This piece is taken from Phil Hearse’s Marxsite .

Britain’s New Labour, initiated in the 1990s to break decisively with the ‘old Labour’ of Keynesianism and the welfare state, is in its death imageagony. It is  sure now that Gordon Brown’s party will lose the next election disastrously, possibly with its lowest share of the vote since the 1920s. A recent poll put Labour on 16%, alongside the UK Independence Party; others hover around 22%.
David Cameron’s Conservatives will be elected with a sweeping majority. Hundreds of Labour MPs will be turfed out of their seats. This is an ignominious end for the political project that swept to power in May 1997, winning nearly two thirds of all parliamentary seats and setting off a wave of euphoria focused on its charismatic young leader, Tony Blair. All that seems an age away.

Even so, when Brown replaced Blair just 18 months ago, it seemed as if Labour might easily win a ‘snap’ election. Relief at the departure of Blair was palpable and most workers and many middle class people were still suspicious of the Conservatives. Brown chose not to go for that option, probably on the basis that if he lost an early general election he would have gone down as the shortest serving Prime minister ever, with just a couple of months in office. Subsequent events have made that reluctance seem foolish.

Part of  New Labour’s unpopularity is absurd political decisions seemingly designed to enrage as many people as possible, notably the decision to go ahead with the environmentally catastrophic third runway at Heathrow and the refusal to grant British residence to former Ghurkha soldiers.

Another part is the way that Labour MPs are caught up in the expenses fiddling crisis, a scandal that of course hits the governing party worst. People expect the Tories to steal and swindle, and they expect that of bankers too; but Labour is supposed (at least in the minds of many of its voters) to be about social equality, not personal career, advancement and luxury.

It is of course the onset of the world economic slump that has shone a spotlight on the character of Labour’s central economic and social policies for the last 14 years. These have worsened social equality, and while benefitting the wealthy and sections of the middle class, have punished the poorest section of society. The bottom 10% of wage earners are worse off absolutely than they were five years ago, mainly because of downward pressure of wages caused by the world-wide low-wage economy vigorously promoted by Labour. And in particular Labour wholeheartedly promoted deregulation of the City and financial sector, enabling London to become a centre of finance capital that poured in and could as easily pour out.

Trade Minister (Lord) Peter Mandelson famously quipped that Labour was “very comfortable with some people becoming filthy rich”. The problem was they did it at the expense of others becoming dirt poor.

Why the central mechanisms of Labour rule have collapsed

New Labour did have an idea of ‘fixing’ the decrepit public services and ending child poverty. But the way it was done undermined real improvements. The New Labour plan, with which Gordon Brown was particularly associated as Chancellor, was this. The City would let rip and Britain would become along with the United States the centre of finance capital. Huge tax revenue would then accrue that could be invested in public services and in tax credits for the poorest families. This plan was indeed put into operation but failed to achieve the desired results. And now, with the government being indebted to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds, this flawed mechanism cannot be repeated for generations – for it will take 20 or 30 years for the government to pay back what it borrowed to save the banks from collapse.

image

New Labour’s tax and spend plan didn’t work because of the way it was done. It’s core was ‘public-private partnerships’ (1); in other words  projects like building new hospitals had to be done in concert with private companies, who were given vast sums to bring in projects that would have cost much less if done by local or national government. These 14 years have been the era of the ‘consultant’ and the ‘advisor’ – the myriad teams of middle class professionals paying themselves mountainous salaries to be the go-betweens among companies and public agencies. And – here is the beauty of it – much of that tax income taken from the financial sector was  recycled back to them as major investors in the private side of public-private partnerships.

Classic cases are the privatisation of the railways and the London tube. Real improvements have been made of course, there’s not doubt about that. But in both cases the price is some of the most exorbitant fares anywhere in the world, major grants to the companies concerned to stay afloat and huge profits and salaries for top personnel, all coming from the public purse.

Work regimes

All the public services have been plagued by targets which involve crushing work regimes. Using methods imported from the American human resources industry, target setting and checking– and the mountain of paperwork it involves – have become central to the life of teachers and health workers. Everyone has to work harder and longer, but real benefits in terms of education and health, come second to fulfilling the plan – in an eerie echo of the ‘5-year plans’ in Stalin’s USSR. New Labour conferences became parodiesof the Soviet Communist party congresses, as minister after minister read out a list of statistics proving that things were getting better – while everyone knew that few significant improvements were occurring.

