Showing posts with label Trotskyism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trotskyism. Show all posts

Tuesday, 20 September 2016

Trotskyism, Corbyn and the Labour Party - public meeting



Tuesday 4th October, 7.30pm, 
YHA Bristol (Grain House), 14 Narrow Quay, BS1 4QA

The Jeremy Corbyn leadership campaign is once again inspiring thousands of people to get active in politics and stand up for the future they want. It has driven the right wing of the Labour party to distraction as they try every dirty trick to oust him and take control of the party back. 

Trotskyism has been thrown around as a dirty word in an attempt to smear some of their opponents. The name of Militant, (now the Socialist Party) a Trotskyist group expelled from Labour for being too left wing has been brought up and many slanders spread.


In this meeting we will discuss how Corbyn and his supporters can consolidate a political voice for the 99%, not the 1%. We also look at the real history of the Militant Tendency and what the Russian revolutionary socialist Leon Trotsky actually stood for.

Organised by Bristol Socialist Party and Bristol University and UWE Socialist Students groups. All welcome.

Saturday, 24 August 2013

A Trend in the Wrong Direction..in history..

 


 

 

 

A Trend in the Wrong Direction

(The case for defending an independently elected Party Control Commission was made by US revolutionary James P Cannon at a time when the Trotskyist party in the US, The Socialist Workers Party, was experiencing a growth of members as a result of the student radicalisation of the 1960's.
Posted for those interested in past discussions relating to organisation and cadre development in a Leninist Party.-Martyn Ahmet)



November 12, 1966
Copies to:
Ed Shaw, New York
Jean Simon, Cleveland
Reba Hansen
New York, N.Y
Dear Reba:
This answers your letter of November 2 with which you enclosed a copy of Jean Simon’s letter of October 12. I was surprised and concerned by Jean’s proposals to change the constitutional provisions providing for an independent Control Commission elected by the convention, and making it a mere subcommittee of the NC, which would mean in effect a subcommittee of the PC. This would be the de facto liquidation of the Control Commission as it was originally conceived.
As far as I can see all the new moves and proposals to monkey with the Constitution which has served the party so well in the past, with the aim of “tightening” centralization, represent a trend in the wrong direction at the present time. The party (and the YSA) is too “tight” already, and if we go much further along this line we can run the risk of strangling the party to death.
As I recall it, the proposal to establish a Control Commission, separately elected by the convention, originated at the Plenum and Active Workers’ Conference in the fall of 1940, following the assassination of the Old Man. The assassin, as you will recall, gained access to the household in Coyoacan through his relations with a party member.[6] The Political Committee was then, as it always will be if it functions properly, too busy with political and organizational problems to take time for investigations and security checks on individuals.
It was agreed that we need a special body to take care of this work, to investigate rumors and charges and present its findings and recommendations to the National Committee.
If party security was one side of the functions of the Control Commission, the other side - no less important - was to provide the maximum assurance that any individual party member, accused or rumored to be unworthy of party membership, could be assured of the fullest investigation and a fair hearing or trial. It was thought that this double purpose could best be served by a body separately elected by the convention, and composed of members of long standing, especially respected by the party for their fairness as well as their devotion.
I can recall instances where the Control Commission served the party well in both aspects of this dual function. In one case a member of the seamen’s fraction was expelled by the Los Angeles Branch after charges were brought against him by two members of the National Committee of that time. The expelled member appealed to the National Committee and the case was turned over to the Control Commission for investigation. The Control Commission, on which as I recall Dobbs was then the PC representative, investigated the whole case, found that the charges lacked substantial proof and recommended the reinstatement of the expelled member. This was done.
In another case, a rumor circulated by the Shachtmanites and others outside the party against the integrity of a National Office secretarial worker was thoroughly investigated by the Control Commission which, after taking stenographic testimony from all available sources, declared the rumors unfounded and cleared the accused party member to continue her work. There were other cases in which charges were found after investigation to be substantiated and appropriate action recommended.
All these experiences speak convincingly of the need for a separate Control Commission of highly respected comrades to make thorough investigations of every case, without being influenced by personal or partisan prejudice, or pressure from any source, and whose sole function is to examine each case from all sides fairly and justly and report its findings and recommendations. This is the best way, not only to protect the security of the party, but also to respect the rights of the accused in every case.
As far as I know, the only criticism that can properly be made of the Control Commission in recent times is that it has not always functioned in this way with all its members participating, either by presence or correspondence, in all proceedings - and convincing the party that its investigation was thorough and that its findings and recommendations were fair and just.

* * *

It should be pointed out also that the idea of a Control Commission separately constituted by the convention didn’t really originate with us. Like almost everything else we know about the party organizational principles and functions, it came from the Russian Bolsheviks. The Russian party had a separate Control Commission. It might also be pointed out that after the revolution the new government established courts. It provided also for independent trade unions which, as Lenin pointed out in one of the controversies, had the duty even to defend the rights of its members against the government. Of course, all that was changed later when all power was concentrated in the party secretariat, and all the presumably independent institutions were converted into rubber stamps. But we don’t want to move in that direction. The forms and methods of the Lenin-Trotsky time are a better guide for us.

* * *

I am particularly concerned about any possible proposal to weaken the constitutional provision about the absolute right of suspended or expelled members to appeal to the convention. That is clearly and plainly a provision to protect every party member against possible abuse of authority by the National Committee. It should not be abrogated or diluted just to show that we are so damn revolutionary that we make no concessions to “bourgeois concepts of checks and balances.” The well-known Bill of Rights is a check and balance which I hope will be incorporated, in large part at least, in the Constitution of the Workers Republic in this country. Our constitutional provision for the right of appeal is also a “check and balance.” It can help to recommend our party to revolutionary workers as a genuinely democratic organization which guarantees rights as well as imposing responsibilities, and thus make it more appealing to them.
I believe that these considerations have more weight now than ever before in the thirty-eight-year history of our party. In the present political climate and with the present changing composition of the party, democratic centralism must be applied flexibly. At least ninety percent of the emphasis should be placed on the democratic side and not on any crackpot schemes to “streamline” the party to the point where questions are unwelcomed and criticism and discussion stifled. That is a prescription to kill the party before it gets a chance to show how it can handle and assimilate an expanding membership of new young people, who don’t know it all to start with, but have to learn and grow in the course of explication and discussion in a free, democratic atmosphere.
Trotsky once remarked in a polemic against Stalinism that even in the period of the Civil War discussion in the party was “boiling like a spring.” Those words and others like it written by Trotsky, in his first attack against Stalinism in The New Course, ought to be explained now once again to the new young recruits in our party. And the best way to explain such decisive things is to practice what we preach.
Yours fraternally,
James P. Cannon

Tuesday, 28 May 2013

Large turnout at South West Socialist Party conference


"It was amazing to learn from some brilliant and thinking people yesterday. I've buried my head in the sand for too long and it was inspiring. Capitalism must end and I'd like to learn a lot more about how I can go about bringing about that change".

That was the verdict from Chris, one of three young people who joined the Socialist Party at the end of its largest South West regional conference for a number of years.

