Defence of China?

[BobKKKindle$]

I am unsure of how we should approach the PRC. It seems that the PRC is no longer a deformed workers state, because a large section of the state sector has been privatized, and the government has reduced or eliminated the provision of guaranteed employment and basic medical care (often known as the "iron ricebowl" system) and as a result there is now a growing Chinese bourgeoisie, which has been aided by foreign investment. This is in accordance with Trotsky's analysis in "The Revolution Betrayed" as he predicted that, because the bureaucracy is vulnerable (having no property ownership) they will eventually seek to (re-)introduce capitalist property relations. As such, because the PRC is now a capitalist country (or is at least undergoing a transition to Capitalism) we should, in the event of a war between the PRC and another state, adopt a position of neutrality, as in the case of the Zimmerwald group during the first World War. It could also be argued that the PRC now displays many of the features of an imperialist nation, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, which serves as a main source of oil, and has also been a primary destination for the export of capital, as well as arms, which have helped to prolong the conflict in the Sudan.

We should, however, not support the independence of Taiwan, which would be used as a base from which to project American power in the region. The CWI supports Taiwanese independence on the basis that Taiwan has a separate identity to the mainland.

Is there anyone who calls for the defense of the PRC?

[black magick hustla]

That is the type of confusion communists get wrangled in when they play capitalistic geopolitics. Kosovo is the biggest irony of them all.

[BIG BROTHER]

it is so depresing to see what China has become, when it had all the potential to be a succesful socialist nation. looks like the chinnese are going to need another revolution...

[BobKKKindle$]

it is so depresing to see what China has become, when it had all the potential to be a succesful socialist nation. looks like the chinnese are going to need another revolution...

China was always a deformed workers state, because the revolution was not led by the working class, and workers did not have an important role, at least relative to the peasantry, which formed the social base of the party, in bringing down the previous government.

[Dros]

We should approach China the same way we would approach any bourgeois run social-fascist environment: try and start a revolution. Comrade SUNFARSTAR has just founded a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party in China.

Just curious, do Trots advocate defending teh "deaformed worker's state"?

[Xiao Banfa]

`
That is the type of confusion communists get wrangled in when they play capitalistic geopolitics. Kosovo is the biggest irony of them all.


Typical anarchist "let's not get our hands dirty" attitude. Let's refuse to involve our selves in reality.

[BIG BROTHER]

We should approach China the same way we would approach any bourgeois run social-fascist environment: try and start a revolution. Comrade SUNFARSTAR has just founded a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party in China.

Just curious, do Trots advocate defending teh "deaformed worker's state"?

Is he really doing that? Good!Bring a real revolution to China!

But isn't the Chinnese "communist" party in China the only one allowed?

[BobKKKindle$]

Just curious, do Trots advocate defending teh "deaformed worker's state"?Yes, we do advocate the unconditional defense of all workers states, regardless of the degree of bureaucratic degeneration, by calling for political revolution, to restore the political power of the working class, and oust the bureaucracy. Political revolution is ultimately a form of "defense" because a workers state suffering from bureaucratic degeneration is a transitional entity; the bureaucracy will eventually try and transform their "caste" into a class by restoring capitalist property relations, which will enable them to attain greater economic security; in a workers state, the bureaucrat does not have direct ownership of the means of production, they cannot transmit property to their heirs in the form of inheritance - and so their position is vulnerable. As Trotsky wrote:

"If at the present time, notwithstanding the too obvious inconveniences of such an operation, it has considered it possible to introduce ranks and decorations, it must inevitably in future stages seek supports for itself in property relations."

The 1938 Transitional Program of the Trotskyist Fourth International:

“The USSR thus embodies terrific contradictions. But it still remains a degenerated workers’ state. Such is the social diagnosis. The political prognosis has an alternative character: either the bureaucracy, becoming ever more the organ of the world bourgeoisie in the workers’ state, will overthrow the new forms of property and plunge the country back to capitalism; or the working class will crush the bureaucracy and open the way to socialism.”

This hypothesis was affirmed by the experience of the Soviet Union in 1980-1991 and is today being further affirmed by what is occurring in China and Vietnam. The only alternatives to this restoration of capitalism through internal counter-revolution are proletarian political (as distinct from social) revolution, and the restoration of capitalism through imperialist intervention. Trotsky:

"The revolution which the bureaucracy is preparing against itself will not be social, like the October revolution of 1917. It is not a question this time of changing the economic foundations of society, of replacing certain forms of property with other forms. History has known elsewhere not only social revolutions which substituted the bourgeois for the feudal regime, but also political revolutions which, without destroying the economic foundations of society, swept out an old ruling upper crust (1830 and 1848 in France, February 1917 in Russia, etc.). The overthrow of the Bonapartist caste will, of course, have deep social consequences, but in itself it will be confined within the limits of political revolution."

In the short term, we support workers states in arguments against proponents of capitalism (pointing out their advantages; free healthcare, low price of basic foodstuffs, etc) and call for military defense in the event of war. Trotsky actually praises the economic development made possible by the command economy (despite the human costs) in "The Revolution Betrayed".

Were you under the impression that Trotskyists delight in the collapse of workers states?

Maybe this article will give you a better idea of the Orthodox Trot position: "Why we fought to defend the Soviet Union" (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2003/USSR-809.htm)

[Xiao Banfa]

Were you under the impression that Trotskyists delight in the collapse of workers states?


Mate, you're a member of the SWP. They don't uphold the deformed workers state theory.

[BobKKKindle$]

Mate, you're a member of the SWP. They don't uphold the deformed workers state theory.

The SWP's position on the USSR is wrong. That does not mean I do not support the SWP as an organisation; I am a member because they are the only party to take a stand against islamophobia. Don't tell me what to believe, you anti-abortion bigot :glare:

[black magick hustla]

`

Typical anarchist "let's not get our hands dirty" attitude. Let's refuse to involve our selves in reality.

Well I am not an anarchist.

At any rate, I don't understand what has this to do with not "involving ourselves in reality." Sure, the working class is in a period of retreat, but there are always outbursts of class struggle to be part of. Sure, it doesn't comes with the glory of supporting colorful flags and celebrity leaders, but in any case, only tools choose to become communist out of vainglory.

[black magick hustla]

The SWP's position on the USSR is wrong. That does not mean I do not support the SWP as an organisation; I am a member because they are the only party to take a stand against islamophobia. Don't tell me what to believe, you anti-abortion bigot :glare:

if by taking a stance against islamophobia means chanting "we are all hezbollah", then yes, you can have your islamo-trottery.

[Xiao Banfa]

Don't tell me what to believe, you anti-abortion bigot :glare:

Ha ha ha! I believe in a womans right to choose- I just want to apply medical ethics to the procedure, you crude fuckwit.

[Ismail]

China is state capitalist and are imperialists themselves. We shouldn't support them.

I recommend reading Imperialism and the Revolution by Enver Hoxha, specifically part II of the book. (Link: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/toc.htm)


History shows that every big capitalist country aims to become a great world power, to overtake and surpass the other great powers, and compete with them for world domination. The roads the big bourgeois states have followed to turn into imperialist powers have been various; they have been conditioned by definite historical and geographical circumstances, by the development of the productive forces, etc. The road of the United States of America is different from that followed by the old European powers like Britain, France and Germany, which were formed as such on the basis of colonial occupations.

We are now witnessing the efforts of another big state, today's China, to become a super power because it, too, is proceeding rapidly on the road of Capitalism. But China lacks colonies, lacks large-scale developed industry, lacks a strong economy in general, and a great thermo-nuclear potential on the same scale as the other two imperialist superpowers.

To become a superpower it is absolutely essential to have a developed economy, an army equipped with atomic bombs, to ensure markets and spheres of influence, investment of capital in foreign countries, etc. China is bent on ensuring these conditions as quickly as possible. This was expressed in Chou En-lai's speech in the People's Assembly in 1975 and was repeated at the 11th Congress of the Communist Party of China, where it was proclaimed that, before the end of this century, China will become a powerful modern country, with the objective of catching up with the United States of America and the Soviet Union. Now this whole plan has been extended and set out in precise detail in what is called the policy of the "four modernizations". But what road has China chosen so that it, too, will become a superpower?

