Is Trotsky's ideas of the permeneant revolution still relevant ?

ONE HUNDRED years ago, while in a St Petersburg jail awaiting trial for his leading role in the defeated 1905 Russian Revolution, Leon Trotsky formulated the ‘Theory of Permanent Revolution’. Niall Mulholland Trotsky’s profound ideas examined the prospects for socialist revolution in Russia at the start of the 20th century and the processes of revolution worldwide. The validity of the permanent revolution was brilliantly confirmed by the successful October 1917 socialist revolution. But is the permanent revolution relevant today, especially since the collapse of Stalinism? Yes. It remains the key to understanding how to end the terrible problems of the so-called ‘Third World’ – pauperisation, under-development, dictatorship and imperialist domination - in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. Of course, the permanent revolution is a living theory, which must be updated in the light of new developments. Trotsky summed up the permanent revolution in two ways. Firstly, the revolution starts in a ‘backward’ country with the capitalist democratic tasks and goes over to socialist measures. Secondly, the revolution starts in one country and spreads on an international level. Although the 1917 Russian Revolution, and its world repercussions, magnificently proved Trotsky correct, when his ideas were first published in 1906 they caused huge controversy in the Marxist movement. Most leaders thought a socialist revolution would take place first in the richer, capitalist West. Semi-colonial Russia had to still go through a capitalist ‘democratic revolution’. After the democratic capitalist phase was completed, the Russian working class would struggle for socialism. What is the ‘democratic revolution’? THE FIRST ‘democratic revolutions’ saw the developing capitalist class (which included merchants, manufactures and middle-class professionals) rise up against age-old feudalism, which restricted capitalism. The aim was to end the power and domination of kings, nobles, the aristocracy and the big landlords. This meant removing feudal barriers to trade and the development of the capitalist economy, unification of the country, introducing democratic rights, and establishing the basis of the modern nation-state. The 1789 French Revolution was the most thoroughgoing capitalist revolution, which swept away the power of the Church, the landlords and the King. Capitalism in its early, dynamic phase created the material, social and subjective conditions for the socialist transformation of society ie science, technique, and the modern working class. And it is the working class - which is forced to sell its labour power to survive and therefore has no material stake in capitalist society - that alone can lead the struggle for a new, classless society. In the modern period, in the age of multinationals and imperialism, capitalism is a reactionary barrier to the development of society. It’s a system where the social organisation of production is constrained by the limitations of the nation state, the private ownership of the means of production, and the destructive nature of capitalist competition with its associated booms and slumps. In Results and Prospects, [on our website - opens in new window] Trotsky wrote about processes of revolution in Russia and internationally, by looking at the lessons of the 1905 Petersburg Soviet and other revolutions. He explained that the national capitalist class (bourgeoisie) in the ‘underdeveloped’ countries came into existence too late, when the world was already dominated by the major capitalist and imperialist powers, like Britain, France and Germany. Trotsky explained that the national bourgeoisie in the colonial or neo-colonial world does not play a progressive role. It is dominated by imperialist powers and tied to foreign capital. It is also linked financially to, and reliant on, the big landlords and other feudal relations. A weak, cowardly class, the national bourgeoisie is not prepared to decisively struggle against feudal relations and the imperialists. Instead, Trotsky argued, only the proletariat (working class), bringing behind it the peasants, urban poor and other middle layers in society, can lead a successful revolution and solve the problems of society. 1905 showed: "The revolutionary leadership of the proletariat revealed itself as an incontrovertible fact". When it takes power, the working class will have to carry out the historic tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution. When in power, the working class will not stop at democratic tasks. It will take measures that reflect its class interests; socialist measures, including nationalisations and overthrowing the local capitalist class. The working class in power in a poor country will be compelled to spread the socialist revolution. At the same time, the revolution will be a hugely inspiring example for the international working class to follow. Trotsky argued the socialist revolution could break out in Russia first, given the weakness of the Tsarist regime, the development of a young, militant working class, and the acute, unresolved social and economic problems and land question. There were also differences amongst Marxists over the relationship between the different classes in the revolution. Prior to 1917, Tsarist Russia was a vast empire but also feudal or semi-feudal, where the majority of people were poor peasants and the urban working class was ruthlessly exploited and had no democratic rights. ‘Stages’ theory of social change The Mensheviks (the ‘Minority’ wing of the Russian Social Democratic Party) argued that the national bourgeoisie must lead the coming revolution, as the main tasks were the completion of the bourgeois democratic revolution. Socialism was for the distant future. This crude, ‘stages’ position, reflected the reformist, class collaborationist approach of the Mensheviks - the right wing of the Russian workers’ movement. In contrast, Lenin, the leader of the Bolsheviks (‘Majority’ of the Russian Social Democrats), agreed with Trotsky that the pro-capitalist ‘Liberals’ would not carry out the bourgeois democratic revolution. Only the proletariat would carry out the revolution, in alliance with the peasants. Lenin called for a "democratic dictatorship of the working class and peasantry", leaving open the exact relationship between the classes. Trotsky said the working class would play the key, leading role. The peasantry never played an independent role in history. It would be led by either the capitalist class or the working class. The arguments were finally settled by the year 1917, when Trotsky’s permanent revolution was borne out. The February Revolution overthrew the Tsarist regime but the Provisional Government, dominated by capitalist ‘Liberals’, failed to end Russia’s disastrous participation in the First World War or carry out bourgeois democratic tasks. Lenin accepted his old slogan of "a democratic dictatorship of the working class and peasantry" was overtaken by events. In his famous April Theses, Lenin called for the working class to fight to take power. The October 1917 socialist revolution, led by Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks, saw the working class come to power, leading the peasantry and middle layers. The Bolsheviks carried out bourgeois democratic tasks (e.g. land reform, democratic rights) and went over to socialist tasks (e.g. nationalisation of major industries). The example of October 1917 sparked a revolutionary wave throughout Europe (e.g. Germany 1918, 1923, Austria 1918, Bavaria 1919, and Italy 1919-1920). In the face of imperialist armed intervention, the Bolsheviks appealed to the world working class. The Communist International (Comintern) was set up. Lenin, Trotsky and all the leading Bolsheviks understood that without the spread of the socialist revolution, economically under-developed Russia could not build socialism alone. But the international revolutions failed, largely due to the betrayal of social democrat leaders in the West. This compounded the isolation and economic backwardness of Russia. A conservative bureaucracy – based around the figure of Stalin - increased its hold in these conditions and wanted to expand and to protect its power and privileges. This bureaucratic reaction found ideological expression in Stalin and Bukharin’s ‘Socialism in one country’ theory, in 1924. Socialism, they argued, could be built in Russia and it was not necessary to wait for international revolution. This marked a complete refutation of the historic position of the Marxist movement and it had disastrous consequences. Under Stalin, the Communist International rejected Lenin’s independent, class policy and the communist parties internationally sought "alliances" with the "national progressive bourgeoisie" in various countries. This approach led to defeats for the working class internationally (e.g. British General Strike 1926, China 1925-1927, Germany 1933, Spain 1936-39), which, in turn, deepened the bureaucratic counter-revolution in Russia. The Stalinists argued that capitalist democratic revolutions would take place first in the neo-colonial world, and after a period of capitalist development there would be a struggle for socialism. In other words, Stalinists argued a return to the discredited Mensheviks’ ‘stages theory’. The Stalinists covered their betrayals by a vociferous attack on the permanent revolution, digging up old pre-1917 arguments between Lenin and Trotsky on the issue. "The revolution on the international scale was suffering one defeat after another… strengthening the Stalin bureaucracy against me and my political friends," Trotsky wrote. The ‘permanent revolution’ today AFTER THE Second World War, the permanent revolution developed in a way that could not have been foreseen even by Trotsky. The victory of the Red Army over the Nazis strengthened Stalinism. Capitalism was overthrown in Eastern Europe, albeit in a distorted, bureaucratic way. At the same time, the reformists and Stalinists saved capitalism in Western Europe. In countries like China, Vietnam and Cuba, society was at an impasse due to capitalism and landlordism. But the working class was weak or misled, usually by Stalinists. When the peasant Red Army of Mao Zedong entered China’s cities, they balanced between different sections of society – peasants, workers, sections of the capitalists – and gradually ended capitalism and landlordism. Land and most of industry was nationalised but workers’ democracy was not introduced. Instead, what Marxists called a ‘deformed workers’ state’ was established. The main thrust of Trotsky’s permanent revolution was borne out in these events, but in a caricatured form. Although a key part of Trotsky’s theory - the conscious role of the working class as the leading class in the revolution - was absent in China, Cuba and Vietnam, for example, a social revolution was still carried out. Landlordism and capitalism were abolished. But the working class did not directly play the leading role in these revolutionary upheavals. The Cuban Revolution, lead by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, enjoyed mass support, but without workers’ democracy - a bureaucratic layer formed, concentrating power in its hands. Trotsky’s permanent revolution was vital to understanding events in the post-1945, neo-colonial world. Take China, for example. Does its ‘spectacular’ growth disprove the permanent revolution? Chinese revolution The 1949 revolution, despite its bureaucratic character, led to the development of industry and living standards, under a planned economy. But in the absence of democratic workers’ rule, the economy stagnated under the ruling bureaucracy. In the 1970s, the ruling elite began looking towards the market as a way to boost growth, although the state run sector was still dominant. Today, capitalist relations increasingly take hold. Growth rates are high but at a huge social cost: barbaric exploitation, uprooting millions from the countryside, enormous poles of wealth and poverty, dismantling of social gains, growing problems of nationalities, etc. Many of the worst features of pre-1949, capitalist China have re-appeared. And whatever the future role of China in the world economy, capitalist restoration will be incapable of fundamentally raising living standards and conditions of the mass of its people (as we have clearly seen in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe). India is also held up as an ‘emerging power’, based on its huge supply of cheap labour. But while India has a growing middle class, pockets of ‘modernisation’ and is a nuclear power, the majority of its desperately poor people eke a living on the land and caste, religious and national differences remain. As a whole, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America have suffered social and economic regression over decades of neo-liberalism, imperialist plunder and endemic corruption and waste. A quarter of the world’s population lives in "severe poverty", and half the world lives on less than $2 a day. Almost 800 million people are malnourished and the same figure lack basic healthcare. Every day, 30,500 children die from preventable diseases. African is littered with "failed states" and the continent is beset with endless problems, like wars, poverty famine, preventable diseases, corruption, and dictatorships. In Latin America, once ‘promising’ countries, like Argentina, are still recovering from economic collapse. Brazil is now trumpeted by pro-capitalist commentators as the new economic ‘success story’. Latin America Like Tsarist Russia, Brazil plays a regional imperialist role but many of the fundamental problems of the neo-colonial world remain in that huge country (including, huge city and rural disparities, economic situation, the actions of US imperialism, and the consciousness of working people. Unlike the first years of the Cuban Revolution, Stalinist Russia no longer exists to act as a ‘model’ and practical support to neo-colonial deformed workers’ states. Ultimately, the only way to defend and to extend the revolution in Venezuela and beyond is by carrying through and spreading the socialist revolution; fulfilling the tasks of the permanent revolution. Today, the ‘classical’ ideas of the permanent revolution - with the working class playing the main role - can re-develop. This year, marks the first time in history when over 50% of the world’s population lives in urban areas. The collapse of Stalinism, and the social democratic parties openly going over to capitalism, provides an opportunity for independent, class politics and revolutionary socialism to win a mass audience. However, reformist ideas, and versions of the ‘stages theory’, will not just disappear. In the next period, the working class in the neo-colonial world will be poised to lead the social transformation of society. Trotsky’s permanent revolution may be 100 years old but his brilliant theory remains the most modern, indispensable guide for the working class in its struggle to overthrow capitalism, landlordism, and to end all the barbarities of life in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

World economy faces ‘chain of crises’