On Saturday 25 May Socialist Party members and supporters from 19 different towns and cities packed into a room in Bristol to hear Socialist Party deputy secretary Hannah Sell deliver a thorough analysis of the volatile situation unfolding in Britain and Europe.

Over 20 members followed this up with contributions that dealt with attacks in the workplaces and how we are helping to organise the fightback; a programme for opposing the far-right; lessons from struggles in Greece and Spain and the over-arching question of capitalism's chronic inability to take humankind forward in the 21st century; and why therefore a socialist alternative is imperative.

Workshops on women, youth, and building in the workplaces followed. Each resulted in practical initiatives keenly being agreed, including the organising of a regional women's meeting early in July, the stepping up of the 'Sick of your Boss' campaign from Cornwall to Cheltenham, and a trade union meeting in Exeter in September where the building of the National Shop Stewards Network will be one of our priorities.

Recruitment and finance

Robin Clapp, South West regional secretary, introduced a closing session on the progress made in the last 12 months. The rate of recruitment in the region is up by 50% over 2012 and every area has enthusiastic new people eager to take on a role in helping us to build.

It was agreed we would set up a branch in Somerset where we'll trigger fast progress by organising a Saturday 'super stall' in June with the aim of selling 75 papers and getting new members.

This follows on from the highly successful initiative in Poole where we sold 82 papers in four hours, 10 'join' cards were filled in and £46 was raised in Fighting Fund.

Conference committed itself to smashing through the new paper sales targets. This shouldn't be too difficult, given that every branch has already exceeded these targets on at least one occasion since March.

Mid-week stalls are now the norm in Plymouth and Bristol, workplace sales take place at council offices in Gloucester, and sales outside Bristol Temple Meads rail station have yielded 10-12 sales in a single session.

At the beginning of the conference, Plymouth and Gloucester branches had each recruited eight new members since January. By the end of the day, the Devonians were ahead having signed up somebody in the meeting. They have three more knocking on the door, Bristol has five who have agreed to join and this welcome infection is spreading rapidly across every branch in the region.

The viciousness of the Con-Dem attacks is polarising society, making many of those who have previously spent their evenings screaming at the television decide it's time to stand up and seek out a party that is serious about fighting for change.

The mood of optimism suffusing through the conference was expressed concretely by a magnificent collection which yielded £1,125 for our party funds.

The excellent Gloucester branch 'catering company' raised £70 towards our funds from selling their delicious food and Bev Anderson's fairy cakes went down a treat and gave us another £20.

The last word must go to Matt Stabb from Trowbridge who is new to our ranks but a veteran in the struggles of disabled workers:

"Cheers for a brilliant South West congress yesterday, comrades! Thank you for making me so welcome. It was so good to meet other comrades and feel part of the good work that is going on".

Wednesday, 17 April 2013

Initial Statement on Boston Marathon Tragedy from Socialist Alternative (CWI USA)

From: http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=2096
The bombings today at the Boston Marathon are an absolute tragedy and a horror that shouldn't happen in Boston or anywhere else in the world. We are all checking in with loved ones in the Boston area. Socialist Alternative would like to express our grief, sympathy and solidarity with all the victims of this attack. 

It is too soon, as we publish this, to say who committed these acts. If this bombing was politically-motivated, then it is an absolute disgrace to be condemned no matter what the ideas of the attackers. These sorts of methods that target ordinary working people have absolutely nothing in common with the work of socialists striving to build a mass movement that can challenge the rule of the 1%, end the chaos of capitalism and change society.

Times of fear and uncertainty can unfortunately lead to scapegoating and attacks on our civil rights. We are against all attacks on immigrants, particularly Arab and Muslim people, as a result of this tragedy. Whatever the religious or ethnic background of the perpetrators of this attack, an entire religious or ethnic group should not be made guilty by association. We are also against any further attacks on our civil liberties which have already been limited by the Patriot Act and other policies. We must not let the government exploit this tragedy by restricting the freedoms and democratic rights that ordinary Americans fought and died for in the past.

Sunday, 17 February 2013

My Decision to Join the Trotskyist Camp in 1928

By James P. Cannon


This is a letter sent to Theodore Draper, a historian of the American communist movement. It was written in 1959. The entire series of letters sent from Cannon to Draper has been published under the title “The first ten years of American communism” by Lyle Stuart Inc, in 1962. It was later reprinted by Pathfinder Press, New York.


Trotsky in Cayoacon, Mexico 1940
May 27, 1959
It seems to me that I have already written myself out on “The Birth of American Trotskyism”—in which I played the central role because I just happened to be standing there at the time and there was no one else to do it. I couldn’t add much to what I have already written in the “History of American Trotskyism,” in my letters to you, and in the big article—“The Degeneration of the Communist Party and the New Beginning” in the Fall, 1954 issue of Fourth International.
That’s my case. If I were to write about it again I could only repeat what I have already said. You’ll find a better and fuller exposition there than I could write again today. I have the faculty, which for me is a happy one, of pushing things to the back of my mind once I have written them out. In order to write a fresh report on the origin of American Trotskyism, I would have to force myself back into a semi-coma, recalling and reliving the struggle of 31 years ago. That is too much for me to undertake again.
The only thing I left out of my extensive writing about that period, which I try to leave out of all my writing, was the special element of personal motivation for my action—which cynics would never believe and research workers never find in the files and cross-indexes. That is the compulsion of conscience when one is confronted by an obligation which, in given circumstances, is his alone to accept or to evade.
The whole damned thing was a frame-up!
In the summer of 1928 in Moscow, in addition to the theoretical and political revelation that came to me when I read Trotsky’s Criticism of the Draft Program of the Comintern, there was another consideration that hit me where I live. That was the fact that Trotsky had been expelled and deported to far-away Alma Ata; that his friends and supporters had been slandered and expelled and imprisoned; and that the whole damned thing was a frame-up! Had I set out as a boy to fight for justice for Moyer and Haywood in order to betray the cause of justice when it was put squarely up to me in a case of transcendent importance to the whole future of the human race? A copy-book moralist could easily answer that question by saying: “Of course not. The rule is plain. You do what you have to do, even if it costs you your head.”
But it wasn’t so simple for me in the summer of 1928. I was not a copybook moralist. I was a party politician and factionalist who had learned how to cut corners. I knew that at the time, and the self-knowledge made me uneasy. I had been gradually settling down into an assured position as a party official with an office and staff, a position that I could easily maintain—as long as I kept within definite limits and rules which I knew all about, and conducted myself with the facility and skill which had become almost second nature to me in the long drawn-out factional fights.
I knew that. And I knew something else that I never told anybody about, but which I had to tell myself for the first time in Moscow in the summer of 1928. The foot-loose Wobbly rebel that I used to be had imperceptibly begun to fit comfortably into a swivel chair, protecting himself in his seat by small maneuvers and evasions, and even permitting himself a certain conceit about his adroit accommodation to this shabby game. I saw myself for the first time then as another person, as a revolutionist who was on the road to becoming a bureaucrat. The image was hideous, and I turned away from it in disgust.
I never deceived myself for a moment about the most probable consequences of my decision to support Trotsky in the summer of 1928. I knew it was going to cost me my head and also my swivel chair, but I thought: What the hell—better men than I have risked their heads and their swivel chairs for truth and justice. Trotsky and his associates were doing it at that very moment in the exile camps and prisons of the Soviet Union. It was no more than right that one man, however limited his qualifications, should remember what he started out in his youth to fight for, and speak out for their cause and try to make the world hear, or at least to let the exiled and imprisoned Russian Oppositionists know that they had found a new friend and supporter.
In the History of American Trotskyism, p.61, I wrote:

The movement which then began in America brought repercussions throughout the entire world; overnight the whole picture, the whole perspective of the struggle changed. Trotskyism, officially pronounced dead, was resurrected on the international arena and inspired with new hope, new enthusiasm, new energy.
Denunciations against us were carried in the American press of the party and reprinted throughout the whole world, including the Moscow Pravda. Russian Oppositionists in prison and exile, where sooner or later copies of Pravda reached them, were notified of our action, our revolt in America. In the darkest hour of the Opposition’s struggle, they learned that fresh reinforcements had taken the field across the ocean in the United States, which by virtue of the power and weight of the country itself, gave importance and weight to the things done by the American communists.

Leon Trotsky, as I remarked, was isolated in the little Asiatic village of Alma Ata. The world movement outside Russia was in decline, leaderless, suppressed, isolated, practically non-existent. With this inspiring news of a new detachment in far-away America, the little papers and bulletins of the Opposition groups flared into life again. Most inspiring of all to us was the assurance that our hard-pressed Russian comrades had heard our voice.

I have always thought of this as one of the most gratifying aspects of the historic fight we undertook in 1928—that the news of our fight reached the Russian comrades in all corners of the prisons and exile camps, inspiring them with new hope and new energy to persevere in the struggle.

In Moscow, in the summer of 1928, I foresaw such a possible consequence of my decision and action. And I thought that that alone would justify it, regardless of what else might follow. Many things have changed since then, but that conviction has never changed.

1 Secretary of State under the Roosevelt administration.
2 The reference to Trotsky’s “army” is more than an ordinary metaphor. It had a double meaning in that it referred to his unique role as the organizer, the leader, the teacher, the general of the Soviet Red Army that led the revolutionary war in defense of the great Russian Socialist Revolution—as well as the political founder and leader of the world party of socialist revolution, the Fourth International.

Monday, 14 January 2013

Crisis in the SWP: Socialist Party material

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Left_and_radical/SWP

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books_pamphlets/Socialism_and_Left_Unity_-_A_critique_of_the_Socialist_Workers_Party/1

Please see the above links for Socialist Party material on the current and previous crises inside the Socialist Workers Party of Britain including critiques of popular frontism, state-capitalism, a history of their method and ideas and chapters from Peter Taaffe's 2008 booklet - Socialism and Left Unity: A critique of the Socialist Workers Party

Saturday, 5 January 2013

Democratic Centralism: The need for a party

In the light of ongoing events on the left, we link here to some material on the questions of organisation, party democracy and left unity that readers of our blog may find interesting, and we welcome debate around these issues.

Democratic Centralism by Peter Taaffe, 1996 - http://marxist.net/namechange/nameframe.htm

Published in Militant Labour Members Bulletin No.16, 'A discussion on Democratic centralism', 18 March 1996.

This discussion took place in the UK section of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI), which at that time went by the name Militant Labour. This discussion on democratic centralism was followed immediately by the discussion on the name of the party, which dominated the following four members' bulletins (17 - 20) during 1996. It led to the decision to change the name from Militant Labour to Socialist Party in early 1997.
The Class, The Party and the Leadership by Leon Trotsky, 1940 - http://marxist.net/trotsky/cpl/index.html

This article is an unfinished work written by Trotsky and first published in 1940. It nevertheless forms a very valuable text.

Thursday, 15 November 2012

Che Guevara - Symbol of fashion or symbol of struggle?

By Tom Baldwin, Mayoral Candidate for Bristol, Trade Unionists & Socialists Against Cuts
Che Guevara, photo Alberto Korda
Che Guevara, photo Alberto Korda
Ernesto 'Che' Guevara is perhaps the most recognisable revolutionary icon, his image having graced countless posters and t-shirts.
For some it is just a fashion statement, but many are drawn to him as a symbol of the struggle against capitalism and the fight for a better world.
Films such as the Motorcycle Diaries and the two-part biopic 'Che' reflect his enduring popularity and give a glimpse of how his political ideas developed.
Revolutionaries do not fall ready-made from the sky, but are formed by conditions and events. In 1950 the asthmatic Guevara began his series of travels around Latin America as a 22 year old middle class medical student, seeking only youthful adventure.
But these experiences were to shape the rest of his life. On these journeys he witnessed the enormous class divide that existed between the "luxurious façade" and the real "soul" of the continent, the poor and downtrodden.
Seeing the struggles of workers and the poor everywhere he went, Guevara's attitude evolved from sympathy, through support, to active participation.
It was also on these travels that he was given the nickname Che, due to his Argentinian accent.

26 July Movement

It was in Mexico in 1955 that Che first met Fidel Castro and joined his 26 July movement. At the time Cuba was under the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, who had come to power through a military coup.
Its economy was completely dominated by US big business and wealthy Americans frequented the many Havana brothels and casinos.
Castro wanted a modern capitalist state in Cuba with some reforms for the poor. He envisaged a guerrilla struggle to overthrow only the dictatorship, not capitalism.
Even after returning to Cuba he told a journalist: "we have no animosity towards the United States... we are fighting for a democratic Cuba and an end to dictatorship".
Che himself was, by this point, an avowed socialist but joined the movement as a way to get active in the struggle.
He had previously criticised the Stalinist 'popular front' policy, promoted by the Cuban Communist Party.
This was the idea that in Latin American countries the working class was not ready to take power and establish a socialist society and instead had to make alliances with the 'progressive' sections of the national capitalist class in order to defeat imperialism.
He had seen first-hand how these so-called progressive capitalists were prepared to use bloody repression against the workers to defend their own interests.
However, while correctly criticising this approach, Che did not propose an alternative. He had not absorbed the lessons of the Russian Revolution nor the writings of its leaders, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, particularly on the role of the revolutionary party and Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution.

Trotsky's theory

Trotsky explained that the capitalist class in countries with developing capitalist economies such as Cuba was dominated by imperialism and unable to play the independent role that it had in the capitalist revolutions such as in Britain.
It was therefore incapable of carrying out its historical role and the tasks of land reform, establishing capitalist democracy and creating an independent nation state.
Trotsky argued that these steps could only be achieved through socialist revolution: nationalising industry, taking its ownership and control out of the hands of the capitalists and establishing a planned economy under democratic workers' control.
Trotsky said that the working class, even when in a minority, must lead the struggle against capitalism.
The decisive role of the working class arises from its role in production and the collective consciousness which develops in the workplace and lays the basis for the collective democratic control and management of society.
Because of isolation in rural areas and an individualistic outlook, the peasantry cannot lead such a transformation, but can still play in important role in the struggle.
This theory was borne out in the course of the 1917 Russian Revolution when the working class, in the period immediately after 1917, established the most democratic state in history.
But Che was not an active member of any organisation that understood the lessons of 1917. He instead saw the peasantry as the most revolutionary class and the methods of guerrilla struggle as the most effective.
He was influenced by many factors, including his own class background, the abandonment of an independent working class approach by communist parties and the victory of Mao's peasant army in the Chinese revolution.

