussion made clear that the 'year of the branch' launched at last year's congress had a big effect in many areas. JP from Coventry informed congress of the launch of the new Coventry North branch and Tom from Bristol outlined steps taken by the three Bristol branches, such as having a day time activity team and regularising the Bristol district committee meetings. Socialist Party branches are thinking hard about which campaigns they focus on. Some suggestions were made. For example Chris from Stroud raised the idea of organising opposition rallies around the country when the Health and Social Care Act comes into force in April. Several speakers spoke about work among specific groups. For example, Mary from Walthamstow talked about campaigning at colleges and suggested trying debates and outdoor meetings. Becci from Nottingham described how the Rape Is No Joke campaign and other initiatives Socialist Party members have taken part in can attract women. Senan outlined the important work being carried out by Tamil Solidarity, especially making an appeal for trade unionists to attend the 20 April conference (see www.tamilsolidarity.org). The vital need for finance was also an aspect of the discussion. Dave, fighting fund organiser for Llanelli and West Wales branch, said that the key to their success has been taking the attitude that "nothing short of meeting the target is acceptable". Two thirds of their fighting fund comes from supporters of the branch's campaign in opposition to NHS cuts. Producing and selling a pamphlet on historical struggles in the local area also helped. Dave also suggested Socialist Party members keep their eye out for any money-raising opportunity - he rents his garage out for £20 a month for the fighting fund. The session was supplemented the following day by a separate discussion on the role of the Socialist. Congress agreed that 2013 will be 'the year of the paper'. See future issues for details of this.

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

What is democracy?

Many people think today we have democracy, we are allowed every 5 years maybe sooner in local council elections a vote on which capitalist party gets to attack us for the next period.

But as socialists we call this bourgeois democracy and when it comes down to it isn’t much of a democracy at all.

What Makes democracy?
SOCIALISTS FIGHT to defend and extend democratic rights that have been won by past struggles. Having the right to vote, to form trade unions and political parties, to hold meetings and demonstrate, which is banned in many countries, is a major advantage for our class. It allows workers to organise openly to improve conditions and struggle for a socialist society. Socialists and workers' organisations can gain influence by taking part in elections.


Democracy usually refers to the right to vote, a free press and free speech, among other rights. Many countries on their 'democratic' list are stretching the definition.
Russia, whose government elections suffer from ballot rigging and fraud, are included and countries like Turkey are breezily described as being "military-influenced". Nigeria is apparently defined as a presidential parliamentary democracy (transitional).
Corruption and undemocratic methods are rampant in all governments of the West.
Take the recent Tory party’s scandal with the cash for dinner’s disgrace where rich corporations and businessmen could buy a dinner with the Prime Minister for 250 thousand pounds for a bit of influence. So much for your vote making a difference any longer.


CAPITALIST DEMOCRACY has limitations. We may be allowed a vote every four or five years to have a say in which party is elected. But once elected, it is very difficult to bring governments to account.
Many voted for New Labour in the last decade but few agree with policies such as privatising air traffic control or introducing tuition fees. There is no democracy in how the economy is run, what our wages should be, how many jobs are created or what is produced. These decisions are made by the bosses who only give concessions to head off struggles.
What little 'democracy' we have is being eroded. Cameron and the con-dems are 'reforming' many democratic institutions which means we will have less rights


Some argue that a turn away from traditional politics is a positive process and that we need to look at new forms of protest and a new democracy with political parties being outdated.
Movements such as the occupy movement have turned to direct action as a way of achieving things with an implicit hostility to politics and political parties. Alternative movements are referred to as DIY politics, bypassing the political process by building self-help groups and taking part in direct action. What could be more democratic than being able to freely exchange ideas in a democratic occupation camp and on the internet?
Some argue for a looser form of organisation on an anarchist style of horizontal leaderships with consensus decision making these are often very small groups on the fringes of the labour movement.

But "small functional groups which ebb and flow" will never be able to challenge the rule of capitalism. Workers and oppressed have to be organised to build struggles and confront the highly organised forces of those who control society with the aim of achieving socialism. Many involved in these groups are concluding that global capitalism is the enemy and some are open to the idea of a socialist alternative.
A new mass party of the working class will have to be more democratic than the past experience of mass workers' organisations like the Labour Party and the trade unions. When the Labour Party swung to the left in the late 1970s and 1980s, reflecting working-class struggle, Militant supporters and others on the Left fought hard for democratic procedures. We cannot accept workers organisations being run in an undemocratic way and Socialist Party members are the strongest fighters for democratic change in the trade unions.
As well as arguing for democracy within the working-class organisations, we also have to be alert to the attacks on democracy from the ruling class. Our lives are dictated to by big business and the rich and they would attempt to dismantle democratic rights if these became an obstacle to their power.
To stand in elections requires money and publicity while the media is controlled by the rich. This does not mean that the working class cannot build support and win power. But to achieve socialism requires an independent working-class mass party, embracing Marxist ideas.
Only under a socialist society can there be true democracy. Where production and distribution are owned and controlled by all then people can genuinely participate in running society.

UNTIL THE Reform Act of 1867 only a wealthy minority of the population had the vote. If these owners of big business, the banks and land could have continued to exploit the masses that created their wealth, without allowing them any role in the political process, they would have done so.
The struggles of the working class forced the ruling class to make some democratic concessions but never enough to threaten their dominant position. Not until 1928 could all men and women over the age of 21 votes. This was won through the struggles of the Chartists, trade unionists, suffragists and suffragettes - directly through campaigning for the vote but also by the working class demonstrating their industrial strength.
These early campaigners fought for the right to vote as a means to change their appalling conditions. While the working class saw representative institutions such as parliament and local councils as a means to implement change, the ruling class attempted to use democracy as means to divert struggle into safe channels.
The implication is that there is no need for fundamental social and economic transformation - i.e. a revolution - when change can be implemented through the ballot box. Although many reforms including democratic rights have been implemented by Parliament, it has been struggles outside Parliament that has forced this change.
Once the masses had won the vote, the ruling class planned to make it as ineffective as possible. Their biggest fear was the working class building its own party. Walter Bagehot in his book "The English constitution" in 1872 said: "A political combination of the lower classes, as such and for their own objects is an evil of the first magnitude."




So while we may have some form of democracy today lets not be under any illusion it’s far from a democratic society we live in. Only by transforming society to a socialist based economy based on peoples needs first democratically decided at every step of the way when people have real decision making influence can we call society truly democratic in my opinion.