THE US ECONOMY – which is one of the few to regain the production levels of pre-2008 – has slowed to its weakest pace since 2009, growing at less than 2% while the world’s biggest economies have lost steam simultaneously. If the Republicans refuse a deal with Obama, if the US topples off the fiscal cliff, this could almost automatically plunge the world economy – which is basically stagnant – into a new deeper recession. The interests of capitalism should logically compel the Republicans to seek a deal with Obama. But the political system in the US, designed originally for an 18th century population of predominantly small farmers, is now completely dysfunctional, along with the Republican Party. Obama, in one of his more revealing outbursts speaking to American bankers in 2009, stated: “My administration is all that stands between you and the pitchforks”. But in the election, this did not earn him the support of the American bourgeois as a whole who favoured Romney in the main. This just goes to show that a class does not always recognise its own best interests! It is the strategists and the thinkers of the ruling class, sometimes in opposition to those that they supposedly represent, who are prepared to stand up for the best interests of the capitalists and chart a way forward. The problem for them today is that the choice is between different roads to ruin for capitalism. The decay, their loss of confidence, is evident in their refusal to invest, as well as the warnings from the hallowed institutions of capitalism: the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Their predictions of a quick escape from the present crisis have been dashed and they have now swung over to complete pessimism. Cameron and the Governor of the Bank of England warn that the crisis might last another decade; the IMF whistles a similar tune. The theme first employed in Japan of ‘zombie banks’ is now used to describe not just the banks but the economies of America, Europe and Japan. And like Japan, bourgeois economists are predicting a ‘lost decade’ for some countries and for Europe as a whole. A comparison with the 19th century depression from 1873 to 1896 is being made, at least for Europe. Martin Wolf in the Financial Times mused, “is the age of unlimited growth over?”, extensively quoting from a new study, Is US Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds. (NBER Working Paper no 18315) This raised the vital question of the role of innovation in the development of capitalism, and particularly in driving forward the productivity of labour. The authors of the above study concluded that there have been “three industrial revolutions” since 1750 that have been crucial in the development of capitalism. The first was roughly between 1750 and 1830, which created steam engines, cotton spinning, railways, etc. The second was the most important with its three central inventions of electricity, the internal combustion engine, and running water with indoor plumbing, in the relatively short period of 1870 to 1900. Both these revolutions required about 100 years for the full effects to percolate through the economy. After 1970, productivity growth slowed markedly for a number of reasons. The computer and internet revolution – described by the authors as industrial revolution three (IR3) – reached its climax in the dot-com era of the late 1990s. But its main impact on productivity, they say, has withered away in the past eight years. They conclude that since the year 2000 invention has been largely concentrated on entertainment and communication devices that are smaller, smarter and more capable but do not fundamentally change labour productivity or the standard of living in the way that electric light, motorcars or indoor plumbing did. This is not to say that there are not the potential inventions for enormously lifting productivity but the dilemma is the current state of capitalism in decline, which is incapable of developing the full potential of the productive forces. The tendency for the rate of profit to fall – and actual falls in profitability – discourages the capitalists from taking up inventions which can develop the productive forces. Then there is the problem of ‘demand’ which in turn has led to an ‘investment strike’, with a minimum of $2 trillion of ‘unemployed capital’ in the cash piles of US companies. And, on top of this, exists the colossal debt overhang. Satyajit Das in the Financial Times berates the American bourgeois who “seem unable to handle the truth – the prospect of little or no economic growth for a prolonged period… Ever increasing borrowings are needed to sustain growth. By 2008 $4-$5 of debt was required to create one dollar of US growth, up from $1-$2 in the 1950s. China now needs $6-$8 of credit to generate one dollar of growth; an increase from $1 to $2 15-20 years ago”. Capitalism faces not one crisis but a chain of crises. They are trying to reconcile the working class to the prospect of little or no growth and therefore of severely reduced living standards, as Greece demonstrates. We must counter this through our programme and emphasise the limitless possibilities – evident even today – if society was organised on a more rational, planned way through socialism. Europe’s intractable crisis THE ECONOMIC CRISIS in Europe is the most serious facing world capitalism. So intractable does the crisis appear, with austerity clearly not working, that a spat has broken out, with the IMF warning against the ‘excessive austerity’ applied by national governments in Europe with the benediction of the EU authorities and the European Central Bank (ECB). On the one side the ECB has sought to implement, like the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, a form of Keynesianism through the purchase of government bonds as well as cheap loans to some banks and countries. On the other hand, these very same authorities – the ‘troika’ – have been the instruments for austerity policies. They have been stung by the implied criticism of the IMF, which has pointed out that a negative ‘multiplier effect’ operates when severe austerity is implemented – cuts in government expenditure, loss of jobs, etc – and therefore reduced income to the state. The ECB and national governments counter with the ‘absolute necessity’ to cut state spending, accompanied by all the other measures of austerity, privatisation, etc. Despite all the pleas and expectations of growth, austerity has had the effect of snuffing out even the economic embers that remained during the crisis. It is true that Keynesian policies have failed to generate growth. In the current situation, it is like ‘pushing on a piece of string’. This has led born-again Keynesians, such as former Thatcherite monetarist Samuel Brittan, to lobby for bolder measures; he advocates what amounts to a giant game of ‘treasure hunt’ in a desperate attempt to get the economy moving again. He suggests, only half-humorously, that hordes of cash should be buried and then the adventurous souls who discover it will then go out and spend it! There is no indication of this happening, however. The largesse that has been distributed so far has been used to clear debts not to increase spending. This is an indication of the desperation of the ruling class for some improvement at this stage. Keynesianism has been partially tried and failed but this does not mean that, faced with a revolutionary explosion, the capitalists would not resort to far-reaching Keynesian measures. Concessions can be given and then the capitalists will attempt to take them back through inflation at a later stage. Even now, the EU authorities are attempting to avoid the default of Greece by suggesting that more time is given for its debts to be paid off. This will not prevent the savage attacks on the Greek working class, which are being applied remorselessly by the EU. Nor will it solve the basic problems of Greece which will still be lumbered with colossal debts. Therefore, a Greek default is still likely, which will have huge repercussions throughout Europe, including Germany, which is heavily indebted to the banks of other countries. It is even possible that Germany itself could take the initiative of leaving the euro, such is the political opposition within Germany itself to bail-outs. Even the proposal to give Greece more time to pay off its debts is meeting with opposition from the German capitalists because it means writing off a small portion of their debt. It is possible that, in relation to Spain and some other countries, the ‘can will be kicked further down the road’. But eventually the can will become too big to kick! Therefore, a breakup of the eurozone still remains on the cards. Even the Chinese express alarm at the turn of events in Europe with a top Chinese official, Ji Liqun, sitting on top of a massive state-controlled sovereign wealth fund of £300 billion, warning that the European public are at ‘breaking point’. He had previously argued that Europeans should work harder but now recognises that the depth of public anger could lead to a ‘complete discarding’ of austerity programmes. “The fact the public are taking to the streets and resorting to violence indicates the general public’s tolerance has hit its limits”, he commented. “Unions are now involved in organised protests; demonstrations and strikes. It smacks of the 1930s”. Not least of his