Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category
Communists and the party: a contribution to the debate with the Socialist Movement – In Defence of Marxism
Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks created the most revolutionary party that the world has ever seen. But is the building of a communist party still a relevant task for today? The role of the party in the struggle to overthrow capitalism is a fundamental question that all thinking communists must understand.
[Originally published in Spanish at luchadeclases.org]
This article is the fourth and final part of a series of contributions to a debate with the Socialist Movement in the Spanish State. Parts one, two and three are already available to read.
As we have already stated in the previous contributions to this debate, we fully agree with the comrades of the Socialist Movement that the working class is a revolutionary class, which plays a fundamental role in the transformation of society.
This flows from a materialist analysis of capitalism and the classes that compose it. From their scientific study of capitalism, Marx and Engels came to the conclusion that the working class, due to its role in production, must lead the struggle of all the oppressed, to end class society and thus establish communism.
In any given period, what determines the character of the social classes is the role they play in production and how they appropriate the products of labour.
The unity of interests of the working class is a product of its absolute dependence on the capitalist class to obtain its means of life. Regardless of workers occupations, they are in a constant struggle against the capitalist class to maintain and increase their standard of living. The fight to win a better wage is a struggle against the capitalist class over surplus value; the value that workers produce, for which they are not paid. In this way, capitalism is revealed as a system of exploitation, oppression and theft.
At the same time, the demands of the working class for higher wages and a reduction in the working day finds its historical justification, in that the struggle for surplus value is the driving force of the class struggle under capitalism. It is the justified attempt of the working class to reclaim from the capitalists all the value that workers create through their labour. Or, to put it another way, the class struggle under capitalism is, in essence, a struggle for the appropriation of society's surplus value.
Here we come to our first disagreement with the comrades of the Socialist Movement. In the article Subjecte i estratgia socialista. Una primera aproximaci (Subject and socialist strategy. A first approximation), it is stated that:
To derive the role of the proletariat as a revolutionary subject from their economic conditions, as if it were an automatic mechanism, would be to make one of the mistakes that we are often accused of: economism.
However, in his analysis of the situation in Britain, in his book The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx points out:
Economic conditions had first transformed the mass of the people of the country into workers. The combination of capital has created for this mass a common situation, common interests. This mass is thus already a class as against capital, but not yet for itself. In the struggle, of which we have noted only a few phases, this mass becomes united, and constitutes itself as a class for itself. The interests it defends become class interests. (Our emphasis)
What does it mean to become a class for itself? It means gaining an awareness of belonging to a particular layer of society, with its own social interests and its own historical objectives. These objectives are the result of the class condition as salaried workers, and the relation of this work to the economic system in general. The working conditions themselves therefore necessarily create an environment which promotes class consciousness.
Consciousness is a product of material conditions / Image: public domain
This applies to all layers of society that make up the working class, regardless of whether particular working conditions make certain layers reach class conscious conclusions before others. The consciousness of the working class flows from its material situation, from the production of material life itself. This is the materialist position, which states that consciousness is a product of material conditions, that ideas are a more or less correct reflection of the reality that surrounds us.
Now, the comrades of the Socialist Movement are correct to point out that this process is neither automatic nor instantaneous: it is the expression of the dialectical relationship between the objective situation and the subjective factor, between the given material conditions and the living class struggle. Thus, from the point of view of the proletariat, we agree with the comrades that:
Social classes, as we have mentioned before, exist in an economic situation such that, although it contains the possibility for their manifestation as political subjects, it does not immediately imply this, since this requires an entire historical process of class struggle, through which they can become aware of themselves. (Subjecte i estratgia socialista. Una primera aproximaci, our emphasis)
Class consciousness develops not only through the experiences of workers within the economic structure of capitalist society, but also in the superstructure, through the experience of workers in organisations such as trade unions, political parties, city councils, parliaments etc. In particular, class consciousness develops due to great political and social upheavals, such as repression, wars, social turmoil, general strikes, revolutions, etc
That said, it is important to add that the consciousness of the vast majority of society is not, generally, revolutionary. On the contrary, it tends to be conservative, because it clings to old ideas, traditions, and to the comfort of what people are used to. For the most part, people just want to be able to live peacefully in decent conditions. Who can blame them? Nobody wants major disruptions in their lives.
In addition to this relative impediment on the development of class consciousness, the working class, although sharing common interests, also has heterogeneous components, as the Socialist Movement also points out. Understanding these objective differences is vital, as the working class develops its consciousness unevenly, with some layers far ahead of others due to events.