But it’s also on the issues of poverty and social inequality that New Labour’s system of rule has come unstuck. Labour introduced a very low level of national minimum wage, and provided tax credits for poorer families and for childcare.

But New Labour’s cuddling up to business and the ultra-rich has meant these improvements have made little impact. When the privatised utilities take a huge percentage of the income of poor people, and especially when food and fuel prices rise, it’s job security and the overall level of income that matter. But in Britain and the USA the demand by finance capital – the stock market – for ever more impres
sive short term profits means cost cutting has been a permanent feature. Cutting the number of workers, cutting their rates of pay, cutting their employment rights and benefits – all these have been permanent feature of the labour market under New Labour. This has been policed by New Labour’s refusal to repeal Margaret Thatcher’s anti-trade union laws.

Irregularly employed workers in casualised industries rarely build up enough resources during their work periods to break out of the cycle of poverty, especially as unemployment benefits are cruelly low in Britain – an attempt to make people seek jobs at any rate of pay (2).

Mondeo Man

While the people at the top enjoyed lavish lifestyles when Labour reduced tax rates for the best off, those at the bottom foundered. But many sections of the middle class and regularly employed workers, felt they weren’t doing too bad. Most people had to work longer and harder, but real spending power seemed to hold up. This, celebrated by Tony Blair as ‘Mondeo Man’, was the real social basis of New Labour – permanent employment, a house, a car, children and foreign holidays, not to mention cheap Chinese-made electronic goods, could be supported on the basis of the income of two adults. Of course Mondeo family was an average that millions did not achieve, but millions did – except it was all an illusion.

The illusion was based on inflated house values against which millions of British workers borrowed large amounts on credit cards. The depressed level of income that the international low-wage economy had imposed on even employed British workers, did not justify the lifestyles enjoyed on it. Debt was rolled over in most families because it seemed that it always could be, a fatal illusion.

image Now that house values have slumped and credit is tight, spending has also slumped. The results are well-known: unemployment once again becomes a social catastrophe, all-round consumption is cut back to pay off debt, foreign holidays are ditched for the wonders of the British seaside or no holiday at all. Worse, everyone knows that after the 2010 general election the new government will sharply raise taxes to service its new astronomic levels of debt. The vicious circle of deflation is deepened: in terms of unemployment and consumption, the worst is still a long way ahead for the British working class.

Gordon Brown finds himself politically defenceless against the Tory accusations of having presided over the accumulation of the debt mountain and the run-down of British industry. New Labour should be able to say – look it was Margaret Thatcher who deregulated the City of London, Margaret Thatcher who smashed up manufacturing in the early 1980s with her ‘lame ducks’ philosophy and Tory ideologues who hatched the plan for Britain to become a European ‘Hong Kong’ based on finance and service industries. But of course they can’t – because it was these central tenets of Thatcherism that Blair and Brown picked up, lovingly polished and promoted with religious zeal. David Cameron’s charges against Brown and New Labour on these issues are hypocritical, but undeniable.

New Labour’s greed and corruption

In this dire economic and social situation Labour MPs are caught up in the parliamentary expenses row. How could it happen? Of course corruption is everywhere in capitalist societies. But New Labour has been particularly prone to it because of its ideological and practical enthusiasm for the rich and powerful. Wealthy business people are the natural social milieu for Labour Ministers. They compare themselves – very important people you understand – with people getting giant salaries in the private sector. It’s galling as a government minister on only £140,000 a year to be regularly dealing with people earning multiples of that. In an ideology-lite party with few central beliefs except business and management efficiency, politics becomes simply a matter of prestige, career and personal gain – hopefully topped off with a period as a minister, and them hopefully some nice juicy directorships in private companies, especially those you helped while a minister.

Ordinary people expect Labour to be something better than that. They also notice that while MPs can explain they made ‘mistakes’ in their claims, mere mortals get sent to jail for fraud. This is leading to a general feeling that all the main parties are ‘in it for themselves’ and not to be trusted.

As Labour’s links with its working class base atrophy, who gains?

In truth Labour’s political situation had started to decay long before the crash and the corruption scandal. Blair was deeply discredited over Britain’s role in the Iraq war. Millions are deeply worried by the trend towards authoritarianism, notably is mass surveillance by the police and security services and aggressive policing methods.

The objective basis for a strong challenge to Labour from the left is there. But it is not likely to happen in the short term.