unspoken concerns is that the example set by the European working class could spill over into China itself as well as his fear for Chinese investments in Europe. Greece is the key EUROPE IS THE key to the world situation at the present time, where the class struggle is at its sharpest and with the greatest opportunity for a breakthrough for left and revolutionary forces. But if this is so, then Greece is therefore the key to the situation in Europe, with Spain and Portugal not far behind in the chain of weak links of European capitalism. As Trotsky said of Spain in the 1930s, not one but three or four revolutions would have been possible if the Greek workers had a farsighted leadership and mass party at their head. A Greek computer programmer on the day of the recent general strike commented to the Guardian newspaper in Britain: “Personally, I’m amazed there hasn’t been a revolution”. British TV also commented that just 3% of the population actually supports the austerity measures of the government and the troika. With all the agonies that the Greek people are being forced to endure, by the end of the present austerity programme the debt of Greece will still be 192% of GDP! In other words, there is absolutely no chance that this debt will be paid. Nevertheless, endless austerity is the future that capitalism has decreed for the Greek people. All the conditions for revolution are not just ripe but rotten ripe. Nineteen one-day general strikes – out of which four have been 48 hour strikes and the rest 24-hour strikes – testify to the colossal reserves of energy of the Greek workers and their preparedness to resist. However, they have concluded that, in the teeth of what has been a magnificent struggle, the troika and the Greek capitalists have still not budged and it is therefore necessary to turn to the political front, towards the idea of a left government able to show a way out of the crisis. This is despite the fact that there is scepticism towards Syriza and its leadership on the part of the masses. Significant sections of the masses are prepared to support Syriza, which currently receives as much as 30% in some of the polls, but are not prepared to join and actively engage within its ranks. There is an element of this in many countries. Big disappointment at the failure of the workers’ parties has led to extreme scepticism towards them, even those formally standing on the left. There is a willingness to support left formations and parties in elections, but not to devote time and energy to engaging in their ranks and building them. Workers have been disappointed in the past and fear being let down once more. This mood, of course, can and will be changed once they see these parties actually carrying out what they promise. Instead of moving in a leftward direction, however, left parties in general and Syriza in particular have tended to move to the right, watering down their programme and opening their doors even to ex-leaders of social democracy who have played an open strike-breaking role in the very recent period. In the circumstances of Greece, the flexible tactics employed by our Greek comrades, while remaining firm programmatically, meet the needs of a very complex situation. We have to have an eye not just for those left forces within Syriza but also to the sizeable forces outside, whom in some cases are re-evaluating past political positions. We cannot give a timescale as to when the present government will collapse – as it surely will – with the likely coming to power of a Syriza-led left government. But we have to prepare for such an eventuality with the aim of pushing such a government towards the left, while at the same time helping to create democratic popular committees which can both support the government against the right but also pressurise it into taking measures in defence of the working class. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a new significant semi-mass force can emerge through the tactics in which we are presently engaged. This will involve not just a concentration on developments on the left and in the workers’ parties but also against the danger posed by the far right and specifically from the rise of the fascist Golden Dawn, whose support recently rose to 14% at one stage in the opinion polls, but has now declined to around 10%. One of the reasons for this is the formation of mass anti-fascist committees, which we have helped to initiate and have drawn in workers, youth and refugees. This work assumes exceptional importance and could be a model for the kind of situation that may confront the working class in many other countries in the future. If the working class and the left fail to carry through a socialist revolution, history attests to the fact that they will pay a heavy price as a consequence. The social tensions which exist in Greece cannot be contained forever within the framework of ‘democracy’. There is already a veiled civil war with more than 90% of the population pitted against the ‘one per cent’ and this can break out into an open conflict in the future. Some far-right elements in Greece have mooted the idea of a dictatorship but this is not immediately on the agenda. Any premature move that seeks to emulate the 1967 military coup could provoke an all-out general strike like the Kapp putsch did in Germany in 1920 and a revolutionary situation. Also a coup would not be acceptable at this stage to imperialism, the ‘international community’, in this era of ‘democracy and conflict resolution’. The capitalists, in the first instance, are more likely to resort to a form of parliamentary Bonapartism, like Monti’s government in Italy but more authoritarian. The fraught economic and social position of Greece will demand a much firmer and more pronounced right wing government than in Italy, with the powers to overrule parliament in an ‘emergency’. If this does not work, and a series of governments of a similar character are incapable of breaking the social deadlock, and if the working class, through a revolutionary party, fails to take power, then the Greek capitalists could go over to an open dictatorship. We have to warn the working class that we still have time in Greece but we have to utilise this in order to prepare a force that can carry through socialist change. The response throughout Europe to the strike on 14 November illustrates how the struggles of the working class are bound together. If the Greek workers were to break the chain of capitalism and appeal to the workers of Western Europe, at the very least to those in southern Europe, there would be a big response to the call for a socialist confederation – probably involving Spain, Portugal and maybe Ireland in the first instance, if not Italy. China at the crossroads US IMPERIALISM HAS identified Asia as a key area – more important than Europe, for instance, strategically and economically – shown by the fact that the first visit of Obama after his victory in the US presidential election was made to the region. This was partly to reaffirm the economic stake of US imperialism but also served as a warning to China of the importance of US military strategic interest. It was felt to be necessary because of the new military assertiveness of China, which was revealed in its recent naval clashes with Japan over uninhabited disputed islands. Japan is beginning to build up its military forces, of course, for ‘defence’ alone! This means that Asia will become a new and dangerous theatre of military conflict with the rise of nationalism and the possibility of outright conflict, where the contending powers will be prepared to confront each other, with weapons if necessary, in order to enhance their influence, power and economic stake. China is the colossus of Asia, the second power in the world after the US. How it develops will exercise a big, perhaps decisive, effect on the region and the world. And China is certainly at the crossroads, as its ruling elite well understands. Like many a ruling group in history, it feels the contradictory tensions swelling up from below and is unsure how to deal with them. Chinese scholars described the current situation of the country to The Economist as “unstable at the