Cuban revolution

It was December 1956 when a small band of fighters, Che and Castro among them, landed in Cuba. The landing was plagued with errors and accidents and two days later, when the scattered guerrillas managed to regroup, they were reduced in number from 82 to just 20. But just over two years later they had forced Batista to flee the island.
Che thought the guerrilla struggle would ignite a revolutionary movement, especially among the peasantry.
But while the guerrillas drew support, the mass of the population - especially the urban working class - were not active participants in the struggle.
Che gained a reputation as a courageous fighter and leader. He also organised political discussions among those under him and argued for socialist ideas within the 26 July Movement.
The guerrilla forces grew as they were seen as the only force consistently opposing the Batista dictatorship.
In marked contrast to the brutal treatment they received at the hands of the regime, the guerrillas did not execute the soldiers they captured.
Instead they discussed politics with them and let them go, winning an increasing number of defectors from the army.
On 1 January 1959, with his regime crumbling and the guerrillas approaching the cities, Batista fled the country.
The only successful general strike since Che's arrival on the island was called for the following day, which greeted the guerrillas as they marched into the major cities.
Despite Che arguing for it, Castro's intention had never been the overthrow of capitalism. It was over a year later when he first described the revolution in Cuba as 'socialist'.
He was pushed to take measures of nationalisation by the pressure of the masses combined with the reaction of American imperialism.
As the US recoiled, Cuba developed greater trade and political links with the Soviet Union. The 26 July movement merged with the Communist Party and became the organ of one party rule.

Capitalism overthrown

The Cuban revolution broadly bears out the theory of the permanent revolution. Castro's vision of an independent, democratic, capitalist Cuba was impossible; the Cuban revolution overthrew capitalism.
But workers did not play an active role in the revolution, so their role in the subsequent running of society was also passive.
From the outset the planned economy in Cuba was controlled not by workers' democracy, but by a bureaucratic elite, reflecting Stalinism in the USSR.
Despite this, the revolution still brought huge improvements to the lives of ordinary Cubans. Illiteracy was eradicated in just two years and by the late 1970s life expectancy was 74, comparable to Britain and much higher than other Latin American countries, Bolivia's was just 45.
Showing the same spirit of self-sacrifice that had marked him out as a fighter, Che rejected completely the privileges of the bureaucracy.
For this he must be saluted and it is one of the reasons he's still so admired today. Despite his growing disillusionment and revulsion at the bureaucracy, unlike Leon Trotsky he did not propose nor fight consistently for an alternative.
Instead he left Cuba in order to try and spread revolution abroad. This devotion to internationalism was another of Che's best characteristics.
The methods of guerrilla struggle, which succeeded in the specific conditions of Cuba, did not have the same effect elsewhere.
In 1965, Che left for the Congo but his efforts were unsuccessful and he had to make a clandestine return to Cuba.
In 1967 he appeared with a band of guerrillas in Bolivia. Sadly the failure to ignite revolution and resulting defeat of that struggle were to prove fatal to Che.
Che was captured and executed by the Bolivian army, backed by the CIA, at the age of just 39. Throughout his life, the injustices that Che saw motivated him to continue struggling for a better world.
At the same time, the development of his political ideas never stopped. Works by Trotsky were found on him when he was captured.
Che Guevara's position as an icon of struggle is completely justified. But we would not be doing his life justice if we did not examine it 'warts and all'.
His life is an inspiration for all those seeking to fight oppression and change society.

Sunday, 17 June 2012

Greece: Syriza preparing for power

Paul Murphy MEP is in Greece this week, campaigning with Syriza in the run-up to Sunday's election. He'll be writing daily reports of his experiences for Politico. The second of these is below, and you can find the first one here.
http://politico.ie/world-politics/8627-syriza-preparing-for-power-.html

Day two of my visit began with a press conference of international guests to support Syriza. Political representatives from the Left Bloc in Portugal, Izquierda Unida in Spain, a left group in Argentina, the ambassador from Venezuela to Greece and a member of Occupy Wall Street addressed the press, together with myself and members of Syriza. The emphasis of all of the speeches were on the centrality of the struggle in Greece for working people all across Europe and the impact that a Syriza victory could have.

From the questions of the press afterwards to Syriza, the pressure from the media against their representatives was evident. One journalist recounted the fact that the leader of Syriza, Alexis Tsipras, had declared to Bloomberg that the euro is not a fetish and asked for justification of this! Because of the fear of people of leaving the euro, there is an attempt to make the election a referendum on the drachma or the euro, just as was attempted in Ireland in the Austerity Treaty referendum.On a stroll to find suncream, I met two young members of the Greek Communist Party (KKE), handing out their election manifesto and a flyer advertising their final rally, due to take place last night. I engaged one of them, who had good English, like nearly all Greek young people. The conversation encapsulated the essence of what I think is mistaken about their approach.

The KKE is a huge organisation, with many thousands of active members, a large apparatus and deep support in sections of the industrial working class. Later on, I passed their headquarters, which is absolutely massive. It is the equivalent of about three or four Liberty Halls put together. Their position on these elections is summed up inan article published by the Morning Star newspaper in Britain.

The KKE activist made many criticisms of Syriza, with which I was able to agree – that they have not prepared people for the struggle for power, that a revolutionary break with the capitalist system is needed, that people's power is needed rather than governments managing capitalism. Together with those criticisms, he also made the kind of statements that are contained in the article: that Syriza is the enemy, and that Syriza is in favour of the continuation of capitalism and the imperialist European Union. These go beyond the bounds of comradely criticism and amount to a sectarian misrepresentation and reflect an approach reminiscent of 'Third Period' Stalinism.

The main problem, however, is that the KKE do not make any attempt to really connect with those who are attracted to Syriza and the idea of a left government by joining in a united front with Syriza and engaging in criticism of the Syriza programme while fighting together for power. Instead, in the context of this massive crisis of capitalism, where Greece is the weakest link in the chain, they simply stand back and make denunciations of Syriza. They make abstract propaganda for 'people's power' without proposing demands and measures that connect the need for 'people's power' with people's day to day struggles and consciousness.

In effect, they say that 'the people are not ready for socialism', and instead of engaging in struggle to raise consciousness and awareness about the fundamental change that is needed, they retreat from that struggle. In many respects, sections of Syriza have the opposite approach to that, in that they also accept that 'people are not ready for socialism', and therefore to some extent prepare to manage a better capitalism.

This emerged at a Syriza rally I attended and spoke at in Neo Ionia in Athens last night. Neo Ionia is historically a left-wing area, where in the last elections Syriza came first and the KKE came second. It has a left-controlled Council and was the birthplace of the movement of mass boycott against the Greek equivalent of the household tax.

This was one of many outdoor local Syriza election rallies taking place. There was a mix of people present, from pre-existing political activists from Syriza and Xekinima to others who came to hear what was being advocated. When I spoke, I was very warmly welcomed.