In last years revolutionary struggle in Iran, for example, it was women, especially students, who were at the head of the movement. They made a very important leap forward, going from being one of the oppressed layers, with a social role limited by the extreme oppression of the regime, to spearheading the fight against Iranian capitalism.
For all that has been said above, in a normal period of relative stability, it is inevitable that only a small layer of workers is willing to embrace revolutionary or communist ideas. The masses of the working class need great events to break their illusions in the system and the dominant ideas of the bourgeoisie, as well as their distrust towards a radical change in society.
What's more, this is admitted by comrades of the Socialist Movement in their article Subjecte i stratgia socialista. Una primera aproximaci. The comrades note that a substantial part of the movement's cadres must be recruited from the proletarianised middle class, since, they suggest, they have a more advanced cultural level than most workers.
What is this if not the admission of the existence of a more advanced, vanguard layer? Is this not also an admission that the party or movement must first be built around a layer of cadres, which constitutes its skeleton? Every communist organisation must strive to recruit among advanced workers and educate members from other social classes in the methods of the working class.
With this in mind, we think that the comrades of the Socialist Movement fall into a contradiction by describing the objective of communists in the following way:
The general objective of a revolutionary organisation is to create the conditions for the possibility of the seizure of political power by the proletariat as a form of the suppression of class society and, therefore, of overcoming bourgeois domination. That is, the objective is to become a hegemonic force. (Subjecte i estratgia socialista. Una primera aproximaci, our emphasis)
Starting from the historical analysis of the labour movement and the objective conditions of our class, we see that in stable times only a small layer of the population reaches revolutionary conclusions in advance. At the same time, we see that it is events, above all, that change the consciousness of the masses. In this sense, wars and revolutions are the events that hammer your conscience with the greatest force and depth.
Let us be clear: the revolutionary organisation does not create the conditions for the seizure of power. It is the insoluble contradictions of capitalism that generate the conditions that force millions to seek to overthrow the system. These contradictions generate suffering, misery, rage, frustration, death, etc. which accumulate over a period of time. This continues until, seemingly spontaneously, thousands or even millions of people, who were previously apathetic, take to the streets. The inspirational struggles around the world in recent years, such as in Ecuador, Kazakhstan, Sudan, etc., demonstrate this. In a revolutionary period, yesterday's consciousness, which lagged behind events, abruptly catches up with reality.
Precisely for this reason, we follow the model of the Bolshevik party. Lenin defended the need for an organisation of revolutionary cadres, trained in theory and practice, capable of uniting different political struggles into a single fight against the capitalist system. This view coincides with the position of the Socialist Movement, who say that the Party is not a mere coordination of fronts, but a global articulation of the proletariat under the same strategy and direction. On this, again, we agree. However, the comrades disagree with the Bolshevik view of the role of communists in class struggle. Thus, in the article Crtica a la qesti organitzativa: desviacions i potencialitats (Critique of the organisational quest: deviations and potentialities), they state:
"The first deviation that starts from this separation between theory and practice conceives socialist theory as a set of principles, statements and premises existing in the world of ideas and that the theoretical task of communists is to search for it, that is, to define socialism a priori and bring it into the world a posteriori. As a result of this conception, the vanguard is understood as that sector that would have accessed these ideas and that must organise the class without its conscious participation. For this reason, we understand the vanguard as a deviation under which there is no possible incorporation of the masses into the organisation, since it is not designed to fulfil the previously defined mediation function, but rather it is a minority with a developed consciousness, but with a limited role in theoretical study and with a very limited impact on mass spaces. Therefore, the root of the vanguard is the erroneous perception of the concept of the vanguard and the consequent disconnection between the masses and the revolutionary organisation. To guarantee this necessary connection, it is necessary for the vanguard to develop itself in parallel with the development of the class consciousness of the proletarian masses, since it is ultimately the vanguard of the proletariat, not an agent external to the class itself. The vanguard falls into contempt for the role of the proletarian masses as active subjects in the transformation of their own conditions and ends up reducing socialism to a work of social engineering where a more just world is schematically created, as with a set square. The masses only have to be convinced of this schemas good intentions in the face of the barbarity of capitalism.
The first thing to say is that Marxist theory is a science based on the objective study of the laws of nature and human society. From these studies, fundamental principles are derived, some of which we share with the comrades of the Socialist Movement: the dictatorship of the proletariat, understood as a regime of workers' democracy that enables the emancipation of all the oppressed, the political independence of the working class, etc.