First, because of the electoral system and because Labour is the incumbent government, it is almost certain the Conservatives will win the next election. In general it is the right who are on the offensive, in the form of the Tories, but also the fascist British National Party (BNP) and the right-wing Tory UK Independence Party (UKIP). No similarly effective left wing party or front has been formed.

In part this is due to the still low level of class struggle. It is also the result of the intransigence of the left trade union bureaucracy and its intense suspicion of the far left, particularly the SWP. Among some the best left trade union leaders, hostility to the SWP has become an irrational, obsessional fixation.

At the same time left wing infighting fatally undermined the Socialist Alliance and Respect, and weakened the SSP. It will take some time to put the pieces back together again. The Green Party will do better than the left at an electoral level, but the British Greens are moving to the right.

One thing is clear. Cameron will lead a revanchist Tory government bent on massive downsizing of the public sector and shifting the burden of the crisis ever more squarely onto the backs of working people. While the battle over that is being fought, New Labour – as a political project – is as dead as Monty Python’s parrot. It will fall ignominiously, in confusion and in disgrace. Having opened up the road to the Tories and the hard right. The bloodletting inside the Labour Party will be vicious, but it is an open question whether there is still enough of a left to make advances inside the party as a result.

Tony Blair, basking in the glare of the tens of thousands he earns from after-dinner speeches and the publicity he gets from his role as pro-Israel ‘peace envoy’ to the Middle East, must be having a quiet laugh at Gordon Brown’s expense. Brown fought for years to get rid of Blair so his own limitless ambition could be fulfilled. Far from it being bad luck he is now up to his neck in brown stuff, it is a direct and immediate consequence of the pro-business, anti-working class core of his own New Labour policies.

1
) For a detailed look at the way the public-private partnerships worked, see George Monbiot, Captive State, Macmillan 2000.

2) See Jenni Russell, £64.30 a week. That’s Dave’s reward for 20 years of work (Guardian 20 May 2009).

6 responses to “Bonfire of the Vanities or New Labour’s collapse”

  1. Excellent piece. I think the low level still of class struggle is the key here. In the meantime, moves towards building an independent workers party need to continue as a priority for socialists.

    On a more humorous note, for the EU election, the principled Marxist vanguard of the proletariat – the CPGB obviously – have called for a vote for, wait for it, New Labour!

    Like

  2. That is amusing, yes. It is a significant shift to the right, and ironic given their origins as a left split from the original CPGB, which I suppose you can now say continues in a shrunken form in the CPB/Morning Star.

    In the early days, the ‘Leninist’ denounced the ‘Tankies’ for their loyalty to the Labour Party – a Labour Party, incidentally, that was far to the left of the Thatcherised neo-liberal, and corrupted husk that exists today.

    Now the CPGB/WW’s Jack Conrad says, in a burst of honesty, that he believes that the Labour government is ‘more progressive’ than the electoral bloc, No2EU, that the CPB have helped put together for the Euro Elections against New Labour! So its logical to support New Labour.

    Maybe they will end up having fusion talks with Permanent Revolution. That seems logical. One thing about the CPGB, not being bound to the worship of Trotsky and justifying every mistaken policy with an out-of-context quote from seventy years ago, they tend to blurt out the truth about where such political positions really derive from.

    Thus Jack Conrad says that Gordon Brown’s Labour government is ‘more progressive’ than the political initiative of a major left trade union and two socialist organisations. That is what the likes of Permanent Revolution think as well.

    Like

  3. Apparently a key factor in NO2EU failing the CPGB test of suitablility to receive their much coveted endorsement was not calling for workers militias. Not quite sure how New Labour slipped through on that one. Perhaps ‘British Militias for British Workers’?

    Still, a portentous decision by the CPGB, whose deep roots in the working class means that the whole political landscape in this country has changed forever.

    Like

  4. Foraging in the depths Avatar
    Foraging in the depths

    Probably guidance from their handler. “The government needs help in its hour of need, Jack – it needs the Weekly Worker’s endorsement.”
    “Right sir. I’ll get on it immediately.”

    Like

  5. Sunday, 7 June 2009
    Analysis of MP expenses and Brown crisis

    A BRIEF PROVISIONAL ANALYSIS OF POLITICAL SITUATION IN BRITAIN AFTER PARLIAMENTARY EXPENSE CRISIS AND THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE BROWN AS PRIME MINISTER BY ANTHONY BRAIN.