I explained that in Ireland we had also experienced a campaign of terror and bullying during the referendum campaign and that the lesson from Ireland was not to vote in fear. I also exposed the lies that are peddled about Ireland in order to bully the Greek people – that austerity is working and that people accept austerity in Ireland. I detailed how the domestic economy continues to shrink, as do people's incomes, while unemployment and emigration go up. My description of the mass revolt against the household tax and mass non-payment got a warm response, because of their experience with a similar tax and movement.

I also took the opportunity to put forward the need for a revolutionary break with capitalism and a struggle for socialist policies. When I explained that if they put Syriza in first place on Sunday and elected a left government, that they would not be alone but would have tens of millions of allies across Europe, there was spontaneous appluse. Just like in Ireland, the propaganda of being isolated in Europe if you stand up to austerity is used to intimidate people. That underlines the importance of international solidarity that demonstrates the common nature of the struggle we are involved in across Europe.

After I spoke, the next two speakers illustrated the differences in approach and tensions within Syriza. The first was from 'International Workers Left' (DEA), which is a split from the group linked with the Socialist Workers Party in Ireland. He put forward a left position – calling for nationalisation of the banks and the key enterprises under public control and declaring that a government of the left would cancel a large portion of the debt and impose a moratorium on the repayment of the rest, until the state was in a position to pay it. In contrast to the right-wing, he said that the payment of public services would come before the repayment of bondholders. He also emphasised the need for the working class and left across Europe to struggle together for a fundamental change in Europe.

The next speaker was from Synaspismos (the biggest grouping in Syriza, a euro-communist split from the KKE formed in 1991). While excoriating the right wing parties and the political leaders of Europe, the content of his speech was more tame. He emphasised that the time was not yet right for socialism in Greece, but that there were many 'bourgeois democratic' reforms that could be made, such as a reform of the electoral system and increases in taxation for the rich. In effect, he put forward a 'stageist' view, whereby firstly Greece would develop as a proper developed capitalist European country, before a later struggle for socialism.

Such a gradualist perspective seems to be totally at odds of the reality of what will happen if Syriza is the biggest party. On Monday morning, the markets in Greece and all across Europe will go haywire. Capitalism, in the form of the bankers and bondholders of the markets, as well as their political representatives in Germany and elsewhere, will go on the attack. The question of ownership and control of the financial sector in particular, together with the key sections of the economy, will have to be posed immediately if Syriza is to avoid a flood of money out of the country.

Immediately afterwards, I spoke to the speaker from DEA. He said it was now neck and neck between New Democracy and Syriza in the private polls that are circulating. In the papers, there are some reports of New Democracy pulling ahead by 1-2%, but he argued that in the latest polls it was back to even, as people had switched from the KKE and Democratic Left to Syriza to stop New Democracy winning..

I asked what he thought would happen if Syriza was elected. He confessed that he felt that Syriza was entirely unprepared for this eventuality. The members of Xekinima, the sister party of the Socialist Party, agree with that assessment. In the taverna afterwards, the Syriza member who had translated for me argued that they were in fact prepared and detailed a series of measures that would need to be taken in the 100 days after Syriza comes to power. However, I feel that a plan for 100 days is optimistic; there are many emergency measures that would need to be taken extremely quickly in order to stabilise the situation.

If Syriza wins on Sunday and if there is the possibility for a left government, the question will be quickly answered. One of the questions I will try to focus on in tomorrow's blog is about how 'preparing for power' should not just be about preparing to be in government, but in preparing for socialist change and a workers' government. That will require not just a victory for Left parties in the election on Sunday, but a fundamental struggle in the workplaces and streets to take economic and political power away from the capitalist establishment which currently holds it.

Paul Murphy is Socialist Party MEP for Dublin

Tuesday, 5 June 2012

Leon Trotsky on the real traditions of Britain

Rather than the Monarchy, which is a relic of feudalism used today to drape a Union Jack over the class chasm in society, workers and socialists can look back to very different British 'traditions'. Leon Trotsky in his important work 'Where is Britain Going?' from 1925 looks at two of those traditions, republicanism and working-class democracy. This is just the start of the chapter so please read on...


'WHERE IS BRITAIN GOING?' BY LEON TROTSKY CHAPTER 5
Two Traditions: The Seventeenth-Century Revolution and Chartism

The editor of the Daily Herald recently expressed his doubts as to whether Oliver Cromwell could be called a “pioneer of the labour movement”. One of the newspaper’s collaborators supported the editor’s doubts and referred to the severe repressions that Cromwell conducted against the Levellers, the sect of equalitarians of that time (communists). These reflections and questions are extremely typical of the historical thinking of the leaders of the Labour Party. That Oliver Cromwell was a pioneer of bourgeoisand not socialist society there would appear to be no need to waste more than two words in proving. The great revolutionary bourgeois was against universal suffrage for he saw in it a danger to private property. It is relevant to note that the Webbs draw from this the conclusion of the “incompatibility” of democracy and capitalism while closing their eyes to the fact that capitalism has learnt to live on the best possible terms with democracy and to have taken control of the instrument of universal suffrage as an instrument of the stock exchange. Nevertheless British workers can learn incomparably more from Cromwell than from MacDonald, Snowden, Webb and other such compromising brethren. Cromwell was a great revolutionary of his time, who knew how to uphold the interests of the new, bourgeois social system against the old aristocratic one without holding back at anything. This must be learnt from him, and the dead lion of the seventeenth century is in this sense immeasurably greater than many living dogs.

Following at the tails of those living non-lions who write leading articles in theManchester Guardian and other Liberal organs, the Labour Party leaders generally counterpose democracy to any sort of despotic government whether “the dictatorship of Lenin” or “the dictatorship of Mussolini”. The historical mumbo-jumbo of these gentlemen is nowhere expressed more clearly than in this juxtaposition. Not because we are in hindsight inclined to deny the “dictatorship of Lenin” – his power was, through its effective influence on the whole course of events in an enormous state, exceptional.

But how can one speak of dictatorship while passing over its social and historical content? History has known the dictatorship of Cromwell, the dictatorship of Robespierre, the dictatorship of Arakcheev, the dictatorship of Napoleon I, and the dictatorship of Mussolini. It is impossible to discuss anything with a crackpot who puts Robespierre and Arakcheev on a par. Different classes in different conditions and for different tasks find themselves compelled in particular and indeed, the most acute and critical, periods in their history, to vest an extraordinary power and authority in such of their leaders as can carry forward their fundamental interests most sharply and fully. When we speak of dictatorship we must in the first place be clear as to what interest of what particular classes find their historical expression through the dictatorship. For one era Oliver Cromwell, and for another, Robespierre expressed the historically progressive tendencies of development of bourgeois society. William Pitt, likewise extremely close to a personal dictatorship, defended the interests of the monarchy, the privileged classes and the top bourgeois against a revolution of the petty bourgeoisie that found its highest expression in the dictatorship of Robespierre.