Like any science, Marxism requires a deep study of all its component parts, starting with philosophy. Due to the time and effort this requires, combined with the objective conditions of the working class, only a minority of workers access these ideas and get organised. Thus, it is not that Marxists do not want to build a mass organisation, but rather the objective conditions imposed by the capitalist system that make this task difficult. However, this is changing. The very development of the Socialist Movement is a symptom of the radicalisation of broad layers of youth and the working class. In other words, the senile decay of capitalism and abrupt changes in the consciousness of millions of people are creating the objective conditions for the development of revolutionary mass organisations in the next period. We will return to this later.
For many years, the Bolshevik Party consisted of several thousand committed workers and youth / Image: public domain
For us, the main error in the analysis cited above is the lack of a dialectical view of the relationship between the masses and the vanguard. Firstly, and as we have already stated, it is not the revolutionary organisations who make the revolution, but the masses.The history of all revolutions internationally shows that not all layers of the working class reach revolutionary and communist conclusions at the same time, even at the beginning of a revolution. Even where the communist party is dominant among the working class, at the beginning of the revolutionary process it continues to organise only a part of it. Hence it is a mistake to try to compare the party to the class, and incorporate into it all the heterogeneity that the latter carries from the previous period. The party, in addition to practising the greatest possible internal democracy, must be homogeneous in its principles, program, methods and goals, which express the objective historical interests of the proletariat. If this were not the case, at the decisive moment it would be paralysed by controversies and disputes that should have been resolved in the pre-revolutionary stage. The important thing is to establish the hegemony of the party in the working class. The main task of the revolutionary organisation the Communist Party then becomes to lead the masses in their struggle. The relationship is similar to that of the head with the body, one depends on the other, but it is the brain that directs the body.
This has been proved countless times in practice. For many years, the Bolshevik Party consisted of several thousand committed workers and youth. This necessary commitment was particularly evident in the dictatorial police state of tsarist Russia, which prevented the formation of proletarian parties and independent unions. Thus, at the beginning of the February Revolution in 1917, the Bolshevik Party did not have more than 8,000 members. By October 1917, however, the party already had more than 200,000 members. It had become a mass party in a country with a working class of 10 million. One in every 50 Russian workers was organised with the Bolsheviks an astounding proportion which was achieved in a very short time. In reality, they had won the confidence of millions of workers and peasants, through the democratic majority that the party had achieved in the Soviets. The question remains: is a revolutionary party with 200,000 members a mass party or a vanguard party? Our answer is concrete: it is both at the same time.
The Bolshevik party was able to play the decisive role during the 1917 Revolution precisely because it had been formed in the previous period on the basis of Lenins method, emphasising the need for a revolutionary leadership made up of cadres, steeled in the class struggle and armed with the ideas of Marxism. Lenin's conclusions were not the result of arrogance or contempt for the masses, but rather were derived from the realities of capitalist society.
The historic task of the working class is to end once and for all the division of society into classes. This is its mission because for the first time in history, it is a class dispossessed of the means of production, that can and must take power into its hands. Concretely, this task translates into the vital need of the working class to have a concrete, finished program and strategy capable of establishing workers' power. Thus, revolutionary leadership becomes a decisive factor in the victory of the class struggle, where the question of taking power is on the agenda.
Once again, we believe that the comrades of the Socialist Movement contradict themselves, when they defend the position cited above, and at the same time affirm that one of the tasks of the communists is to link particular struggles with a general offensive against the system as a whole. Is this not precisely the role of the revolutionary vanguard?
On this topic, Lenin says the following in What is to be done?:
Social-Democracy [i.e. communism] leads the struggle of the working class, not only for better terms for the sale of labour-power, but for the abolition of the social system that compels the propertyless to sell themselves to the rich. (Our emphasis)
The role of a revolutionary organisation is to consciously formulate what the workers come to understand in only a semi-conscious, confused and contradictory way. The task is to start from the objective conditions and the level of consciousness of our class, and continually demonstrate the need to put an end to the capitalist system, the source of all the worlds evils. In a word, the task is to lead.