    Trotsky’s following comments in his work “History of the Russian Revolution” about the plot to murder Rasputin in Russia prior to Russia’s February 1917 revolution has similarities with qualifications to the Parliamentary expense crisis and the attempt to remove Brown in Britain. He wrote:

    “After the murder of its “Friend” the monarchy survived in all ten weeks. But this short space of time was still its own. Rasputin was no longer, but his shadow continued to rule. Contrary to all the expectations of the conspirators, the royal pair began after the murder to promote with special determination the most scorned members of the Rasputin clique. In revenge for Rasputin, a notorious scoundrel was named Minister of Justice. A number of grand dukes were banished from the capital. It was rumoured that Protopopov took up spiritualism, calling up the ghost of Rasputin. The noose of hopelessness was drawing tighter.

    … The murder of Rasputin played a colossal role, but a very different one from that upon which its perpetrators and inspirers had counted. It did not weaken the crisis, but sharpened it. People talked of the murder everywhere: in the palaces, in the staffs, at the factories, and in the peasant’s huts. The inference drew itself: even the grand dukes have no other recourse against the leprous camarilla except poison and the revolver. The poet Blok wrote of the murder of Rasputin: “The bullet which killed him reached the very heart of the ruling dynasty.”

    … Robespierre once reminded the Legislative Assembly that the opposition of the nobility, by weakening the monarchy, had roused the bourgeoisie, and after them the popular masses. Robespierre gave warning at the same time that in the rest of Europe the revolution could not develop so swiftly as in France, for the privileged classes of other countries, taught by the experience of the French nobility, would not take the revolutionary initiative. In giving this admirable analysis, Robespierre was mistaken only in his assumption that with its oppositional recklessness the French nobility had given a lesson once for all to other countries. Russia proved again, both in 1905 and yet more in 1917, that a revolution directed against an autocratic and half-feudal regime, and consequently against a nobility, meets in its first step an unsystematic and inconsistent but nevertheless very real co-operation not only from the rank and file nobility, but also from its most privileged upper circles, including here even members of the dynasty. This remarkable historic phenomenon may seem to contradict the class theory of society, but in reality it contradicts only its vulgar interpretation.

    … A revolution breaks out when all the antagonisms of a society have reached their highest tensions. But this makes the situation unbearable even for the classes of the old society – that is, those who are doomed to break up. Although I do not want to give a biological analogy more weight than it deserves, it is worth remarking that the natural act of birth becomes at a certain moment equally unavoidable both for the maternal organism and for the offspring. The opposition put up by the privileged classes expresses the incompatibility of their traditional social position with the demands of the further existence of society. Everything seems to slip out of the hands of the ruling bureaucracy. The aristocracy finding itself in the focus of a general hostility lays the blame upon the bureaucracy, the latter blames the aristocracy, and then together, or separately, they direct their discontent against the monarchical summit of their power”.

    The above quote shows the similarities in Britain today. In Britain we are witnessing a deepening radicalisation which could develop into a pre-revolutionary crisis. Another important qualification is that the radicalisation is only at an early stage but due to a severe Capitalist crisis can be very explosive. On the positive side if a process of deepening world revolutions actually leads to more regimes being overthrown in other countries could influence developments in Britain.

    Trotskyists should learn from the Rasputin crisis how to deepen the radicalisation into revolution in Britain. We also in developing our strategy have to see all the machinations of ruling class elements to prevent this happening, which has a long experience that cannot be under-estimated. The British ruling class have learned from revolutions such as 1789 in France and Rasputin-type crises.

    Pressure from the masses has already led to certain ruling class elements blaming bankers for causing this economic crisis. There are two main reasons why the Telegraph has exposed the MPs expenses. One factor is Bankers hitting back at the MPs for deepening a hatred of millions against them. The other factor is splits within Britain’s ruling class over strategy and tactics. Conservative Bourgeois elements maybe trying to destroy Social Democracy and the Liberal Bourgeoisie through right wing Populism which is appearing in parts of Europe. This serves two purposes of attempting to smash the EU project and have a mass base to attack workers by divide and rule through xenophobia.

    This Conservative Bourgeois moves on MPs expenses has had the opposite effect than intended. In my opinion this has deepened a radicalisation which has entered its third stage. The first stage was the 1997 landslide victory for Labour where millions of workers and sizeable middle class elements wanted privatisation to end with substantial more money invested in public services. An indication of this radicalisation was opinion polls showing in 1997 that 70% wanted the railways re-nationalised. Stage two of this radicalisation was the massive movement in 2002-3 against war in Iraq.