In these conditions, in order to become a superpower, China will have to go through two main phases: first, it must seek credits and investments from US imperialism and the other developed capitalist countries, purchase new technology in order to exploit its local wealth, a great part of which will go as dividends for the creditors. Second, it will invest the surplus value extracted at the expense of the Chinese people in states of various continents, just as the US imperialists and Soviet social-imperialists are doing today.
China's efforts to become a superpower are based, in the first place, on its choice of allies and the creation of alliances. Two superpowers exist in the world today, US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism. The Chinese leaders worked out that they must rely on US imperialism, on which they have pinned great hopes of getting assistance in the fields of the economy, finance, technology and organization, as well as in the military field. In fact, the economic-military potential of the United States of America is greater than that of Soviet social-imperialism. This the Chinese revisionists know well, though they say that America is declining. On the course which they are following, they cannot rely on a weak partner, from which they cannot gain much. Precisely because it is powerful, they have chosen the United States of America to be their ally.
The alliance with the United States of America and the accommodation of the Chinese policy to the policy of US imperialism also has other aims. it contains in itself the threat against Soviet social-imperialism, which is plain from the deafening propaganda and the feverish activity the Chinese leaders are carrying out against the Soviet Union. With this policy it is pursuing, China is letting the revisionist Soviet Union know that its links with the United States of America constitute a colossal force against it, in case an imperialist war breaks out.


This policy of the Chinese leaders cannot fail to attract attention and find due support from the United States of America. As is known, at the time of the Second World War in the American State Department there were two lobbies over the Chinese issue: one pro Chiang Kai-shek and the other pro Mao Tsetung. Of course, at that time the Chiang Kal-shek lobby triumphed in the American State Department and Senate, while the Mao Tsetung lobby triumphed on the spot, in mainland China. Among the inspirer's of this lobby were Marshall and Vandemeyer, Edgar Snow and others, who became friends and advisers of the Chinese, the instigators and inspirer's of all kinds of organizations in new China. Today the threads of those old ties are being revived, strengthened, intensified and materialized. Now everybody sees that China and the United States of America are drawing ever closer to each other. Some time ago, one of the best-informed American newspapers, "The Washington Post", wrote: "There is now an American consensus which is supported even by the Right, even by those who have little sympathy for Peking.

[BobKKKindle$]

Thank you for steering this thread back on topic Mrdie.

It appears that this polemic was written before the implementation of market reforms in the PRC, which marked the beginning of the country's transition to Capitalism, following the death of Mao. At this stage in the PRC's historic development, Socialists should still have supported the PRC, as a workers state. It is wrong to describe 1970/80s China as "state capitalist" because there was no ruling class - although the bureaucracy had attained a political hegemony, they had no ownership of productive resources, and were not able to accumulate surplus value, or transmit assets to their children as inheritance, and so they can only be described as a "caste" or ruling stratum - they did not display the key features of the bourgeoisie in a capitalist society. Marxists analyze class on the basis of one's relation to the means of production - describing the bureaucracy as a ruling class undermines this scientific approach.

For this same reason, it makes no sense to describe the PRC (or any other state which belonged to the "socialist" bloc, including the USSR) as "social-imperialist" - although these countries did try and exercise their influence in other countries, often through the use of military force when they found that pressure was not sufficient (as in the case of Hungary in 1956) they were not imperialist, because imperialism is a stage in the development of capitalism, and arises from the cyclical nature of capitalism - a command economy overcomes cycles.

Labeling countries as "state-capitalist" is dangerous, because, by implication, there is no need to defend these countries, if they operate under the same (or a similar) economic system as that in "normal" or "market" capitalist countries such as the US.

What was the reaction of "Hoxhaist" groups to the collapse of the USSR?

[RNK]

The only problem with the assertation that China was a deformed worker's state is that private property did still exist and was owned by many beauraucrats. Private ownership was never abolished entirely (infact, little headway was made into collectivising industrial production, the large bulk of collectization occuring with peasants).

I disagree completely that imperialism is a stage of capitalism. While a certain stage of capitalism has become known as imperialism, imperialism in and of itself has been a re-occuring theme among cities, nations and religions for thousands of years (hint: Persian Empire, Macedonian Empire, Roman Empire, Fuedal Europe, Chinese Dynasties, Imperial Japan). While economic wealth was at the core of these empires, they were not developments of capitalism.

I would even argue that every epoch, every system of governance, has at one point or another developed imperialism, as in the above examples; infact, imperialism, the drive to hoarde wealth, has more than likely existed in one form or another throughout humanity's history since he climbed down from the trees and began exploring and colonizing the entire planet.

So it is only natural that socialism, too, could develop imperialist tendencies; the act of conquering and hoarding economic wealth on behalf of a socialist state.

[BobKKKindle$]

So it is only natural that socialism, too, could develop imperialist tendencies; the act of conquering and hoarding economic wealth on behalf of a socialist state.It is correct to describe the actions of some "socialist" states as imperialistic, but we should not equate them with the imperialism of capitalist states, as such actions (for example, the invasion of another country, giving money to a political faction to gain influence, opening up markets) are, in the case of "socialist" states, not motivated by the need to overcome the economic cycles, by capturing outlets for the release of surplus investment capital, which serves as the basis for capitalist imperialism. The violent reaction of the Soviet Union to the political revolution in Hungary, for example, was motivated by a desire to preserve the political hegemony of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, which served as a buffer to attack from the west. This is also true of pre-capitalist "imperialism" as in the case of the Roman empire et al - these societies were based on the production of use values, and so were incapable of being imperialist in the capitalist sense. Thus Lenin wrote:

"If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism."

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ RNK: Spreading the socialist revolution the Bonapartist way if more revolutionary attempts fail? ;)

Just as the Bolsheviks did this at the tail end of the civil war, I can quite easily accommodate "social-imperialist" (as the hardline Stalinists say) foreign policy if the USA had a socialist revolution with a good remaining chunk of its military power, and again only if more revolutionary attempts fail. :)

Anyhow, you should check out my Theory thread on the question of having a new theory of imperialism, which I call "macro-capitalism":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-theory-imperialism-t69324/index.html

[Of course, a hardline Stalinist had to pop in. :glare: ]

[RNK]

Lenin was either confused or defining that stage of capitalism that becomes "capitalist-imperialism". Fuedal-imperialism, empirical-imperialism (seems somewhat redundant, but necessary?), social-imperialism, are all developments of non-capitalist systems which exhibit imperialist tendencies. You could, if you used Lenin's theory of imperialism as the first historical basis for imperialism's definition, work backwards and say that all previous epochs of imperialism merely exhibited certain aspects of capitalist-era imperialism, however I'd like to think that Lenin didn't "invent" imperialism, and neither did capitalism.

It's really whether you apply the definition of Lenin's capitalist-era imperialism, or apply a broader definition dating back millenia to the first instances of imperialism in human history. Of course, socialism with imperialist tendencies can't be defined as capitalism-era imperialism, as that would be contradictory, but I do not believe that is the origin of the term "social-imperialism", which has a broader definition of being political and economic hegemony over another.

[Ismail]

For this same reason, it makes no sense to describe the PRC (or any other state which belonged to the "socialist" bloc, including the USSR) as "social-imperialist"Strongly disagree. The USSR turned Afghanistan into a puppet state which was clearly a social-imperialist action (In fact, Hoxha supported the insurgency) as was the "Obey us or die" attitude towards Warsaw Pact nations.


Labeling countries as "state-capitalist" is dangerous, because, by implication, there is no need to defend these countries, if they operate under the same (or a similar) economic system as that in "normal" or "market" capitalist countries such as the US.They operate under a profit motive, managers have more power than the workers, and the state is moving towards 'normal' capitalism, that is what makes them state capitalist.