However, we believe that the position advanced by the comrades of the Socialist Movement is directly contrary to this. In our opinion, if we follow the ideas of our comrades to their logical conclusion, they defend the need to substitute the revolutionary organisation with the class as a whole, thus eliminating the difference between the vanguard and the rest of the working class, leaving no distinction between the leadership and the masses. This is made clear in Crtica a la qesti organitzativa: desviacions i potencialitats:
In this sense, the revolutionary organisation is not only an organisational structure, it is the proletariat itself constituting itself as a revolutionary subject. (Our emphasis)
Studying Marxism teaches us the dialectical relationship between the general and the particular. In this way, the IMT defends the vital importance of building a genuine Communist Party in the fight to overthrow capitalism. Now, concrete tasks flow from the material situation at each moment. Lenin, in What is to be Done? sets out the immediate tasks of the communists in the specific historical moment in Russia, namely: the creation of a professional revolutionary organisation with an all-Russian national newspaper. Thus, he says:
Without a strong organisation skilled in waging political struggle under all circumstances and at all times, there can be no question of that systematic plan of action, illumined by firm principles and steadfastly carried out, which alone is worthy of the name of tactics. (Our emphasis)
Likewise, we must ask ourselves, what is the main characteristic of our time? On the one hand, the enormous objective decline of capitalism, which is leading society increasingly towards barbarism; on the other, the nonexistence of the subjective factor, of the revolutionary party, that can raise the level of consciousness of the masses and lead our class to final victory. This is all the more evident with the recent experience in a whole series of countries, where the masses have demonstrated their enormous potential and capacity for sacrifice without achieving their emancipation from capital. But the development of the revolutionary party, again, is connected to material conditions. Marxist forces have been isolated from the masses during a long period of the rise of world capitalism and the domination of Stalinism. We share one of the conclusions reached by the Socialist Movement:
This analysis shows us that one of our limitations is the current state of our militant forces, which need to experience immediate growth to carry out the objectives that we set for ourselves as a movement. (Subject and socialist strategy. A first approximation, our emphasis)
Thus, starting from the concrete conditions given, we in the IMT think that the immediate task that we communists have, like Lenin and the Bolsheviks during the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, is to build the revolutionary organisation of Marxist cadres. This must be done with a systematic orientation towards the layers of the population most open to the ideas of communism, that is, the youth and working-class youth, as the comrades also say.
Equally important, as we have already stated, is the theoretical education of communists. As far as practical activity is concerned, given the limited strength of the communist forces, it is, in Lenin's words:
The mass communist party should not be proclaimed in the revolutionary process itself but before, with the largest possible mass base / Image: public domain
For that reason, the principal content of the activity of our Party organisation, the focus of this activity, should be work that is both possible and essential in the period of a most powerful outbreak as well as in the period of complete calm, namely, work of political agitation, connected throughout Russia, illuminating all aspects of life, and conducted among the broadest possible strata of the masses. (Our emphasis)
This activity aimed at the masses wherever they are, aims to increase the ranks of the organisation and gain influence and authority within the labour and youth movement. The objective, shared with the Socialist Movement, is to develop as much as possible a revolutionary mass organisation, rooted in the labour movement. However, unlike what the Socialist Movement proposes, for us the mass communist party should not be proclaimed in the revolutionary process itself but before, with the largest possible mass base, because the revolutionary process is necessarily short (weeks, months, a few years) and there is no time for great experimentations once it has begun. The revolutionary tension cannot be maintained much longer than that, otherwise the opportunity is lost and the reaction can take the initiative and spread hesitation in the working class, which suffers the dislocations of social instability, crisis, unemployment, and must live every day, work and collect a salary from the class enemy. By a mass organisation we mean a force composed of at least hundreds of thousands of militants, capable of directing the bulk of the class, and where the organisation would already have an extensive base in the unions, soviets, in the streets, etc.
That is why, even though we share the need to grow as a communist organisation, we disagree with our comrades in the tasks, since they point to the practical issue as a starting point:
The construction of a revolutionary organisation and socialism implies locating oneself in the concrete elements of social reality in order to promote political proposals capable of overcoming the current state of things. The question of strategy and tactics only makes sense if there is a real possibility of putting them into practice through a revolutionary organisation. (Criticism of the search for an organisation: deviations and potentialities, our emphasis)
Although we sympathise with the underlying reason they propose, fighting in a practical way against the system, in the terms proposed by them and within their strategies, the conclusion they draw for the current era is not the construction of the Communist Party, but of activist organisations that contest capitalist hegemony through control of the social system and production process. We have already taken a position on this issue here (see section two).