    The MPs expense crisis may strengthen the Bourgeois Tory party; right wing Populists; and Fascists electorally in the European Elections. This represents a remnant of despair among middle class layers and workers at failures of the Labour Party to improve their conditions. Trotskyists need to understand that the main dynamic caused by MPs expenses crisis is that the ruling class politicians have lost authority to deepen massive attacks on workers and middle class. Despite this right-turn electorally the radicalisation will deepen and give those despairing layers hope that Capitalism can be fought through mass struggles.

    Both Liberal and Conservative Bourgeois elements for different reasons want Brown removed as Prime Minister. Conservative Bourgeois elements could have two main devious motivations is a Blairite coalition with Tories which could implements hundreds of billions of cutbacks in public services which they hope will strengthen more right wing populist parties. They hope this leads to Britain leaving the EU.

    Layers of the Liberal Bourgeoisie need a Social Democratic/Lib Dem coalition government in order to protect their EU project. Due to a deepening radicalisation the Guardian paper last week called for Social Democracy to have more influence in Labour. These Liberal Bourgeois elements fearing a pre-revolutionary crisis if Thatcherism and Blairism is continued will attempt to use Social Democracy to contain this radicalisation. That is why Trotskyists have to go through workers experiences of Social Democracy in order to win them to us. As Engels analysed in the mid-1840s that Britain’s ruling class most effective form of mystique necessary for their rule was a Liberal Bourgeois ideology that everything was determined in parliament rather than the streets as in France. This blow to the creditability of Parliament due to expense crisis is what these Liberal Bourgeois elements fear with that prop being weakened dramatically could lead to a pre-revolutionary crisis.
    Posted by Brain on Trotskyist theory

    Like

  6. Tuesday, 9 June 2009
    A reply to Kurt Hill on what British European Elections represents?

    A REPLY TO KURT HILL BY ANTHONY BRAIN.

    Kurt Hill on the SWP USA discussion website criticises my analysis of main dynamics in Britain (see MPS expenses and the Brown crisis). His critique is too impressionist leading to pessimistic conclusions. There is no denying of reactionary trends in the European elections within Britain. In that document I said that these elections would most probably occur in this form but the key thing is how the masses react. In the last 24 hours we have seen spontaneous anti-BNP demonstrations in northern England which includes sizeable layers of youth/students; contingents from different Trade Unions; Gays; and disabled. This could be the beginning of another radicalisation against Fascism.

    That combined with the collapse of Labour vote to 15% with the Tories being a serious threat of winning a general election is shaking Labour as a party from top to bottom. It is interesting to note that if there are 8-11 Billions cut on NHS spending it is going to lead to massive dislocations. Just imagine if there are hundreds of billions in cuts within public services. Kurt Hill does not realise that workers and middle class elements will not tolerate this. In dialectics you have to distinguish between appearance and reality. The European elections appear to strengthen Conservative Bourgeois elements electorally but if that agenda is implemented there could be mass resistance. This explosive situation is added by Fascists winning those two MEPs which are leading to the radicalisation becoming anti-Fascist.

    Social Democrats are utilising most Blairites leaving the cabinet to force Brown back to their policies. Policies these Social Democrats are pushing for include rights for agency workers; stop privatisation of the Post Office etc. Brown may manoeuvre by appearing to concede towards Social Democracy to survive the Blairite leadership challenge and then return to semi-Blairite policies. History will determine what Brown does. On tonight’s Newsnight programme the Unite Union General Secretary Derek Simpson launched a major attack on Brown’s government for not changing policies. This represents the pressure of rank-and-file Trade Unionists who will not tolerate Blairism anymore and the failure of Brown to help them in containing their members’ anger. One thing I am surer of is that is some Blairites split from Labour Brown would have to take the Social Democrats more into his consideration because of a changed social base. Trotskyists argue regardless of manoeuvring by Social Democrats and Trade Union Bureaucrats place demands on them to fight for Socialist policies!

    Hill makes amassing statements for an ex-SWPer (American) which means he was a Trotskyist in the past. He attacks Trotskyists for seeing recession as automatically leading to revolution. Then he introduces terminology associated with Stalinism when he states: “I’m not all that optimistic that progressives will come out on top this time around. It’s not the 1930s”. Popular Front politics led to defeat of Spain’s revolution from 1936-1939 and led to reaction in France after 1937. It was only the Trotskyists who understood (despite Trotsky being wrong that the Soviet Union would be destroyed by World War 2) that reaction would not last forever and the harshness of World War 2 would cause revolutionary upheavals. This is what gave our movement the courage to stand up in that period because they understood as Trotsky wrote the dialectics of history can turn even the most reactionary and counter-revolutionary situations into their opposite into revolutionary possibilities.