What was the reaction of "Hoxhaist" groups to the collapse of the USSR?I strongly recommend you read this: http://rationalred.blogspot.com/2007/04/yeltsins-legacy.html (It's Slavyanski's blog)

On one hand, we support it since it showed how phony the USSR had become concerning socialism. On the other hand, it was still pretty populist and such and corruption wasn't as bad, but by 1985 it had pretty much become inevitable that the USSR would collapse eventually.

[BobKKKindle$]

I do not believe that is the origin of the term "social-imperialism", which has a broader definition of being political and economic hegemony over another.Thanks for that, RNK, that definition of "social-imperialism" makes more sense and could certainly be used to refer to the USSR and the PRC - although I would not say it is universally applicable to every aspect of each country's foreign policy, and it also not a dynamic that can be ascribed to the alleged "revisionist" seizure of power, because Stalin's foreign policy also exhibited "social-imperialist" features, for example, his invasion and subsequent annexation of Poland in 1939. "Social-imperialism" is therefore a characteristic of bureaucratic degeneration.

Let us also recall that, as bombs rained down on Vietnam, Mao greeted President Nixon in Beijing, and later invaded Vietnam - could this not be described as "social-imperialist"? What happened to solidarity in the struggle against "capitalist-imperialism"?

I thought that Mrdie was equating the foreign policy of the Soviet Union with "capitalist-imperialism" which is clearly objectionable.

[BobKKKindle$]

Strongly disagree. The USSR turned Afghanistan into a puppet state which was clearly a social-imperialist action (In fact, Hoxha supported the insurgency) as was the "Obey us or die" attitude towards Warsaw Pact nations.This is a somewhat separate debate, but the role of the USSR in the Afghan conflict was not "social-imperialist" because the USSR was actually invited to provide support and eventually to intervene militarily by the Afghan government, in order to join the fight against the Islamists. The Afghan war was a struggle against American Imperialism, because the Mujahideen were supported by the US government, which was motivated by a desire to undermine the image of the USSR and encourage internal dissent, to bring about the collapse of the Soviet government. By supporting the Insurgency, Hoxha was complicit in American imperialism.

We should have adopted the position of the Spartacist league and welcomed the Soviet intervention.


They operate under a profit motive, managers have more power than the workers, and the state is moving towards 'normal' capitalism, that is what makes them state capitalist.It only makes sense to describe a country as capitalist if there is an identifiable ruling class - there was no such class in the Soviet Union, because there was no private property. The USSR was a workers state suffering bureaucratic degeneration, controlled by a ruling caste. I agree that the state was moving towards capitalism, in the sense that the restoration of capitalism is the ultimate consequence of bureaucratic degeneration, but this does not mean that a country can be described as "state capitalism" - this term is used to describe the bourgeois state taking over control of certain enterprises and regulating capitalism, often during periods of crisis, such as a war, or in countries where a fascist party has gained power. This is very different from a workers state suffering bureaucratic degeneration, and we should not confuse the two terms, because any workers state deserves our unconditional military defense, whereas "state-capitalist" countries are capitalist, and so are targets for proletarian revolution.

Although managers were subject to pressure to reduce costs and maximize output (which you might consider to be synonymous with the "profit" motive) this does not make the USSR capitalist, because these managers did not own the products of workers labour, they did not receive the revenue generated by the sale of these products - they were part of the bureaucratic caste.

The USSR was not "capitalist" in any sense. Claiming that the USSR suddenly became "state-capitalist" when Khrushchev seized power is absurd, because one individual is not capable of changing the direction of a country - and I have never heard a materialist explanation for the "anti-revisionist" conception of the USSR. Khrushchev may have made certain reforms, but he did not change the underlying power structures created by Stalin - he was part of the same bureaucracy.


On one hand, we support it since it showed how phony the USSR had become concerning socialism. On the other hand, it was still pretty populist and such and corruption wasn't as bad, but by 1985 it had pretty much become inevitable that the USSR would collapse eventually.This should not be an issue that poses a dilemma; we regret the collapse of the Soviet Union because it signaled the restoration of capitalism, and a dramatic reduction in living standards as a result.

[Ismail]

This is a somewhat separate debate, but the role of the USSR in the Afghan conflict was not "social-imperialist" because the USSR was actually invited to provide support and eventually to intervene militarily by the Afghan government, in order to join the fight against the Islamists.Except:
A. The government was installed by the USSR in the 1970's
B. Taring the entire anti-imperialist resistance as "Islamists" is insulting

Many military leaders in the Americas called upon the help of the US against those that threatened them. Why wouldn't they? They're puppets, it's their job to serve their masters.


The Afghan war was a struggle against American Imperialism, because the Mujahideen were supported by the US government,I was unaware that the entire resistance movement was composed of the Mujahideen. I guess it's fine to oppress people just because the oppressors think that red is a particularly awesome color.


It only makes sense to describe a country as capitalist if there is an identifiable ruling class - there was no such class in the Soviet Union, because there was no private property.The means of productions were commodities, companies of various strengths competed against each other, etc. The managers operated above the workers and exerted control over them, that's what makes them a ruling class.


Although managers were subject to pressure to reduce costs and maximize output (which you might consider to be synonymous with the "profit" motive) this does not make the USSR capitalist, because these managers did not own the products of workers labour, they did not receive the revenue generated by the sale of these products - they were part of the bureaucratic caste.There was a clear class division by the 1970's where the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer, a process which started in the 1960's. Managers had the full ability to fire and hire whomever they pleased by the late 1970's, central planning was made ineffective because the state could no longer direct the economy, the market had already begun to appear and mystify things.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html - Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR, another good read.


This should not be an issue that poses a dilemma; we regret the collapse of the Soviet Union because it signaled the restoration of capitalism, and a dramatic reduction in living standards as a result.The USSR was capitalist as far back as the 1960's. You seem to be a bit of a tankie. (As in, those who defend the USSR because it had good propaganda and are willing to back anything because USSR HAS GLORIOUS MILITARY, MUST CRUSH CAPITALISM)

[BobKKKindle$]

I'll deal with your other arguments later (I'll edit this post), Mrdie, but I think this is an important point that should be addressed:


The means of productions were commodities, companies of various strengths competed against each other, etc. The managers operated above the workers and exerted control over them, that's what makes them a ruling class.No. Marxists analyze class in terms of relation to the means of production. Managers did not own the means of production, and so, even if they were able to decide how production was organized and control workers employed in state enterprises, that does not make them a ruling class, because their relation to the means of production did not actually differ from that of ordinary workers - they differed only in that they had a higher position in the state hierarchy, which meant that they had, in addition to managerial power, a higher wage and had access to privileges, such as special shops reserved for state bureaucrats, that were not enjoyed by ordinary workers.

The power of managers existed before Khrushchev's rise to power - the Bolshevik government first implemented a system of "one-man-management" during the civil war because democratic management would not have met the demands of the state, and so if you think that managerial power constitutes a "new class" it follows that the Soviet Union was also "state-capitalist" before Stalin's death. There was actually a dramatic increase in income inequality under Stalin, and it was he who introduced the Stakhanovite system, which allowed a small group of workers, most of whom were not actually more able, but were simply lucky, or twisted their production figures to make it seem as if they had done more work, to attain a salary far above that of most other workers. Trotsky:

"The local ruling groups eagerly seize the chance to escape from their isolation by allowing the upper stratum of the workers to participate in their privileges. As a result, the real earnings of the Stakhanovists often exceed by twenty or thirty times the earnings of the lower categories of workers. And as for especially fortunate specialists, their salaries would in many cases pay for the work of eighty to a hundred unskilled laborers. In scope of inequality in the payment of labor, the Soviet Union has not only caught up to, but far surpassed the capitalist countries!"

