CPGB comrade Mike Macnair introduces his book "Revolutionary strategy": http://www.cpgb.org.uk/cu/2008/2008%20videos.htm His line of thinking pretty much coincides with my line of thinking in The Class Struggle Revisited.
Thanks for the link comrade, you seem to be quite fond of the politics and programme of the CPGB. I follow and read a lot of the Trotskyist literature out from Britain like the SWP (yeah, I disagree with some of Cliffite theories, but I'm now starting to get into and dear-I-say agree with his critique of the Trotsky's permanent revolution theory)
Actually the CPGB now days in basically Trot (or post-trot), they use the buercratic collectivist critique of Stalinism (not cliffite state capitalist)
^^^ Since you read my work, you should know that the Cliffite "state-capitalist" critique is rather hollow, given my critique of the monetary Proletocratic "State Socialism" prevalent in the Second International and still infecting many rev-leftist tendencies. And yes, the CPGB is specifically post-Trot, but is turning left-"Kautskyan" thanks to Mike Macnair being more prominent than Jack Conrad.
I just read this criticism of CPGB comrade Mike Macnair's book: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/743/succumbing.html The essential message of comrade Mike is that soviet power is not the way forward. The way forward, he maintains, is through the winning of a majority in society for the idea that “democratic republic” can be achieved. Except for an unwillingless to use new terms like class-strugglist democracy, I agree with Macnair. The short of this "comradely criticism" is that it's coming from, as usual, the pro-soviet perspective. The critique is correct on the concept of "dual power," but since capitalism has NOT simplified class relations, the term "class-strugglist democracy" came up. The bourgeoisie would have their parliaments, bureaucracy, etc. The general partners, secondary partners, and other small-business owners forming the petit-bourgeoisie would have their own separate organs of class struggle. The coordinators would probably have their own, too. The proletariat, meanwhile, has participatory democracy. Further down the reviewer apparently lost track of the material in Macnair's book. If "comrade Mike fails to understand the absolutely counter*revolutionary nature of the capitalist state," why the call for the right to bear arms and militias, then? His conclusion veers off into philosophy, if anybody's interested.