grassroots, dejected at the middle strata, and out of control at the top”. In other words, the ingredients of revolution are brewing in China at the present time. The spectacular growth rate of 12% is a thing of the past. It is now like a like a car stuck in snow: the wheels churn but the vehicle does not advance. Growth has probably contracted to between 5% and 7%. The regime claims that there has been a certain ‘recovery’ but it is not expected to return to double-digit growth. This will automatically affect perspectives for the world economy. A growth rate above 10% was only possible through a massive injection of resources, at one-time amounting to a colossal and unprecedented 50% of GDP invested into industry. This, in turn, generated discontent: resentment against growing inequality and environmental degradation as well as communally-owned land being illegally snatched by greedy officials. These and the sweatshop conditions in the factories have generated enormous opposition from the masses with 180,000 public demonstrations in 2010 – and it is has grown since then – compared to the official estimate of 40,000 in 2002. The removal of the ‘iron rice bowl’ and attacks on healthcare and education have added to this discontent. This has forced the leadership to reintroduce a modicum of health cover. How to handle this volcano and which route economically to take haunts the Chinese leadership. The village of Wukan rose a year ago and successfully fought running battles with the police to reclaim land which had been stolen from them by the local bureaucracy. This was symptomatic of what lies just below the surface in China, a subterranean revolt that can break out any time. On this occasion, the local officials retreated but, also, the protesters did not follow through with their movement. It seems that this incident and many others are “small uprisings that continually bubble up across China”. (Financial Times) Many of the protagonists naïvely believe that if only the lords in Beijing knew the scale of corruption, they would intervene to stamp it out. Something similar occurred in Russia under Stalinism. The masses initially tended to absolve Stalin of any responsibility for corruption of which he was ‘unaware’. It was all down to the crimes of the local bureaucracy but not Stalin himself. But the arrest of Bo Xilai and trial of his wife have helped to dispel those illusions. He has been accused of abusing his position by amassing a fortune, accepting ‘huge bribes’, and to have promoted his cronies to high positions. Bo, as a member of the top elite – a princeling, a son of a leader of the Chinese revolution – is accused of complicity in murder, bribery and massive corruption. This naturally poses the question of how he was allowed to get away with this for so long. In reality, it was not these crimes – true though they probably are – which led to his arrest and impending trial. It was because he represented a certain danger to the top elite – in going outside this ‘magic circle’ – and campaigning for the top job. Even more dangerous was that he invoked some of the radical phrases of Maoism, associated with the Cultural Revolution. In so doing, he could have unconsciously unleashed forces that he would not be able to control, which could go further and demand action against the injustices of the regime. And who knows where this could have ended? The Chinese regime is in crisis. It is quite obviously divided as to the next steps – particularly in relation to the economy – which should be undertaken. One princeling commenting to the Financial Times put it brutally: “The best time for China is over and the entire system needs to be overhauled”. Bourgeois commentators in journals like The Economist, the Financial Times, the New York Times, etc, have recently resorted to the terminology which the CWI has used in describing China as ‘state capitalist’. They do not add the proviso that we do, of ‘state capitalist, but with unique features’. This is necessary in order to differentiate our analysis from the crude position of the SWP and others, who incorrectly described the planned economies in the past in this fashion. The direction of travel of China is clear. The capitalist sector has grown at the expense of the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in the past. But recently, and particularly since the stimulus package of 2008, there has been a certain recentralisation with economic power tending to be concentrated more in the state sector, so much so that SOEs now have assets worth 75% of total GDP. On the other hand, The Economist described China in the following fashion: “Experts disagree on whether the state now makes up half or a third of economic output, but agree the share is lower than it was two decades ago. For years from the late 1990s SOEs appeared to be in retreat. Their numbers declined (to around 114,000 in 2010, some 100 of them centrally controlled national champions), and their share of employment dropped. But now, even while the number of private companies has grown, the retreat of the state has slowed and, in some industries, reversed”. It is clear that a ferocious discussion is taking place behind closed doors amongst the elite. ‘Reformers’ favour a more determined programme of dismantling the state sector and moving more and more towards the ‘market’. They are proposing to lift remaining barriers to the entry and operation of foreign capital. The new ‘leader’ Xi Jinping, despite his ritualistic incantation of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’, is rumoured to support the reformers. On the other hand, those who have proposed an opening up, both in the economy but also with limited ‘democratic’ reforms, seem to be side-lined. Studies have been made of how former dictatorships like South Korea allegedly managed the ‘cold transition’ towards ‘democracy’. These took place when the boom had not exhausted itself and even then was against the background of mass movements. China’s proposed ‘transition’ is taking place in the midst of a massive economic crisis. China’s rulers are rumoured to be avidly studying Gorbachev’s role in Russia. He began intending to ‘reform’ the system and ended up presiding over its dismantlement. Serious reforms from the top will provoke revolution from below in today’s China. It cannot be excluded that a period of very weak ‘democracy’ – but with power still in the hands of the old forces, like in Egypt today with the army and the Muslim Brotherhood in power – could develop after a revolutionary upheaval in China. But this would be merely a prelude to the opening of the gates to one of the biggest mass movements in history. Conclusions FOUR TO FIVE years into a devastating world economic crisis, we can conclude that there are very favourable prospects for the growth of Marxism. With the necessary qualification that consciousness – the broad outlook of the working class – has yet to catch up with the objective situation, it can still be described as pre-revolutionary, especially when taken on a world scale. The productive forces no longer advance but stagnate and decline. This has been accompanied by a certain disintegration socially of sections of the working class and the poor. At the same time, new layers of the working class as well as sections of the middle class are being created – proletarianised – and compelled to adopt the traditional methods of the working class of strikes and trade union organisation. The potential power of the working class remains intact, although hampered and weakened by the right-wing trade union leadership as well as by social democracy and the communist parties. The CWI has not made a decisive breakthrough as yet in any country or continent. However, we have retained our overall position in terms of membership and especially increased influence within the labour movement. There are many workers who are sympathetic to and watching us, and on the basis of events and our work can join us. We must face up to the situation by educating and preparing our supporters for the tumultuous next period in which great opportunities will be presented to strengthen the organisations and parties of the CWI and the International as a whole.