This inequality is unfortunate, but it does not mean that the USSR was, at any stage, capitalist, because we do not define capitalism in terms of the distribution of wealth. If we did, then the USSR would be capitalist, not only under Khrushchev, but also under Stalin - something which, as a Hoxhaist, I assume you reject.


I was unaware that the entire resistance movement was composed of the Mujahideen. I guess it's fine to oppress people just because the oppressors think that red is a particularly awesome color.
B. Taring the entire anti-imperialist resistance as "Islamists" is insultingThe Mujahideen aimed to create a society based on a strict interpretation of Islamic law and the prevailing social customs in medieval Arabia - and so the term "islamist" is a good description of the Mujahideen, which did comprise the main part of the resistance. The society that emerged from the war affirms the commitment of the Muhjahideen to Islamism.

I don't think there are many people who would disagree with me here. Why do you find the term "Islamist" insulting? Would you also deny that, say, Hamas is "islamist"?


A. The government was installed by the USSR in the 1970'sSource? Explanation?


The USSR was capitalist as far back as the 1960's. You seem to be a bit of a tankie. (As in, those who defend the USSR because it had good propaganda and are willing to back anything because USSR HAS GLORIOUS MILITARY, MUST CRUSH CAPITALISM)Why the ad-hominem attack? I support the USSR because the USSR was a workers state - albeit one suffering from bureaucratic degeneration.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thanks for that, RNK, that definition of "social-imperialism" makes more sense and could certainly be used to refer to the USSR and the PRC - although I would not say it is universally applicable to every aspect of each country's foreign policy, and it also not a dynamic that can be ascribed to the alleged "revisionist" seizure of power, because Stalin's foreign policy also exhibited "social-imperialist" features, for example, his invasion and subsequent annexation of Poland in 1939. "Social-imperialism" is therefore a characteristic of bureaucratic degeneration.

Didn't the Red Army under Trotsky and Tukachevsky do the exact same thing after revolutionary agitprop didn't pan out? :rolleyes:

Again, as I said above, Bonapartist (yes, I'll use this Trotskyist term, since it properly describes what I am about to say) "social imperialism" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Even from my somewhat "Bordigist" perspective of international revolutionary organization (one world social-proletocratic party PROPER - not just another "international" - coordinating the revolution (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-not-international-t59122/index.html)), one national "chapter" could be called upon to exercise its control over the national military in order to spread the revolution... should more cooperative efforts fail (ie, Social-Imperialist Country A attacks Bourgeois Country B if Country B's national "chapter" - even with significant aid from the national "chapters" in surrounding countries - is obstructed by reactionary forces).



If "Social-Imperialist Country A" happens to be the USA, and "Bourgeois Country B" happens to be either Canada or especially Mexico (the latter because of surrounding "chapters" in Central America, including one in Cuba)...

There could also be two or more cooperating "social-imperialist" countries carrying out this kind of activity if revolutions in less developed countries don't pan out.

If a social-proletocratic revolution occurred in both China and Australia, but was stalled in, say, Indonesia (even after supportive efforts by the Australian, Malaysian, and other surrounding national "chapters"), the Chinese national "chapter" could be called upon by the central Party organization to rally the military and link it up with the military under the control of the Australian national "chapter" - to overthrow Indonesian bourgeois rule by external means.

[Ismail]

Managers did not own the means of production, and so, even if they were able to decide how production was organized and control workers employed in state enterprises, that does not make them a ruling class, because their relation to the means of production did not actually differ from that of ordinary workersA gray market was created in which managers basically and 'illegally' sold the means of production to others. Things were sold to collectives, the accumulation of capital went to new heights in the 60's, 70's and 80's.


The power of managers existed before Khrushchev's rise to power - the Bolshevik government first implemented a system of "one-man-management" during the civil war because democratic management would not have met the demands of the state, and so if you think that managerial power constitutes a "new class" it follows that the Soviet Union was also "state-capitalist" before Stalin's death.Yes, the USSR was state-capitalist while Lenin was alive under the NEP. Lenin himself stated that the NEP was a retreat into capitalism, and many of the things the NEP did were later revived under Khrushchev, only this time they were passed off as 'socialist' and weren't temporary. Under Stalin however the NEP came to an end and socialism was built up.


There was actually a dramatic increase in income inequality under Stalin, and it was he who introduced the Stakhanovite system, which allowed a small group of workers, most of whom were not actually more able, but were simply lucky, or twisted their production figures to make it seem as if they had done more work, to attain a salary far above that of most other workers.Actually the Stakhanovites were opposed by the managers, since, you know, it was workers who were encouraged to find innovations and such.

And now on Afghanistan:

which did comprise the main part of the resistance.So apparently because thanks to US funding the Mujahideen became the main symbol, that makes it right to continue to dominate a nation and thus show how correct the resistance forces are?


Why do you find the term "Islamist" insulting? Would you also deny that, say, Hamas is "islamist"?Because when people say that, they usually act in a way that suggests "Well, they're Muslims, ergo they're irrelevant and we should ignore them".


Source? Explanation?It was a coup, not a revolution.

Since you quoted Trotsky, I'll quote Hoxha:

The most recent result of this rivalry is the military aggression of the Soviet social-imperialists against Afghanistan, the occupation of that country through armed force by one of the imperialist superpowers. The fact is that what is now being done openly by the Soviets through their armed forces against the sovereignty of the Afghan people had long been prepared by the Soviet social-imperialist chauvinist politicians and military leaders and their Afghan agents. In order to arrive at the present situation, both the former and the latter exploited the overthrow, first of King Mohammed Zahir Shah in 1973 and, later, of Prince Daoud in 1978. They also exploited for their evil aims the desire of the Afghan people for social liberation from the oppression they suffered under the absolute monarchy and its foreign friends, first of all, the Soviets, who financed the monarchy and kept it in power. So, irrespective of the -"alliance". which they had with the king of Afghanistan, the Soviet social-imperialists worked and acted for his overthrow. In order to disguise their imperialist aims, at first they brought their men, allegedly with more progressive sentiments, to power. Later, these, too, were changed one after the other, through actions in which blood was shed, by means of putsches and tanks, and Noor Mohammed Taraki and HafizUllah Amin were sent to the slaughter.

Nevertheless, no foreign occupier, however powerful and heavily armed, can keep the people, against whom aggression has been committed, subdued for ever. In every country which is invaded the people, apart from anti-national and anti-popular cliques of agents, receive the foreign aggressors with hatred and resistance, sporadic at first and later with more organized revolts which gradually turn into popular uprisings and liberation wars. We are seeing the proof of this in Afghanistan, where the people have risen and are fighting fiercely in the cities, villages and mountains against the Soviet army of occupation. This war of the Afghan people enjoys the support and sympathy of freedom loving peoples and revolutionary forces throughout the world. Our people, too, support it with all their might. The war of the Afghan people against the Soviet social-imperialists is a just war, and therefore it will triumph.

[Dros]

Is he really doing that? Good!Bring a real revolution to China!

But isn't the Chinnese "communist" party in China the only one allowed?

It's an illegal party.

[Keyser]

There is nothing is the current economic, social or political system in the PRC worth defending nor worthy of any efforts of solidarity or other work by revolutionaries or communists.

Todays China and it's ruling party are capitalist.

[RNK]

Let us also recall that, as bombs rained down on Vietnam, Mao greeted President Nixon in Beijing, and later invaded Vietnam - could this not be described as "social-imperialist"? What happened to solidarity in the struggle against "capitalist-imperialism"?

I'm still unsure what exactly to make of it, and I'm highly critical of Mao for doing this.

However, keep in mind that by the time of Nixon's visit (in 1972) socialism, or the drive to attain it, was dead in China; Mao had been deposed, those who most actively fought for socialism were either in jail or executed, and Deng and his pro-capitalist supporters in full control of the country. Mao at that point was merely a figurehead. I've suspected, though I have no "proof", that Mao was being manipulated in some way (in his later years, just prior to his death, Mao exhibited somewhat odd, uncharacteristic and contradictory behaviour, going from calling on the people to bombard the headquarters and attack and destroy the Communist Party of China, to embracing Deng and the traitourous attempts to form closer links with the US).