    The victory of Soviet forces against Nazi Germany is an example of dialectics in historical processes. It was the Stalinists who led to the victory of Fascism in Germany with their Ultra-Left Third Period policies. Yet it was the same Bureaucratically-led Red Army which included millions of workers which destroyed German Fascism. This shows the dual nature of Stalinism. Stalinism’s main contradiction Trotskyists argue is that their deals with world Capitalism/Imperialism strengthen reaction and counter-revolutions, but the Stalinists have to protect their privileges which are based on workers’ states against attempts by Imperialism/pro-Capitalist forces to overthrow them.

    German Imperialism during the spring of 1945 was developing their nuclear technology. If the Soviet Union had not decisively defeated them German Capitalism under a Fascist regime could have had nuclear weapons. The defeat of German Imperialism by Red Army soldiers provided breathing space for the workers to organise again politically in Western Europe and for Trotskyists to fight for our programme and strategy In Eastern Europe during 1948 the Soviet Bureaucracy overthrow Capitalism. Negatively Stalinism helped Capitalism re-consolidate their rule in Western Europe. In return Capitalism had to concede major reforms such as Welfarism. Then there were the Colonial Revolutions after World War 2 which ended direct Colonialism in most Third World countries.

    Hill is wrong in his suggestion that “progressive” which implies Popular Front policies worked during the 1930s. He is also wrong that objective conditions are today worse than during that period. There have been setbacks in Western Europe but Welfarism has not been destroyed. Fascism’s historic role would be to reduce or destroy Welfarism as the ruling class brings this plebeian middle class and lumpen Proletarian mass movement in order to destroy the organised working class (Trade Unions and different working class political parties) so these policies can be implemented. Griffin demagogically is trying to win semi-Lumpen layers by attacking privatisation of the NHS. The BNP are doing this to gain a base in order to later attack Trade Unions. They will try to do this by demagogically attacking aspects of Capitalism while trying to destroy the organised working class. By being demagogic they try to con layers of their base that once the organised working class are destroyed that they be looked after. This is why they have to be nipped in the bud now before they attack the organised working class and whip up racism. If Labour moves Left this will undercut the BNP considerably because their electoral base in working class areas have not been won to destroying the Labour movement. That is why the BNP are trying to conceal their historic role.

    The workers’ States in Eastern Europe (except for ex-GDR and possibly Kosovo) have not been totally destroyed but seriously weakened. There are Fascist forces in Hungary and the Czech Republic. Their aim is to complete the restoration of Capitalism. At some point they will be in conflict with those Bureaucrats who want to maintain workers’ states. These Fascists are trying to use their limited base in Eastern Europe to try to challenge Russian Stalinist rule. The Russian Bureaucracy is beginning to react. This is one reason why legalisation in Russia banning Fascist formations and may work with other Eastern European Bureaucrats to counter their threat. According to BBC’s six o’clock news tonight it was a Russian TV News agency which tipped of Unite against Fascism (UAF) that Griffin was holding that news conference which anti-Fascists broke up. Trotskyists while supporting the Russian workers’ state banning Fascists, we oppose the rehabilitation of Stalin. Russian Trotskyists would argue there should be the democratic right to challenge Stalin in public debates among those who defend the workers’ state against Fascism. By doing this Russian Trotskyists lay the basis to overthrow Stalinism through Political Revolution while defending the workers’ state against Capitalist restoration.

    The Neo-cons have failed to re-colonialise Afghanistan and Iraq. This has weekend Capitalism in the Imperialist countries. When there are major outbreaks of Racism such as in Big Brother during 2007 mass protests occurred within India. If Fascists carry out programs there will be reactions by oppressed ethnicities within the Imperialist countries and semi-colonies. All these contradictions within the Colonies/semi-Colonies; and workers’ state objectively lay the basis for mass radicalisation within the Imperialist countries. If Fascism grows they are in conflict with global trends and will be resisted by the organised working class and oppressed.
    Posted by Brain on Trotskyist theory

    Like

Leave a reply to ID Cancel reply

Trending