Could socialism really work in the 21st century?

I was having a good debate the other day with a member at a local debating society I go to we were discussing the economic crisis and the mess we are in and I put forward my ideas of another world is possible a world run by the many for the many we got on to all topics such as what does taxing the rich really mean, who indeed are the rich are they those on 100 grand a year or is there far fewer of them. We all agreed that the working class’s pay far too much tax that was music to my socialist ears. But we got on to human nature an my friends idea that socialism could never work as people are naturally greedy and human nature would mean we all want more. I countered this by saying under a democratic socialist system there would be no need for crime, povety or greed as there would be enough to go around for us all to live comfortably. My friend said this will never happen as we always want more than our neighbour. This is the entrenched ideology of capitalism bourgeois ideas to want us to want more and more this is unnatural in my eyes. No one, of course, can give a blueprint of how socialism is going to work. But we can as Marxists work out which direction we are travelling in and the likely outcomes of such movements. "It's a nice idea but it will never happen" is one of the most common responses to the suggestion that it is in our interests to work towards building a socialist society. The assumption is that socialism will rely upon everybody being altruistic, sacrificing their own interests for those of others. But socialism would actually involve the majority of people recognising their common interests. People are too greedy This is a common objection to socialism, and suggests that, in socialism, some people would take more than their share of goods. Images are conjured up of people walking out of supermarkets carrying stockpiles of food—after all, isn't that what everyone would do if all goods were freely available? It may be what people would do in today's capitalist society, where what we need appears to be scarce because it is rationed by the payment of the wage. But if food were given away free in socialism, there would be no need to take more than you need. Because food will have been produced to satisfy society's needs, not for profit, it will be available on that basis. The current world food supply (let alone the potential supply) is enough to feed the global population Indeed, there is the potential to meet the broader range of human needs, in an environmentally sustainable way, if socialism were established. Once the insecurity of our current society is left behind, it would simply become pointless to take more than you needed. Who would do the dirty work? This is a common objection to the proposal that all work be contributed on a voluntary basis. Some people point to certain kinds of work that people might seek to avoid—such as cleaning out sewers, or mining. A more extreme form of the argument suggests that everyone would spend the whole day in bed if they were not forced to work. Humans throughout history have sought fulfillment through their work. If they have not enjoyed their work, it has not been through dislike of work in general but due to the particular purpose and conditions of the work that they have been forced to undertake. Work under socialism has the potential to be entirely different to capitalist employment. The most important reason for this is that unpleasant work could be organised far more efficiently than under capitalism and that all work would be organised so as to be as pleasant as possible. The purpose of work would be entirely different. Under capitalism, much of the work done is the work required by capitalism in order to perpetuate its own existence. In socialism, the only work that would need to be done would be that for directly meeting human needs. Indeed, interesting and pleasant work is itself a human need. And work that isn't in itself interesting and pleasant must be minimised or abolished. If a household gets a washing machine, you never hear the family members who used to do the laundry by hand complain that this "puts them out of work". But strangely enough, if a similar development occurs on a broader social scale it is seen as a serious problem—"unemployment"—which can only be solved by inventing more jobs for people to do. The fact is that most jobs under capitalism are either completely or partially unnecessary. Many of those that are necessary are performed by stressed people working long hours while others suffer poverty. In a sane society, the elimination of all these absurd jobs (not only those that produce or market ridiculous and unnecessary commodities, but the far larger number directly or indirectly involved in promoting and protecting the whole capitalist system) would reduce necessary tasks to such a trivial level that they could easily be taken care of voluntarily and cooperatively, eliminating the need for the whole apparatus of economic incentives and state enforcement. That economists now believe that in 20 years time, total world demand for all commodities could be met by 2% of the global population—and this in capitalist society!—suggests necessary work in socialist society could be so organised as to enable individuals to contribute no more than a few hours a week to the good of society. Waste, destruction and exploitation are the ultimate outcomes of the market economy and production for profit. The market develops and ‘regulates’ the economy through booms and slumps, with an inevitable tendency towards overproduction and overcapacity. As society moves towards socialism goods and services become directly produced to meet needs, not indirectly for a market based on an exchange to realise profit. At the early stage of socialism there will, of course, still be elements of capitalism left. Money will have to be used for a time but, unlike before, the material and human resources are there for a rapid advance towards a society – or more correctly, a world – based on the socialist principle: ‘From each according to his or her ability, to each according to their needs’. Many reasons are given for the fall of the planned if highly bureaucratic economy of the Soviet Union but It was not central planning as such that brought Stalinism to its knees. It was the absence of democracy, elected bodies and accountability, the prerequisites for a planned economy. The more the economies developed, the more acute became the crisis. In response, the bureaucracies themselves started to introduce ‘market-reforms’ which, in turn, accelerated the process of crisis and disintegration. Leon Trotsky was the first to explain how the ulcer of bureaucratism and totalitarianism worsens "the more the economy runs into the problem of quality, which slips out of the hands of a bureaucracy like a shadow. The Soviet products are as though branded with the grey label of indifference. Under a nationalised economy, quality demands a democracy of producers and consumers, freedom of criticism and initiative – conditions incompatible with a totalitarian regime of fear, lies and flattery". "Behind the question of quality stands a more complicated and grandiose problem which may be comprised in the concept of independent, technical and cultural creation. No new values can be created where a free conflict of ideas is impossible... Soviet democracy is not the demand of an abstract policy, still less an abstract moral. It has become a life-and-death need". (Revolution Betrayed, p247) At the centre of the struggle conducted by Trotsky and the Left Opposition was the restoration of workers’ democracy based on elected representatives subject to the right of recall and with officials’ wages brought down to the level of an average worker. The aim was "the gradual involvement of the entire working population without exception in the work of state administration and the systematic struggle for equality". Workers’ or socialist democracy was a condition for the development towards socialism. A planned economy requires the active participation of the mass of the working class to implement, check, regulate and make changes to the plan. In the absence of this democratic involvement the bureaucracy inevitably becomes an absolute fetter on further progress. The process of stagnation and decline that started to set in during the 1970s reflected the unsolvable contradictions between the nationalised economy and bureaucratic dictatorship. A socialist economy would for the first time give people, as producers and users, the chance to control every step of production, take initiatives and experiment without being strangled by profit-driven competition. This, together with research and testing, would make possible an economy based on equality and in harmony with nature. Why would people produce poor quality goods when they are producing to meet their own (and others) needs? Is the revolution we are talking about at all likely? Appearances would suggest not. The odds seem to be stacked against it. Indeed, when we put forward the idea, most people can scarcely believe we are serious. But most revolutions have been preceded by periods when most people were scoffing at the idea that things could ever change. There was a time when the idea of a capitalist society would have been dismissed as a hopeless utopian dream. To a peasant living in feudal society, the idea of radical change would appear as hopeless as it may appear to you now. To them, feudalism would have appeared as eternal and unchanging and unchangeable as capitalism appears to us now. In Europe, when capitalism was relatively young, the idea of workers working an eight hour day with a weekend would have appeared hopelessly utopian. In the past in countries where everybody now has a vote, there was a time when the idea was scorned and violently opposed. So we're not too surprised that people find it difficult to take our ideas on board. of course. Yet, despite the many discouraging trends in the world, there are some encouraging signs, not least of which is the widespread disillusionment with previous false alternatives. Fewer and fewer people are bothering to vote in elections, for example, correctly realising that it will have little effect on their everyday lives at this stage even TUSC is facing difficulties due to this widespread apathy. We have the ability to change things if we act together. The power to transform society lies in the hands of those who create everything—the working class. This is the source of our power, should we eventually use it. The power not to make a few reforms, but to change the whole system, to make a social revolution.

Learning the lessons from the other September 11th

While many around the world were paying their respects to the victims of 9/11 the attacks on the twin towers and the terrorist attacks in America in 2001. Many working class people were also paying tribute to the other September the 11th. The 11th of September in 1973 when in Chile in South America a brutal suppression lead to tragedy after a popular socialist government was defeated. IN SEPTEMBER 1970, Salvador Allende was elected President of Chile. His Popular Unity (UP) government - made up of large workers' parties (Socialists, Communists) and smaller middle-class parties - defeated the conservative Christian Democrats (CDs). Hopes were raised of a 'parliamentary road to socialism', tackling capitalism through peaceful, constitutional means. Three years later, these dreams lay in ashes. Militant reported in the issue of 14 September 1973: "After three turbulent years of social crisis and economic chaos, the Popular Unity government ... has been snuffed out under the iron heel of the military. "All the hopes, all the sacrifices of the Chilean workers and poor peasants during this period, have come to nothing. The armed forces have seized power in Chile by a military coup. The capitalists have used their military power to destroy the reforms instituted by the 'Popular Unity' government." These reforms included efforts to raise the living standards of the poorest, to ensure full employment to the workers and land to the peasants. Why were the Chilean people's hopes dashed? For three years, articles in Militant explained how, even in a country known as the "England of Latin America", the ruling capitalist class would not take such attacks on their privileges lightly. Since 1920, Chile's 'constitutional' army had organised nine coups! In February 1972 we warned: "Chilean society teeters on the brink of crisis. The question is posed: will the workers and peasants succeed in guaranteeing the gains of Allende's government, by pressing forward to socialist revolution, or will the reaction strike with ferocious vengeance...?" The Allende government nationalised the huge US-owned copper industry with little compensation to the owners. However large parts of the economy were left untouched, so were the judicial system, the media and vitally, the armed forces. Allende was allowed to take office only if the UP promised to leave the armed forces as they were, with the officer caste left in control and all the privileges of the army tops left intact. Rank and file members of the armed forces were even forbidden the right to join a trade union and freedom of political association. Revolutionary programme CHILE'S RULING class did not move to crush Allende early in his rule. Both they and US imperialism feared an explosive reaction from workers and youth both in Chile and in the rest of Latin America and even in a USA traumatised by Vietnam. But Allende held the masses back from defending their revolution with phrases warning against 'provoking reaction'. "Allende thinks", said Militant in February 1972, that "he can 'neutralise' the generals - the faithful servants of the capitalists, by flattering them and praising their 'Chilean respect for democracy'." Militant stressed that a peaceful transition could only be guaranteed by "a bold revolutionary programme" including setting up "peasant committees to take over the land... A decree on land nationalisation would legalise the accomplished revolutionary fact. "Workers' control of industry... to prevent factory closures. Industry should be nationalised with minimum compensation on the basis of need. Action committees... should be set up by the trade unions to force landlords and traders to reduce prices and rents." Finally, we wrote "A workers' militia, based on the unions, should be set up to defend the workers' gains... Allende should appeal to the army rank and file - the workers in uniform - to set up soldiers' committees. Faced with a powerful movement in the army, the generals would be suspended in mid-air." Militant explained how Chile's ruling class "could not be overwhelmed by using its own state", that "It was necessary to raise the workers' organisations, most developed in the form of Soviets (workers' and peasants' committees) to state power, completely paralysing and dismantling the old state in the process." The ruling class used their economic control to sabotage the economy and build opposition amongst small businesses such as the private lorry owners. Then, Militant said: "after a sufficient period of 'anarchy' the generals will be able to step forward as the 'saviours' of the country". We argued that "only the working class, fighting on a clear socialist programme, can really defend the interests of the small proprietors... grant cheap credit to the small farmers, the shopkeepers... to develop their businesses until voluntarily they would agree to form co-operative enterprises, eventually