The invasion of Vietnam did not occur until 1979, long after Mao's death. Even prior to this, since the coup that lifted Deng and his pals to power, China was establishing imperialist hegemony, funding reactionary anti-Soviet movements in Africa and South America, for instance, a tradition which continues today with China's support of countries such as Myanmar, Iran, and militias in Africa.

Some would argue that the 1950 invasion of Tibet is also imperialistic, though there is legitimacy in the arguement that the move was to depose a pro-west, highly oppressive religious government, and Tibet was subsequently developed economically and politically to offer far higher quality of life and freedom than while under the reign of the Dalai Lama.

I agree wutg Keyser. China has all but abandoned all progressive measures. While I hear some semblence of socialism and collectivization exists in China to this day, the government has made it clear it will stop at nothing to abolish them.

[Devrim]

The SWP's position on the USSR is wrong. That does not mean I do not support the SWP as an organisation; I am a member because they are the only party to take a stand against islamophobia.

I thought that you were a member, Bob. This seems to me to be a bit of a large disagreement.

Devrim

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Yes, we do advocate the unconditional defense of all workers states, regardless of the degree of bureaucratic degeneration, by calling for political revolution, to restore the political power of the working class, and oust the bureaucracy. Political revolution is ultimately a form of "defense" because a workers state suffering from bureaucratic degeneration is a transitional entity; the bureaucracy will eventually try and transform their "caste" into a class by restoring capitalist property relations, which will enable them to attain greater economic security; in a workers state, the bureaucrat does not have direct ownership of the means of production, they cannot transmit property to their heirs in the form of inheritance - and so their position is vulnerable. As Trotsky wrote:

"If at the present time, notwithstanding the too obvious inconveniences of such an operation, it has considered it possible to introduce ranks and decorations, it must inevitably in future stages seek supports for itself in property relations."

The 1938 Transitional Program of the Trotskyist Fourth International:

“The USSR thus embodies terrific contradictions. But it still remains a degenerated workers’ state. Such is the social diagnosis. The political prognosis has an alternative character: either the bureaucracy, becoming ever more the organ of the world bourgeoisie in the workers’ state, will overthrow the new forms of property and plunge the country back to capitalism; or the working class will crush the bureaucracy and open the way to socialism.”

This hypothesis was affirmed by the experience of the Soviet Union in 1980-1991 and is today being further affirmed by what is occurring in China and Vietnam. The only alternatives to this restoration of capitalism through internal counter-revolution are proletarian political (as distinct from social) revolution, and the restoration of capitalism through imperialist intervention. Trotsky:

"The revolution which the bureaucracy is preparing against itself will not be social, like the October revolution of 1917. It is not a question this time of changing the economic foundations of society, of replacing certain forms of property with other forms. History has known elsewhere not only social revolutions which substituted the bourgeois for the feudal regime, but also political revolutions which, without destroying the economic foundations of society, swept out an old ruling upper crust (1830 and 1848 in France, February 1917 in Russia, etc.). The overthrow of the Bonapartist caste will, of course, have deep social consequences, but in itself it will be confined within the limits of political revolution."

In the short term, we support workers states in arguments against proponents of capitalism (pointing out their advantages; free healthcare, low price of basic foodstuffs, etc) and call for military defense in the event of war. Trotsky actually praises the economic development made possible by the command economy (despite the human costs) in "The Revolution Betrayed".

Were you under the impression that Trotskyists delight in the collapse of workers states?

Maybe this article will give you a better idea of the Orthodox Trot position: "Why we fought to defend the Soviet Union" (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2003/USSR-809.htm)

Wow, supporting the overthrow of the Soviet government while the Fascists were busy carving up Spain, and Hitler had his eyes on Lebensraum in Russia and Ukraine. BRILLIANT TROTS!! JUST BRILLIANT!!

[Wanted Man]

I'm not sure what to make China. However, I can't imagine how anyone could support the Taiwanese government, the "Free Tibet" movement, the Falun Gong, etc. Other than that, I think China is quite capable of defending itself.

[BobKKKindle$]

Wow, supporting the overthrow of the Soviet government while the Fascists were busy carving up Spain, and Hitler had his eyes on Lebensraum in Russia and Ukraine. BRILLIANT TROTS!! JUST BRILLIANT!!A historical point:

Hitler was only able to come to power because Stalin adopted an ultra-left position by labeling the SPD "social-fascists" - this prevented the KPD (which was the main revolutionary party in Germany and a member of Comintern, and thus subject to the control of the Soviet government) from forming a united front to defeat fascism, which was a more serious threat than the reformist ideas of the SPD. This would have meant joint campaigning and a united defence of workers' meetings and activists. A united front would not mean, however, its different components giving up the right to put forward an alternative analysis and programme. A united front would also have enabled KPD militants to win members of the SPD over to a more radical position by challenging their ideas and showing that, to attain a real improvement in the position of the working class, it is necessary to change the way society is organized, instead of just using reforms within the framework of the existing system. This foolish mistake meant that Hitler was able to gain power, and means that Stalin is partly responsible for the atrocities committed by the Nazis state, as he rejected a clear opportunity to prevent the Nazi party from attaining political office.

Instead of adopting this policy, the KPD considered the SPD as the main enemy, or at least an enemy equivalent to the Nazis, such that when, in mid-1931, the Nazis invoked a referendum on whether the SPD-led regional government in Prussia should be replaced, the KPD promoted a vote in favour, even though they knew that this would allow the Nazi party to attain control of the region.

Trotsky on the United Front:

"The disagreements between Communism and Social Democracy run very deep. I consider them irreconcilable. Nevertheless, the course of events frequently puts tasks before the working class which imperatively demand the joint action of the two parties. Is such an action possible? Perfectly possible, as historical experience and theory attest: everything depends upon the conditions and the character of the said tasks. Now, it is much easier to engage in a joint action when the question before the proletariat is not one of taking the offensive for the attainment of new objectives, but of defending the positions already gained."

I fail to see how anyone can excuse Stalin's approach to the danger of fascism in Germany. I firmly believe that Stalin has a share of the blame in the Holocaust.

[RNK]

Hindsight is always 20/20.

What you entryists seem not to realize is that statistically it is more likely for a radical to adopt a more liberal position than for a liberal to adopt a more radical position. Had the KPD and SPD joined forces there's no accounting for whether or not this would have had any effect on the rise of the Nazis (the Soviets only had a time machine in Red Alert, not real life) or that it wouldn't have led to the weakening of radicalism in the KPD. And while it's easy for you to sit there and claim Stalin is responsible for the holocaust because he couldn't see 10 years into the future, a more correct approach would be to stop blaming every-fucking-thing on Stalin.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That was Einstein who had the time machine. ;)

But yeah, the likelihood of the radical moderating is far greater, and yes, folks should stop blaming "every f****** thing" on Stalin (policy-wise only, but there were key blunders).

[Zurdito]

China is a bourgeois state, but not yet imperialist. it's on the way. currently it's a semi-colony, therefore, I would support it against an imperialist state in a war.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Ah the wacky world of Trotskyism. Remember folks, the "Stalinists" in Spain were evil because they were linked with the Republican government and tried to hold back the glorious social revolution of anarchists and the POUM, but they are the bad guys in Germany because they wouldn't unify with the social democrats!!


A historical point:

Hitler was only able to come to power because Stalin adopted an ultra-left position by labeling the SPD "social-fascists" - this prevented the KPD (which was the main revolutionary party in Germany and a member of Comintern, and thus subject to the control of the Soviet government) from forming a united front to defeat fascism, which was a more serious threat than the reformist ideas of the SPD.


In case you weren't aware, the SPD had done more than its share to prevent such unity from happening. The SPD helped the Nazis into power.