Returning to the concrete question, in the years 1919-1923, the immediate tasks of the communists were completely different. There was revolutionary ferment throughout Europe, and the seizure of power was on the order of the day. In Russia, the Bolsheviks had marked the way forward, and the International was made up of mass communist parties in a whole series of countries: Germany, France, Italy, etc. Under these conditions, the communists had to prepare for the seizure of power, and they had the responsibility not only to intervene in the class struggle, but also to initiate battle. Simply put, they were in a position to lead broad masses of the working class and the oppressed into class war with the aim of seizing power.
In the writings of the first four congresses of the Communist International, all of which were held during Lenin's lifetime, we see how practical tasks derive from the development of perspectives from the point of view of Marxism. Flowing from these perspectives, the specific tactics to be applied were developed, taking into account the situation of the class struggle, the revolutionary ferment, the strength of social democracy, and the class forces themselves. This is the method to follow, which is based on Marxist philosophy, dialectical materialism.
Thus, the current task of the communists is to prepare for the socialist revolution by developing the organisation so that, once the masses move decisively against the system, with leaps forward in their consciousness, it can correctly lead the working class in its historic task.
This development involves urgently prioritising the growth of the organisation and the relentless defence of Marxism. As we have already explained, this growth must be connected to participation within the labour and student movement, to link and raise partial, immediate demands to the need to end capitalism as a whole.
Above all, it is absolutely necessary to build an international organisation that defends the programme of revolutionary Marxism in a concrete way throughout the world. The Communist Party must intervene decisively in each national revolution that develops in the next period. The Communist International must direct and concentrate the effort of the world working class to overthrow the global capitalist system. Only then will it be possible to end the barbarism of capitalism through the revolutionary emancipation of all the oppressed.
We raise our criticisms of some of the comrades positions in a constructive manner and with great respect for the courage and determination with which they have launched themselves into the struggle and built their movement. We may have some differences, which we are not going to hide or minimise. But we have learned from the history of the communist struggle, especially from the first four congresses of the Communist International where everyone could express their opinion and differences, before the Stalinist degeneration of the International that there is no problem in having differences. That is, so long as they are addressed in a fraternal manner, without distorting the points of view of the other party, and with the aim of raising the level of the discussion and the political level of the comrades. In the end, it will be events that will illustrate which parts need to be corrected and which not.
In the meantime, we will closely follow the development and progress of the Socialist Movement, to which we wish the greatest success and with which we hope to collaborate, not only in a fruitful exchange of ideas, but in common work wherever we agree.
View original post here:
Communists and the party: a contribution to the debate with the Socialist Movement - In Defence of Marxism
Tags:
Leipzig Book Fair: David North to present his book Leon Trotsky and the Struggle for Socialism in the Twenty-First … – WSWS
Mehring Verlag, the publishing house of the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party) in Germany, will be presenting its new titles at the upcoming Leipzig Book Fair. The highlight will be the book launch of Leon Trotsky and the Struggle for Socialism in the Twenty-First Century by David North.
North has been active as a revolutionary journalist, historian and political leader in the international Trotskyist movement for more than half a century. He is chairman of the International Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Site and chairman of the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) in the US.
North is the author of many important Marxist writings and books, including The Heritage We Defend: A Contribution to the History of the Fourth International; The Crisis of American Democracy; In Defense of Leon Trotsky; The Russian Revolution and the Unfinished Twentieth Century; The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left and A Quarter Century of War: The US Drive for Global Hegemony 19902016.
In May, Mehring Verlag will publish Norths latest book The Logic of Zionism: From nationalist myth to the Gaza genocide. The work is highly topical and can be pre-ordered at the Mehring Verlag stall at the Leipzig book fair. It contains several lectures dealing with the historical background and causes of the Gaza genocide by the Israeli regime and military.
The ideological and political foundations of Zionism, which emerged at the end of the 19th century in opposition to the socialist labour movement, are examined. The virulent nationalism of Zionist ideology was the basis on which the expulsion of the Palestinians began in 1948 and the state of Israel was created.
The book Leon Trotsky and the Struggle for Socialism in the Twenty-First Century, which North is presenting on Saturday, comprises texts that he has written over the last 40 years. The foreword states:
Despite the many years that separate the first and last document, they are connected by a central argument: that Leon Trotsky was the most significant figure in the history of socialism during the first four decades of the twentieth century, and that his legacy remains the critical and indispensable theoretical and political foundation of the ongoing contemporary struggle for the victory of world socialism.
Trotsky is a historical figure whose active influence upon contemporary events has extended far beyond his lifetime, argues North. His writings are studied not only for the insight they provide into the events of the first four decades of the last century, but also as analyses essential for understanding and intervening in present-day events. And further: The present world situation bears more than just a disturbing resemblance to that described so acutely by Trotsky eighty-five years ago.