The liberal vulgarians customarily say that they are against a dictatorship from the left just as much as from the right, although in practice they do not let slip any opportunity of supporting a dictatorship of the right. But for us the question is determined by the fact that one dictatorship moves society forward while another drags it back. Mussolini’s dictatorship is a dictatorship of the prematurely decayed, impotent, thoroughly contaminated Italian bourgeoisie: it is a dictatorship with a broken nose. The “dictatorship of Lenin” expresses the mighty pressure of the new historical class and its superhuman struggle against all the forces of the old society. If Lenin can be juxtaposed to anyone then it is not to Napoleon nor even less to Mussolini but to Cromwell and Robespierre. It can be with some justice said that Lenin is the proletarian twentieth-century Cromwell. Such a definition would at the same time be the highest compliment to the petty-bourgeois seventeenth-century Cromwell.

The French bourgeoisie, having falsified the revolution, adopted it and, changing it into small coinage, put it into daily circulation. The British bourgeoisie has erased the very memory of the seventeenth century revolution by dissolving its past in “gradualness”. The advanced British workers will have to re-discover the English revolution and find within its ecclesiastical shell the mighty struggle of social forces. Cromwell was in no case a “pioneer of labour”. But in the seventeenth-century drama, the British proletariat can find great precedents for revolutionary action. This is equally a national tradition, and a thoroughly legitimate one that is wholly in place in the arsenal of the working class.

The proletarian movement has another great national tradition in Chartism. A familiarity with both these periods is vital to every conscious British worker. The clarification of the historical significance of the seventeenth-century revolution and the revolutionary content of Chartism is one of the most important obligations for British Marxists.....

Read the rest here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/britain/wibg/ch06.htm

Thursday, 23 February 2012

Bristol Socialist Party Public Meeting: Could There Be A 'Compassionate Capitalism'?

Bristol Socialist Party Public Meeting
Tuesday 28th February 2012
7.30pm
Cheltenham Road Library, Cheltenham Road, BS6 5QX

Could There Be A 'Compassionate Capitalism'?

Capitalism is in crisis all over the world. From New York to Athens, from Moscow to Cairo, inequality and poverty are being challenged by millions of people, the 99% are fighting back.
Tories Cameron and Osbourne tell us not to blame capitalism, but only the wrong sort of 'crony capitalism'. Vince Cable and the Liberals lash out at bankers, speculators and other 'nasty' capitalists. Ed Miliband and the rest of New Labour go so far as to plead for a 'responsible, compassionate capitalism'.
But who are they pleading to? Can capitalism share out the wealth from the 1% to 99% as easily as it shares out the pain? Or is capitalism itself at the root of the problem? Do we need a complete system change. These and other questions will be discussed at this open meeting of the Bristol Socialist Party. 

Newcomers are always welcome. If you would like more information email ma_gordon@hotmail.co.uk or call 07936712962

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=51.468274,-2.5926&spn=0.02374,0.054846&t=h&z=14

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Another attempt to assassinate the legacy of Leon Trotsky?


Condemnation of Leon Trotsky is well-trodden ground for so-called biographer Robert Service. Service was condemned by The American Historical Review (June 2011), which considered his 'biography' of Trotsky a complete distortion. This was anticipated by Socialist Party general secretary Peter Taaffe in a review in the Socialist (13 October 2009) where he took Service to task.

Here Peter reviews Service's latest offering, 'Spies & Commissars', in which the skulduggery of British spies like Sidney Reilly is used to spice up the same old false picture of the Bolshevik regime which followed the Russian revolution of 1917 - particularly of its leaders, Lenin and Trotsky.
 

Service writes in the introduction to this heavy tome: "Lenin and Trotsky... were convinced that Europe was on the threshold of communist revolution and that it needed only a slight nudge from them to make all this happen."

It did not need a "slight nudge" but the workers of Europe needed to emulate their Russian brothers and sisters and take power out of the hands of the capitalists who, through the bloody carnage of World War One, had ruined Europe.

The Bolsheviks, by declaring a unilateral peace, began the process of ending the war. As to the international effect of the Russian Revolution, Service himself comments that "the Labour Party held a celebration of the revolutionary events at the Albert Hall. 10,000 people attended and Ramsay MacDonald [then Labour leader] was the main speaker...

"It was an occasion that nobody present would forget. The Romanovs were gone and freedom had arrived in Russia. There was talk of a brotherhood of the Russians and the British no longer poisoned by the existence of tsarist despotism." This was just one expression of the colossal enthusiasm and sympathy that the Russian revolution generated.

Lenin is described as a "killjoy" during his return to Russia in February 1917 and "less than gracious to the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries" because he told the truth. He correctly called on the working class to place no trust in the coalition government involving some workers' leaders - the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries - with the 'liberal' capitalists.

Marxists adopt the same position today in placing no trust in the governments which have arisen on the backs of the revolution in Tunisia or Egypt. Instead, we call on the masses to build their own independent organisations if they are to make a 'second revolution', a social revolution, which is the only way to satisfy their demands and consolidate the revolution.

Childishly, Service describes Trotsky and Lenin as "exceptional troublemakers". As if a revolution - demanding an understanding of the process of revolution at each stage and the political slogans and action which flow from this - could be led by mere "troublemakers"!

Yet Service allows himself to admit that, in the words of one observer, "Lenin and Trotsky are merely the spokesmen of the workers."

....

Read the rest of the review here

Sunday, 26 June 2011

Irish history and socialism

Article written in 2008 by the late Peter Hadden (1950-2010)


Death on the rock of Gibraltar - 20 years since SAS killing of three IRA volunteers


It is twenty years since the execution style killing by the SAS of three IRA members in Gibraltar. In Northern Ireland these deaths sparked a brief but particularly bloody upsurge in violence. Over the next thirteen days a series of attacks involving the army, the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries left a further eight people dead and 68 injured. Two of these incidents will be vividly remembered by those who were around at the time, if only because they were captured live by TV cameras on the scene.

One was the attack by lone loyalist gunman, Michael Stone, on mourners attending the funerals of the Gibraltar victims, which left three mourners dead and scores injured. The image shown repeatedly on that day’s news bulletins of Stone fleeing through West Belfast’s Milltown cemetery towards the M1 motorway, attempting to hold off a chasing crowd with pistol shots and grenades, provided a stark illustration of the brutal reality of the Northern Ireland Troubles.

So did the footage taken three days later on the Andersonstown Road at the funeral of one of those killed by Stone in Milltown. This was of two plain-clothes British soldiers, who had driven aggressively into the funeral procession, being dragged by the crowd from their car, one brandishing a handgun. Shortly after this, they were handed over to the IRA who took them to waste ground behind nearby shops and shot them.

Today, twenty years on, Sinn Fein put a huge effort into organising a series of high profile events to commemorate the Gibraltar killings. There were rallies and a large public meeting in West Belfast. A special 12-page commemorative supplement on the killings and their bloody aftermath was produced and distributed through doors in Catholic areas of the city.

Public controversy soon developed over these commemorations, especially over the proposal to host a celebration of the life of Mairead Farrell, one of the three shot by the SAS in Gibraltar, in the Long Gallery in Parliament Buildings at Stormont. This produced a predictable knee jerk reaction from the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), who announced an event to celebrate the role of the SAS to be held in the same venue and at the same time. In the end, neither party got their way - new rules were rushed through in haste to make it more difficult to book the Long Gallery - and Sinn Fein went ahead with a low key meeting on Mairead Farrell’s life in their own offices at Stormont....