This foolish mistake meant that Hitler was able to gain power, and means that Stalin is partly responsible for the atrocities committed by the Nazis state, as he rejected a clear opportunity to prevent the Nazi party from attaining political office.

This is absolutely ridiculous, no different than bourgeois writers claiming the 1939 M-R pact was somehow responsible for WWII. That is why you Trots are anti-Communists, because you buy and regurgitate nearly every bit of anti-Communism and then go even further. And somewhere beyond all that you expect workers to be interested in a form of "Marxism" which has never helped anyone, anywhere.



Trotsky on the United Front:

"The disagreements between Communism and Social Democracy run very deep. I consider them irreconcilable. Nevertheless, the course of events frequently puts tasks before the working class which imperatively demand the joint action of the two parties. Is such an action possible? Perfectly possible, as historical experience and theory attest: everything depends upon the conditions and the character of the said tasks. Now, it is much easier to engage in a joint action when the question before the proletariat is not one of taking the offensive for the attainment of new objectives, but of defending the positions already gained."

Hmm... is there a line after all of that where he wrote 'except if the Soviet Union attempts to support a United Front in Spain'?



I firmly believe that Stalin has a share of the blame in the Holocaust.

Of course you do. You NEED to. Your ideology, which has never put food in the mouth of one person, which has never won a war, which has never inspired a revolution, can exist only if you have big bad Stalin to explain all your epic failures. Not even the bourgeoisie writes of Stalin in such a way most of the time; perhaps you will have a stellar career as another "disillusioned anti-Communist" writer.

There was good reason not to work with the SPD, the blame should rest at their feet.

[Zurdito]

Your ideology, which has never put food in the mouth of one person, which has never won a war, which has never inspired a revolution, can exist only if you have big bad Stalin to explain all your epic failures.


Ideologies don't win wars or put food in people's mouths. All the advances made in the Soviet Union were made by the workers while the worthless parasitic bureaucracy leeched off them, leant on them, and then sold them out. Trotskyism calls for revolution against that bureaucracy. The fact that there has never been a Trotskyist state is a pretty primitive criticism. Before Russia 1917, socialism had never "put food on people's tables" or "won a war" either. Does that mean you wouldn't have supported the bolsheviks then?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Ideologies don't win wars or put food in people's mouths. All the advances made in the Soviet Union were made by the workers while the worthless parasitic bureaucracy leeched off them, leant on them, and then sold them out.

Yeah, sold them out by building all those schools, hospitals, universities, etc.



Trotskyism calls for revolution against that bureaucracy.

Trotskyism calls for revolution against anything that actually works in the real world.



The fact that there has never been a Trotskyist state is a pretty primitive criticism. Before Russia 1917, socialism had never "put food on people's tables" or "won a war" either. Does that mean you wouldn't have supported the bolsheviks then?

I didn't say state, I said revolution. You have had plenty of chances to show how much better your ideology is. WE anti-revisionists admit the mistakes of existing socialist regimes. You guys still can't figure out how to get off the ground.

[Zurdito]

Yeah, sold them out by building all those schools, hospitals, universities, etc.

you mean the ones the workers built and which the bureaucracy monopolised for its own benefit, and which the bureaucrats then privatised while the workers remained dirt poor. You're right though, some positive advances in standard of living happened under stalinist regimes, much more so than in semi-colonies which remained under imperialist control. Therefore I back the defence of a Stalinist state against imperialism. But if you want to simply write out of history the role of the bureaucracy in stalinist states of monopolising the fruits of workers labour, of skewing development for its own ends, of repressing independent working class organisation and working class democracy, of making deals with imperialist governments and pro-imperialist semi-colonial governments/parties, and of eventually reinstating capitalism whilst enriching itself further, then you're the revisionist, as you're simply choosing to ignore history. It makes you little better than a reformist who will bleat about how much better workers lives got as a result of the reforms institutionalised by Attlee's Labour government - which undoubtedly did make workers lives better- and then jump to the illogical conclusiont hat workers need to be grateful to some fat bureaucratic party leader just for being given some benefit out of the fruits of their own labour.



I didn't say state, I said revolution. You have had plenty of chances to show how much better your ideology is. WE anti-revisionists admit the mistakes of existing socialist regimes. You guys still can't figure out how to get off the ground.

Well history is constantly progressing my friend, the last real chance to overthrow capitalism ended in the 1930's, and it was largely crushed from within by pro-imperialist Stalinist scum. Some of us have learnt for next time, unfortunately some will repeat the errors of the past.

[BobKKKindle$]

In case you weren't aware, the SPD had done more than its share to prevent such unity from happening. The SPD helped the Nazis into power.The SPD did make some mistakes in this respect - but that does not mean the KPD is absolved from blame. I don't really see how this supports your position, because you're not showing that a united front was not the right strategy to adopt, only that creating a front might have posed some practical difficulties.


This is absolutely ridiculous, no different than bourgeois writers claiming the 1939 M-R pact was somehow responsible for WWII. That is why you Trots are anti-Communists, because you buy and regurgitate nearly every bit of anti-Communism and then go even further. And somewhere beyond all that you expect workers to be interested in a form of "Marxism" which has never helped anyone, anywhere.Nothing in this paragraph actually rebuts my argument. Do you support Stalin's position of "social-fascism" with regard to the SPD? If so, on what grounds can you equate a modest reformist party, which had the support of a large section of the working class and links with the trade unions, with a fascist party which, upon coming to power, reduced the trade unions to an extension of state power, and banned all other political parties? I just don't see how the absurd idea of "social-fascism" can stand up to real scrutiny.

And, on a side note, the 1939 pact was partly responsible for the war. There is of course no single cause for any historical event - and historians debate the relative importance of different historical factors. Hitler wished to avoid fighting a war on two fronts, and his agreement with the Soviets allowed him to achieve this objective.


Hmm... is there a line after all of that where he wrote 'except if the Soviet Union attempts to support a United Front in Spain'?The Soviet Union's "United Front" amounted to attacking and imprisoning members of the other left-wing political factions, and ordering the integration of the anarchist militias into the main republican army. This is not consistent with the concept of the United Front, which calls for respecting the autonomy of each participating component.

[black magick hustla]

"Nothing in this paragraph actually rebuts my argument. Do you support Stalin's position of "social-fascism" with regard to the SPD? If so, on what grounds can you equate a modest reformist party, which had the support of a large section of the working class and links with the trade unions, with a fascist party which, upon coming to power, reduced the trade unions to an extension of state power, and banned all other political parties? . "

the "soicial fascist" shit is ridicolous, but that "modest reformist" party backed the murder gangs behind the death of luxembourg and liebnetch.

[jacobin1949]

Even if you regard China as "just another capitalist nation" you would still be obligated to advocate its' defense against imperialist nations like America or Japan or Russia.

If it was a nation like India or Vietnam it would be more complex. I regard China as socialist so I would support China. But if you regard all three as equally capitalist, then I guess you could morally stay neutral.

Even the most extreme Spartacists have a news article called "defend china"

[BobKKKindle$]

Even if you regard China as "just another capitalist nation" you would still be obligated to advocate its' defense against imperialist nations like America or Japan or Russia.I am of the opinion that China is also an imperialist nation - as evidenced by China's demand for raw materials in sub-Saharan Africa, which had led to the Chinese government supporting dictators in order to avoid political instability which could interrupt the supply of materials such as Oil to the Chinese economy. This support has often come in the form of arms transactions, which has supported the Chinese arms industry, and has also resulted in widespread condemnation, as China is perceived as responsible for the conflict in the Sudan. If China were to go to war with the United States, such a conflict would be an inter-imperial war, and I would choose not to support either combatant, but instead to promote revolution in each country and workers struggle to undermine the war effort.

I agree that a country facing Imperialist invasion should be supported, even if the government is not socialist, but this does not apply to the PRC.