merging with state industry when they could see this path would lead to a better standard of life for them." Sowing illusions BY JUNE 1973 the armed forces were disarming workers, searching for arms in the workers' districts and factories and taking action against sailors affected by revolutionary propaganda. That month the counter-revolution attempted a premature coup. Militant reported: "The Chilean bosses and their blood-brothers in the army general staff understand fully that premature attempts at a coup would, without doubt, provoke a mass uprising which would endanger the whole system..." As an article in The Guardian said "If so far the Chilean army has held back, the explanation is... not any peculiar national tradition, but the formidable strength now acquired by the labour movement". Militant commented: "This is the explanation for the abject failure of the coup attempt... on 29 June. It was suppressed by 'loyal units' of the army within two and a half hours - just in time. For as news of the coup spread, thousands of workers struck, occupied their factories and, leaving armed pickets on the gates, marched on the Presidential Palace. "Here was a movement which could have put an end once and for all to the threat of reactionary tyranny. But Allende appealed for a return to work and riot police were sent in to break up the milling crowds. Only this cowardice, this treachery, this total lack of perspective, enabled the bosses to gasp for breath once more. "Only the blocking of the movement of the masses as a result of this betrayal emboldened the road hauliers enough to raise their heads in defiance of the UP! "Even then, the magnificent Chilean workers called a 24-hour general strike on 9 August to ... support the UP against the "road hauliers' blackmail". There is no shortage of courage or willingness to fight. What is lacking is leadership." Appeal Militant finished this article with an appeal to the "left wing, especially the Socialist youth" to "fight for committees of action for the defence of the rights of the workers and the defence of the revolution to be set up in every factory, workers' district, and armed forces." These forces, we said, should "be linked locally, in the districts and nationally together with all workers' organisations to provide the necessary framework for pushing forward the revolution and defeating the counter-revolutionary plots of reaction." We ended by demanding: "Arm the workers! Expel the capitalist ministers, civilian and military, from the UP government. For a socialist Chile!" However the UP leaders' response to this coup threat was to bring three military chiefs and the commander of the Federal Police into the Cabinet. Just weeks later, the generals and commanders were using their state forces to crush Allende's government and end the reforms. On 9 September 1973, just two days before the coup, half a million workers marched past Allende on the balcony of the presidential palace - most of them were demanding arms to defend the gains of 1970-73. But tragically, as Militant said after the coup, Allende and his government "failed to organise workers' councils of action and to arm the workers and appeal to the rank and file soldiers, sailors and airmen to set up committees." They gave "support to the reactionary officers, Generals and Admirals of the armed forces. "Allende sowed illusions in the 'neutrality' of the army caste and the acceptance by the capitalists of the Chilean constitution. This was the fatal error of policy for which the workers and peasants of Chile are paying in blood and suffering." The coup led by General Pinochet saved capitalism in Chile by plunging the workers, peasantry and middle class into 17 years of dictatorship, murdering at least 5,000 political opponents and torturing hundreds of thousands more. Future generations of working-class revolutionaries must learn the lessons of Chile 1970-73. With extracts taken from the Militant and the socialist.

Desperate times call for desperate measures by capitalists

When there is panic all around you you have no idea what to do what do you do? This is the question facing leading capitalist leaders in Europe today. 5 years into one of if not the biggest economic crisis in history there is still no solution on a capitalist basis to the economic crisis engulfing Europe and many other parts of the world. Europe is affected far more badly than other areas due to the way it was set up with many less wealthy nations trying to compete on the same level economically as the powerhouses of Germany, Holland and Belgium some of the more northern European nations. But it is becoming increasingly clear to even the capitalists now that Spain will need a full scale bail out very soon and short term ideas at stemming the contagion will just not do. As capitalists think they think short term and long term profit as the Euro crisis burns on engulfing further countries in southern Europe the European Central Bank is coming under increasing pressure to start buying up bad sovereign debt of nations like Spain and to start selling off Euro bonds which are seen as safer investments at this time. These ideas of the ECB stepping in have been held off and held off until now as a fear of using these schemes will create further upheaval in Brussels where German capitalism are reluctant to continue to bail out countries as it is having a affect back home with rising anger as its seen as Germany propping up a very sick Euro. So when times get tough and they re set to this autumn with a warm summer in Spain and Greece turning into a red hot autumn with further strikes, occupations, rising unemployment and further attempts to force through austerity against the working and middle class’s in these nations. Of course I haven’t mentioned Italy and not many have in recent weeks Italy is sure to come back on the menu for needing a full scale bailout at some point. But bail out after bail out will only temper the crisis and provide respite for a time this will not ultimately deal with the real fundamental issues undermining the economies deep down. The ECB will see itself having to play a more hands on roll in the coming months and years as it looks to grapple with the economic crisis does it have the power to prevent a full scale break up of the Euro. I’m not sure it does but when things get desperate desperate measures are often used. We may well see various tactics of short term growth being tried to jump started flagging economies. But and crucially this will have little to no affect as this crisis is not just limited to Europe as I said it’s global. Where will you as a country start trading more with China and the US plummeting southwards too. There really will be no where to turn. As the working class is pummelled into the ground by austerity it is essential in the battle of ideas that Marxist ideas are popularised in the working class and middle class only socialist ideas and the over throw of capitalism can do now for workers. Its going to get to situations where workers may be able to win huge concessions out of the ruling class if the situation gets to the point where the ruling class is faced with reform or revolution capitalists will get desperate when their system is at stake the fact that many of them do not even understand their own system works against them. But as Marx says there is no final crisis of capitalism it must be over thrown you cannot reform it out of existence it will always find a way out of a crisis and that I’m afraid may mean the ruin of the working class. Let’s not see that happen the working class over the globe will have op opportunities to com to power in the coming period. We as Marxists must arm the workers with the ideas of genuine socialism to transform society to meet the needs of the many not just the few.