Twenty years on, the real lesson of all that happened at Gibraltar and after is the need to build a fighting socialist alternative to sectarianism and capitalism so that the energies of another generation are not wasted on ideas and methods that can never succeed.

Read the full article - http://www.socialistparty.net/theory/494-death-on-the-rock-of-gibraltar-20-years-since-sas-killing-of-three-ira-volunteers

Monday, 24 January 2011

Socialist Party meeting Tue 25th Jan: How will socialism work?

Bristol Central Socialist Party: How will socialism work?

Tuesday 25th January

7.30pm

Cheltenham Road Library, Bristol, BS6 5QX

Chris Young will be looking at how a socialist society would be run: Is socialism democratic? Does revolution always lead to dictatorship? How would we share resources? How would decisions be made? Email ma_gordon@hotmail.co.uk for more details.

Friday, 7 January 2011

The relevance of Trotsky in 2011 - Report back

Below is an enlarged version of the talk given at last night's Socialist Party branch meeting. There was an excellent discussion covering topics such as the importance of 'class' in modern Britain, women's liberation and the fight for democratic rights. We discussed the importance of building unity in the Anti-Cuts movement on the basis of saying NO TO ALL CUTS, and that class today can be summed up as the divide between those facing the axe and those wielding it - or in other words, for the millions and not the millionaires!

Introduction

When Leon Trotsky, Bolshevik leader in the Russian Revolution of 1917, was killed by an agent of Stalin in August 1940, he and his supporters had already lost all positions of power in the Soviet Union, he had been hounded by police and assassins all over the world, and had ended up in Mexico after finding that he was on a ‘Planet without a Visa’ as he called it. But despite being so isolated he was still the most hated man in the world, hated alike by capitalists like Churchill, by fascists like Hitler, and by so-called communists like Stalin – but nonetheless there were spontaneous demonstrations in his honour by Mexican workers and farmers, despite the efforts of the Mexican Communist Party to stop them. Why was someone so outwardly ‘defeated’ still so hated and feared by all world leaders, but at the same time instinctively loved by the poor and the oppressed? It was because of the principles he stood for, and more importantly how he put them into practice – and those principles are central to what the Socialist Party stands for today.
Firstly I should say there is no element of “hero” worship in following the ideas of Trotsky. We look at his work as what it was – a continuation of the work done by Marx, Engels and Lenin. As well as people like Rosa Luxembourg and James Connolly. The theories of Marxism are ideas that stand the test of time.
Trotsky himself said that at many of the important events in his life he ended up in the situation accidently – and whether he was there or not may not have affected the outcome. But what Trotsky could do better than anyone was to use the method of Marxism to adapt to changing circumstances, and then put that into writing so that the lessons could always be used by the world Labour movement.
The events of Trotsky’s life gave him plenty of opportunity to do this, and would in fact justify the label of ‘hero’ taken alone.
At 26 he led the first Russian Revolution of 1905 and was president of the first Soviet, or worker’s-council; in 1917 he was a key Bolshevik leader and helped to organise the first Soviet government; he built the Red Army from scratch to defend the revolution and beat the 21 armies of Imperialism. Later on he fought a long and bitter struggle for democracy and socialism in Soviet Russia – he organised the Fourth International to defend Marxism against all forms of Stalinism, reformism and centrism – and was exiled and finally murdered for ‘heroic’ efforts.
But as well as this, Trotsky had time to leave a large body of work that has great value for today. He was able to take any problem or subject; poverty and inequality, racism, fascism, feminism, art and literature, and many more, look at them from a all-rounded and multifaceted perspective - scientific, political, economic and sociological. This has left a great legacy for the international labour movement and I would recommend any one of his books for their style, clarity and precision alone.
Also, it is important to stress that what we have is not just static unchanging dogmas, but a methodology than can be constantly renewed - and that method is the method of Marxism.

Permanent Revolution

One of Trotsky’s major contributions is the theory of the Permanent Revolution.
This theory came from Trotsky’s experience of 1905 and basically looked at the class-forces of Russia to show how socialism could be achieved. It was linked to something he called the combined and uneven development of different countries, which came from Marx and said that economies developed at different speeds at different times, so in Russia you ended up with modern capitalism, feudalism and tribalism all existing together.
 Russia, it was said, was basically a pre-capitalist and feudal country, which was also semi-colonial because it was tied to British and French Imperialism in a thousand ways. In other words it had not yet experienced the democratic-revolution, otherwise called the bourgeois-revolution, which had happened in Britain, France, America, and so on, hundreds of years before. The democratic-revolution was supposed the be led by the capitalist class and to complete tasks such as abolishing feudalism, freeing peasants from the land, introducing a Parliament with universal suffrage, and giving trade union rights to workers. That list alone will tell you that it had never really happened anywhere to the full extent. I only have to remind you that 2011 will be the year of a Royal wedding in Britain!
The Russian Mensheviks, along with majority of Socialist leaders around the world, said that Russia needed to go through a period of capitalism first and only later – in hundreds of years – could go on to socialism. Therefore socialists should only support liberal-capitalists and not the independent organisation of workers.
Trotsky said NO to this. He basically said that in Russia the capitalist class was too weak, too cowardly, and too tied to Western imperialism to ever carry out the democratic-tasks –and so it would have to be done by the working-class directly, leading the poor of the whole country, who would then go over directly to the socialist-revolution and the abolition of capitalism. Hence the permanent part of the ‘Permanent Revolution’.
Lenin and the Bolshevik Party more or less agreed with this – they argued that Russia was the weakest-link in the chain of world imperialism, and would be able to first spark the worldwide socialist revolution, especially in Western Europe.
They called for a coalition government of workers and farmers,  that would represent the interests of both classes and carry out the democratic-revolution. But Lenin didn’t specify who would have the most influence in this coalition and how it would lead to socialism, and he called this an ‘Algebraic Formula’ which was not yet decided.
However, in the course of 1917 Lenin and Trotsky came together in complete agreement, and Lenin accepted that the urban working class must play the leading role, he felt that the formula had been answered and that workers were the only ones able to consistently fight for democracy. And so they created the first Soviet government – with workers democracy and workers control at it’s heart.
This may seem a bit obscure and old-fashioned, but I believe this theory is still applicable to many countries in 2011. There are many countries where the most basic democratic tasks have still not been completed – countries where the most advanced capitalism co-exists with medieval caste-systems and abject poverty, countries where the leaders are no closer to solving the most basic problems, and ethnic and religious divides are perpetuated and deepened. There are also environmental problems and diseases that should long ago have been solved but continue to wreak havoc.
Take the example of the Ivory Coast which has been on the news recently.
Laurent Gbagbo, as you will know, is following other Africa leaders in refusing to leave office, instead unleashing his personal militia, the ‘Young Patriots’, against political rivals. Gbagbo has been in power since 2000, but since 2002 has seen the nation increasingly divided along ethnic and religious lines. When he says that his rival, Ouattara, cannot guarantee peace if he becomes President, it is not just a threat, which is what it sounds like, but a tragic reality. All of the political parties in Ivory Coast base themselves on scapegoating one of the various ethnic or religious groups against another, and so the division of the country will worsen.
Ivory Coast is still a country, 50 years after independence, where 68% of the population rely on small subsistence farming and 1/3rd of the whole economy is still owned by French companies to this day. Gbagbo came to power as a trade-unionist and a pro-democracy hero, and symbolised the hopes of millions of people in the country. But because he accepted the dictates of the world market – that Ivory Coast must remain an agricultural colony for foreign investors – he soon lost his popular support and had to rely on stoking up division and hatred instead.
This is happening again and again all over the world – but with no class able to move society forward, people will remain in poverty, oppressed by brutal regimes, tied to feudal land ownership and totally at the whim of natural events like floods and droughts. Only working-class unity, across religious, ethnic and national divides, can finally break this cycle.
This is where I would like to dispel one of the historical myths about Trotsky. That he apparently ‘underestimated’ the peasantry.
By peasantry what is meant is those people who make a living directly from the land, as opposed to workers who receive cash wages. They may own the land outright, but not enough to actually make profit and become capitalists themselves. Trotsky knew more about this class and how it lived than any of the other Bolshevik leaders, because he travelled thousands of miles raising the Red Army from the countryside. In saying that the urban workers must lead the revolution, he is not underestimating anyone, but simply understanding the class forces that will enable all of the poor people in the world to break decisively with capitalism and oppression.