I regard China as socialist so I would support ChinaWhat criteria do you use to judge whether a country is "socialist"? The means of production are not subject to the control of the working class, and workers do not own the products of their labour, they are not allowed to voice their opinions on how the country should be run, and don't possess the legal means to negotiate wage agreements with their employers, and so it would seem that China has none of the features we associate with "socialism". China is not even a (deformed) workers state, because capitalist property relations exist, and so the country requires a full social revolution.

There is also a growing trend towards moral despotism - the government has, on several occasions, tried to ban or restrict the circulation of pornography, which is inconsistent with our commitment to sexual liberation.

Do you support the Chinese government's response to the Tienanmen protests? The massacre of peaceful workers and students?


then I guess you could morally stay neutral.This is not a matter of abstract moral values - I refuse to support China because the Chinese government is hostile to the interests of the working class - as shown by the reduction in state welfare, and the use of the armed force against striking workers, and the absence of independent (not subject to state supervision or control) trade unions. China is a brutal bourgeois dictatorship.

[Devrim]

I regard China as socialist so I would support China.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics:



China plans 'most luxurious train in the world' to Tibet: report

Mon Mar 10, 10:57 AM ET

BEIJING (AFP) - China will launch "the most luxurious train in the world" to ply the route from Beijing to Tibet's capital Lhasa, state media reported Sunday.
However, a ride on the train, which will begin operations on September 1, will be about 20 times more expensive than the ordinary fare of about 2,000 yuan (280 dollars), Xinhua news agency said.
"The interior of the train will be decorated according to the standards of a five-star hotel, making it the most luxurious train in the world," said Zhu Mingrui, general manager of the Qinghai-Tibet Railway Corporation.
"Such a train can only seat 96 passengers. The fare would be about 20 times the normal price and also much more than an airline ticket," he said.
There will be three trains, which will head from Beijing to Lhasa every eight days. The luxury journey will take five days.
Each train will have 12 passenger cars, two dining cars and a sightseeing car. Each passenger car will have four ten-square-metre (108-square-foot) suites featuring a double bed, a living room and bathing facilities.
The train line to the Himalayan "roof of the world" went into operation in July 2006.
Chinese authorities see the 1,142-kilometre (710-mile) railway as an important tool in modernising and developing Tibet, which has been part of China since its troops occupied the region in 1950.
However, critics say that the line is allowing the Han Chinese, the national majority, to flood into Tibet, leading to the devastation of the local culture as well accelerating environmental degradation of the region.




Devrim

[Devrim]

Even the most extreme Spartacists have a news article called "defend china"

Why 'even' the Sparts? They are the most Stalinist of all the Trotskyists. It is to be expected.

Devrim

[RNK]

I hope that train gets bombed regularly.

[BobKKKindle$]

Why 'even' the Sparts? They are the most Stalinist of all the Trotskyists. It is to be expected.

The Spartacist League is widely regarded as one of the most orthodox Trotskyist groups, as they accept Trotsky's analysis of the USSR, and have gone to great lengths to prove that the theory of "state-capitalism" is incorrect. They also criticize tactics associated with Stalinism, such as the popular front. On what basis do you describe them as "Stalinist"? I must confess that I am actually fond of the Spartacist League as, despite their obsession with criticizing other parties, their analysis is generally of a high quality, and they are not afraid to adopt a radical stance on all issues, especially sex.

I have encountered much hostility to the Spartacist League - what's the reason for this?

[Devrim]

On what basis do you describe them as "Stalinist"?

For their slavish adherence to the defence of so-called 'worker's states'. I think I have an old issue of their paper somewhere with the front cover 'Hail Red Army' from when the Russians were sending the tanks in to some country.

They are sort of Trotskyist 'tankies'.


and they are not afraid to adopt a radical stance on all issues, especially sex.

I have never got that far with them.


I have encountered much hostility to the Spartacist League - what's the reason for this?

It is very clear from this that you have never met them. It is a joy you will experience in the future, but not in an SWP meeting where I think they are banned.

Devrim

[Zurdito]

The Sparts are extremely violent, they go to meetings of left groups purely to disrupt them. They once came to an meeting with about 100 newly radicalised schoolkids which my group held about the Iraq War, and ran onto the platform, tearing down all our materials and raising their own flag, screaming that we were "on the barricades with Yeltsin" due to not supporting some coup against him by the Stalinist bureaucracy back in about 1992. A comrade of mine was attacked while collecting money for the Miners Strike, on the basis that he was a "reformist" (at the time he was in Militant Tendency). They destroyed all his leaflets. I have experienced them push a comrade of mine (a 50 year old man) down a flight of stairs, and heard many other stories, one where they broke two IS comrades legs.

In other words they are insane, and they are thugs, and their only purpose is to destroy the existing left. I am almost certain they are run by MI5 just like Combat18 was.

[Vanguard1917]

I am almost certain they are run by MI5 just like Combat18 was.

As certain as you are about the coming 'major environmental crisis'?

The Sparts are nutters, sure. But there is zero evidence that they are 'run by MI5'. But why let that spoil baseless speculation?

[Zurdito]

Think about it like this:

a common tactic of security services is to set up or take control of deliberately insane "extremist" groups, to both discredit the movement, and to attract all the real mad individuals into one place to get a certain amount of control over these "dangerous" elements.

On both counts, if they are not run by British intelligents, the Sparts could not have done a better job if they were.

To be honest nobody on the left has any respect for them anyway so it would hardly make a difference if we found out they were.

[Devrim]

I am almost certain they are run by MI5 just like Combat18 was.

This is quite a serious thing to say without evidence.


The Sparts are extremely violent

I have never even seen this. I can't imagine them behaving like this towards us anyway.

Devrim

[Zurdito]

This is quite a serious thing to say without evidence.

yes it is serious, the Sparts are the only group I've ever said it about.





I have never even seen this. I can't imagine them behaving like this towards us anyway.

Devrim


I'm surprised.

I've experienced more aggression from them than I've had from fascists. I despise that group.

[jacobin1949]