Revolution Betrayed

The next of Trotsky’s lasting contributions to Marxism is the famous fight against Stalinism. Trotsky began to fight the rise of bureaucracy and dictatorship in 1923, when he organised the Left Opposition, and continued this battle until his death in 1940.
The point is not just that Trotsky fought Stalinism – but that he analysed what it was and where it came from – allowing Marxists to understand all the forms of ‘Stalinism’ that spread across the globe, and giving important lessons for the future. It has meant that organisations like ours have been able to correctly work out an independent, working-class policy in relation to world events.
Trotsky’s analysis is based on criticising the so-called ‘theory’ of ‘socialism in one country’ – which is a theory only insofar as it allowed an intellectually bankrupt group of usurpers to justify their monopoly of power, and intellectually came directly from the old Menshvik ideas about ‘stages’. What is more, ‘socialism in one country substituted the very meaning of the word socialism with a brutal, murderous and authoritarian regime.
One of the academic myths about Trotsky is that Stalinism is just a continuation of what Lenin and Trotsky stood for and achieved. This criticism is basically an attempt to say that socialism will never be possible and that the working-class should not organise independently. It boils down to the not-so-clever old quote – that inside every revolutionary is a policeman waiting to get out – but Trotsky was able to explain just that.
Lenin and Trotsky both knew that the revolution in Russia had to be followed quickly by a revolution in an advanced capitalist country. Otherwise there would simply not be enough food and goods to go round and there would be poverty in Russia. As Trotsky says in his book – ‘The Revolution Betrayed’ – “when there are few goods in the shop, people have to queue. When you have queue for food you need a policeman – and that is the beginning of the Stalinist bureaucracy” and of course, the policeman always get fed first. Every time there was a failure in the world revolution – Germany in 1918, Hungary in 1919, Italy in 1920, and so on – the breadlines got longer and the police got stronger and more greedy.
It is important to point out as well that Stalinism didn’t happen over-night or automatically – but was the outcome of a vicious and one-sided Civil War against the working class – mass arrests and deportations of the Left Opposition, the Gulag, the Moscow Show Trials, the Great Purge, and so on. Stalin eventually murdered or every Bolshevik who took part in the 1917 Revolution. A river of blood separates Lenin, Trotsky - and Marxism itself - from Stalinism.
But despite all of this, despite the personal misery heaped on Trotsky by the bureaucracy – for example the murder of most of his own family – he was able to remain clear-headed and scientific, and always defended the positive gains of the Russian revolution for the working-class, for example the abolition of landlordism and capitalism, and the planned-economy.
Trotsky’s work on Stalinism also stems from his understanding of the permanent revolution – and helps to explain what happened in China and Cuba for example, where the working-class did not take power and workers-democracy was never instituted. In these countries, to try and simplify events, regimes marching from the countryside into the cities found a power-vacuum, and because of economic and political necessity had to break decisively with world-imperialism, but in order to do so the rulers of those countries had to break with capitalism completely and nationalise the means of production.
It is not understatement to say that if you want to call yourself a Socialist you have to be able to answer the question of what happened in Russia and elsewhere in the name of Marxism throughout the 20th Century. Only Trotsky properly does so, which is why Trotskyism is nothing but the continuation of Marxism. He was able to re-affirm the very principles that made the Russian Revolution possible – that the revolution must be international, and that it needs to have the direct control of producers and consumers from day one.

Lessons for Today

Some of the most important work Trotsky did at the end of his life was to build the organisational framework for an international movement continuing the mission of Marx – to not only understand the world but to change it.
That is what we base ourselves on today – we are part of the Committee for a Workers International, which organises in over 40 countries to fight for worker’s rights. Everywhere we are, from Bristol to Hong Kong, we orientate towards the day-to-day struggles for a decent standard of living. We always defend every gain and benefit for the working class.
One more common criticism of Trotskyism is that our ideas are outdated and no longer applicable in the 21st century. In fact, what is no longer applicable in the 21st century are the huge inequalities throughout the world - the imperialist wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere; the blockade of Cuba; the oppression of Palestine; the abuse of power in Africa and elsewhere; the cuts and austerity in Europe. All of this is long outdated!
Never have these ideas been more relevant. Never has it been more possible – with modern communications and technology and so on – to unite the world under a democratically-planned, socialist economy. Trotsky used to talk about nationalising the 250 biggest monopolies under workers-control, during the 70s and 80s the Militant used the slogan of nationalising the top 100 monopolies. Nowadays we have no sure figure of how few it really it is! But we know that if the working class could take over only a small number of capitalist multinationals we would we well on the pay to planning ‘the commanding heights’ already.
Every so-called new idea that tries to tell us that times have changed, that socialism is not needed because peace and prosperity will happen automatically, is just a repetition of old ideas that try to say the working-class should not organise for its own independent liberation. Look at the so called ‘Third Way’ of New Labour – the fanfare that boom and bust was finally over and that the market had triumphed – that was a load of rubbish at the time of the boom, shown by the bloody wars abroad, and the racism and inequality at home – but all the while they were marching blindly into an unprecedented economic crisis. And now we know all too well that bust has not gone away, that the boom was based on credit and lies, that capitalism has not changed its spots, and that a Tory government are saying we are all in the same boat and have to feel the pain!
Trotsky teaches that the working-class must build the maximum possible unity, and link up with all the struggles of ordinary people. That is why we begin 2011 vowing to defeat the ConDem government and fight ALL CUTS. We know from experience that that capitalism will not go away on its own, it can always feed on misery and oppression – it needs to be overthrown by a mass movement around the world. That is why we are organised in the Socialist Party, trying to make that happen.