Since we're on the topic of sparts I dug up the article I was referring to

http://www.icl-fi.org/images/spacer.gif Workers Hammer No. 198
Spring 2007
http://www.icl-fi.org/images/spacer.gif http://www.icl-fi.org/images/spacer.gif Imperialists stung by Chinese weapons test
For unconditional military defence of China!
The following article is adapted from Workers Vanguard no 885, 2 February 2007, newspaper of the Spartacist League/US.
On 11 January, a Chinese missile smashed to bits an aging Chinese weather satellite more than 500 miles above the country’s Xichang space facility. The exercise marked a significant advance in the ability of the Chinese deformed workers state to defend itself against a nuclear first strike by US imperialism. The threat of such an attack has grown with Washington’s plans to deploy a “missile defence system” in the Asian Pacific, which would rely on satellite technology.
The US, British and Japanese governments raised a hue and cry over the successful test. This is rich coming from the British government which is currently seeking parliamentary approval to acquire a new generation of nuclear submarines to maintain Trident, the missile system acquired in the 1980s as part of NATO’s arsenal aimed at the Soviet Union. With consummate chutzpah, a spokesman for Bush’s National Security Council intoned: “China’s development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area.” The US rulers’ overwhelming military might, far exceeding that of their imperialist rivals, not to mention China, includes extensive militarisation of space. In October, the administration released a new “National Space Policy” (signed by Bush two months earlier) declaring Washington’s unilateral right to “deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests”. In fact, this policy is principally aimed at preventing China from developing anti-satellite weapons.
Behind the imperialist hype about mythical Chinese “aggression” lies a genuine military problem. The US war machine has become heavily reliant on a vast network of satellites for intelligence, communications, navigation and weapons targeting. The US owns or operates more than half of the 845 currently active commercial and military satellites in orbit. Dozens operate in low orbits similar to that of the destroyed Chinese Fengyun 1C satellite. According to Aviation Week and Space Technology (21 January), which broke the story of the anti-satellite test, the Chinese military can now “credibly threaten imaging reconnaissance and other satellites operated by the U.S., Japan, Russia, Israel and Europe”. Moreover, according to a US official, China recently “painted” US satellites with a ground-based laser, a potentially disabling capability. At considerably higher orbits are the Pentagon’s vital network of Global Positioning System satellites and other spacecraft.
The International Communist League, of which the Spartacist League/Britain is a section, stands for the unconditional military defence of China and the other bureaucratically deformed workers states, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba, against imperialist attack and internal counterrevolution. We support China and North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them as essential to the defence of those workers states. The Chinese nuclear force, on the order of 200 warheads with an estimated 20 deployed ICBMs capable of reaching the US, acts as a deterrent against the US mass murderers who reduced Nagasaki and Hiroshima to irradiated rubble in 1945.
China has been a target of the US nuclear arsenal, currently consisting of some 10,000 warheads, since the Korean War. For decades, the Soviet Union’s nuclear force forestalled the imperialists from unleashing their deadly nukes. Since the counterrevolutionary destruction of the Soviet degenerated workers state in 1991-92, Washington has shifted much of its strategic forces to target China, the most powerful of the remaining countries in which capitalism has been overthrown. The Pentagon’s space forces are designed to ensure its first-strike capability by suppressing any counterstrike.
It is notable that the recent Chinese and North Korean weapons tests were carried out with the US bogged down in its murderous occupation of Iraq. Indeed, the Democratic Party’s principal objection to Bush’s Iraq policy is that it diverts resources away from more strategically important targets like China.
At the same time, the US has pursued the encirclement of China under cover of fighting “terrorism”. Treacherously, Beijing has embraced the imperialists’ “war on terror” in the interest of its economic relationship with the US. The US now has military installations in Central Asia on China’s western flank and has enhanced its military presence in the Philippines. The Bush administration last year sealed a nuclear pact with India and in 2005 resumed open military relations with Indonesia. In Australia, long instrumental as a junior imperialist partner to the Pentagon’s global operations, huge US bases are under construction at Bradshaw and Yampi Sound.
China in imperialists’ cross-hairs
The 1949 Chinese Revolution overthrew capitalist/landlord rule and ripped the world’s most populous country out of the clutches of the imperialist powers that had long held China in their grip. Although deformed from its inception by the rule of a parasitic Stalinist bureaucracy, the Chinese Revolution laid the basis for collectivising the economy, resulting in enormous social progress for workers, women and peasants. Smashing the Chinese workers state is a strategic goal for the capitalist powers, who seek to turn China into a vast field for untrammelled exploitation and super-profits. In pursuit of counterrevolution, the imperialists are both increasing their military pressure against China and furthering their economic penetration of the mainland by taking advantage of Beijing’s “market reforms”.
Defence of the workers states against imperialism is undermined by the rule of the nationalist Stalinist bureaucracies, whose policies are encapsulated in the dogma of “building socialism in one country”. The Stalinists oppose the fight for international proletarian revolution and instead pursue the futile quest for “peaceful coexistence” with imperialism. A glaring case in point is Beijing’s treacherous partnership with the US, Japan and others in the attempt to disarm North Korea. Following North Korea’s successful nuclear test in October, China criminally voted for sanctions against Pyongyang in the UN Security Council.
The Chinese Stalinist bureaucracy played no small part in the destruction of the Soviet Union, which had been the industrial/military powerhouse of the non-capitalist world. In the wake of a falling-out between Moscow and Beijing that began in the late 1950s, Mao Zedong pursued an alliance with American imperialism against the Soviet Union. This was sealed when Mao met with US Republican president Nixon in 1972 as American bombs rained down on Vietnam and Cambodia. In 1979, only four years after the victory of the heroic Vietnamese workers and peasants, China under Deng Xiaoping invaded Vietnam, acting as US imperialism’s cat’s paw. The alliance allowed the US under Reagan to add to its anti-Soviet arsenal the bulk of the nuclear weapons it had aimed at China, at the same time tying down significant Soviet forces in the Far East.
Following the demise of the USSR, China was placed once again in Washington’s cross-hairs. A directive signed by Democratic president Clinton in 1997 broadened the Pentagon’s list of nuclear targets in China. Since issuing a Nuclear Posture Review in 2001 that included China among seven countries targeted for possible nuclear attack, the Pentagon has moved into the Pacific five nuclear submarines carrying an estimated 720 warheads, including some with advanced Trident II missiles, according to the Federation of American Scientists.
In pursuit of their own ambitions, the Japanese imperialists, who brutally colonised Korea in 1910 and occupied much of China before World War II, have embarked on a programme of military expansion whose principal targets are North Korea and China. On 9 January, the government of Shinzo Abe re-established a fully fledged “defence” ministry for the first time since World War II, with authority to deploy the military overseas. This is a significant step towards junking Article Nine of the US-imposed postwar constitution—long flouted in practice—banning Japan from maintaining military forces. According to the Japan Times (22 December 2006), Japan and the US signed an agreement in December “to exchange detailed global topographic data—a move apparently aimed at sharing information specifically on North Korea and China”. Japan is also planning to launch a fourth spy satellite this month that will complete its system of global coverage.
The point at which imperialist military pressure bears down most directly on Beijing is capitalist Taiwan, where the defeated bourgeoisie under the command of the butcher Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek fled the 1949 revolution. In February 2005, the US and Japan issued a joint policy statement declaring Taiwan a “mutual security concern” and moved to reposition their military forces, including the regional deployment of antiballistic missile systems. In response to these dangerous provocations, the Spartacist League/US and the Spartacist Group Japan declared in a joint statement:
“Since the 1949 Chinese Revolution, from which the Chinese deformed workers state emerged, Taiwan has been an outpost for U.S. imperialism’s counterrevolutionary schemes, military threats and interference in Chinese internal affairs through the puppet Chinese bourgeoisie. Taiwan has been since ancient times a part of China, and we Trotskyists will stand with China in the event of any military conflict with imperialism over Taiwan.”
— Workers Vanguard no 844, 18 March 2005
Now it is reported that in February the US and Japan will discuss a “joint operation plan for their troops” for defence of Taiwan (Japantoday.com (http://japantoday.com/), 4 January).
Beijing extends a hand to the bourgeoisie in Taiwan by pushing for its reunification with China under the formula, “one country, two systems”. The nationalist Stalinist regime thus pledges to maintain capitalism on the island, as it has done in Hong Kong following the reversion of the former British colony to Chinese control in 1997. In opposition to the Stalinists and to the reactionary forces calling for Taiwanese independence, the ICL calls for the revolutionary reunification of China: for socialist revolution to expropriate the Taiwanese capitalists and a workers political revolution to oust the Beijing bureaucracy, establishing a regime of workers democracy and revolutionary internationalism.
Washington’s current space policy opposes treaties proposed by China and Russia banning the “weaponization of space”. Clearly the US administration’s intent is to put a lot more weapons there. The Democrats, the other party of US imperialism, and such bourgeois mouthpieces as the New York Times advocate a space weapons treaty as a better means of limiting China’s capabilities and protecting the American advantage. Edward Markey, Democratic co-chair of the House Nonproliferation task force, declared on 20 January: “American satellites are the soft underbelly of our national security, and it is urgent that President Bush move to guarantee their protection by initiating an international agreement to ban the development, testing, and deployment of space weapons and anti-satellite systems.”
To defend and extend the gains of social revolution in China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba requires fighting for proletarian revolution in the imperialist centres. Defence of the remaining workers states against imperialism and counterrevolution is critical to mobilising the proletariat in Britain as well as in the US and Japan against their own exploiters. Every advance in the workers states’ military capabilities buys more time for the international proletariat. Only when workers revolutions put the advanced technology and industrial capacity of the developed countries to use in an international planned economy will the basis be laid for a socialist society of material abundance. To this end, the ICL fights to build revolutionary Trotskyist parties as part of a reforged Fourth International.