As in 1914 and 1939, the imperialist countries are once again launching a world war, which began in Ukraine with NATOs war against Russia, is continuing in the Middle East with the genocide against the Palestinians and provocations against Iran and is leading to a war against China. German Defence Minister Pistorius demands that Germany must once again become fit for war, meaning the subordination of all human and material reserves to the pro-war course. It means social cutbacks, an increase in the levels of exploitation, compulsory labour service for the unemployed and the obliteration of young people as cannon fodder.
Trotsky fought against imperialist violence and mass slaughter during the First World War. Only the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, which he led alongside Vladimir Lenin, put an end to the carnage.
In depth
Leon Trotsky
Leon Trotsky (1879-1940), was the co-leader of the 1917 Russian Revolution, socialist opponent of Joseph Stalin, founder of the Fourth International, and strategist of world socialist revolution.
In his writings of the 1920s and 1930s, Trotsky warned that humanity was heading for a new world war if capitalism were not overthrown. After the coming to power of the Nazis in 1933, thanks to the policies of Stalin and the German Communist Party (KPD), he intensified these warnings.
The lessons of that time, which Trotsky drew out like no other, are of paramount significance in the current situation. Anyone horrified by the escalation of the war in Ukraine and the genocide in Gaza must ask him or herself how these bloody wars can be stopped.
Trotsky insisted this was only possible through the mobilisation of the working class against capitalism. A correct policy against war consisted of two elements, he wrote in 1938, in the founding programme of the Fourth International: Irreconcilability towards imperialism and its wars, and the ability to draw on the experience of the masses themselves. Appeals to governments, futile hopes for a multipolar world and the like will not bring about any change today either.
Last year, the Fourth International, which Trotsky founded following the betrayal of Stalinism, celebrated its centenary. In 1923, the Left Opposition emerged under Trotskys leadership to oppose the degeneration of the first workers state in Russia.
To mark the occasion, Mehring Verlag published three works by Leon Trotsky in German, which are among his most important works: Whither France?, Portrait of National Socialism (Portrt des Nationalsozialismus) and History of the Russian Revolution (in two volumes).
Whither France?, published for the first time by Mehring Verlag, contains Trotskys articles from 1934 to 1938 on convulsive political developments in France. These were decisive years for the fate of France and Europe, explains Peter Schwarz in the foreword. Under the pressure of the Great Depression, which led to mass unemployment, widespread poverty and fierce class struggles worldwide, bourgeois democracy collapsed. The preface continues:
Leon Trotskys writings reproduced here are the key to understanding the events of that time and the lessons learnt from them, which are of burning relevance todayin the face of escalating wars, fierce class struggles and the resurgence of fascist parties. Trotsky did not write as a passive observer, but as a revolutionary Marxist. He fought against the Stalinists popular front policy, which paralysed and politically disarmed the working class, and provided perspectives with which the working class could break through this paralysis and conquer political power.
Together with his French comrades, Trotsky developed political initiatives and an Action Programme for France to break the stranglehold of the bureaucratic apparatus. The latter is published as an appendix, as is Trotskys Letter to the French Workers of June 10, 1935, at which time he was expelled from the country by the French government and forced to find asylum in Norway.
The texts have been thoroughly revised and checked against the French and Russian editions. The volume is supplemented by a chronology, a list of organisations and publications, a list of persons and an index.
Trotskys work Portrait of National Socialism, published in a second edition, now contains additional articles on the national and world economy, centrism and the participation of the German Communist Party in the Nazi referendum to overthrow the Social Democratic government of Prussia in 1931.
In the foreword to this new edition, chairman of the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei Christoph Vandreier writes:
The Nazi seizure of power on 30 January 1933 marked a terrible turning point in the history of the 20th century and led to the worst crimes in human history: the Nazi terror, the extermination of six million Jews, organised down to the last detail, and the barbaric war of extermination against Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.
Leon Trotskys writings on Germany offer an unrivalled understanding of the events and dynamics that led to this catastrophe. The famous anti-war activist and writer Kurt Tucholsky expressed his admiration that Trotsky, in his exile on Prinkipo, 2,000 kilometres from Berlin, had a clearer view of events in Germany than any of his contemporaries.
Renowned German journalist and satirist Kurt Tucholsky described Portrait of National Socialism as splendid and a masterpiece that contained everything, absolutely everything.
The third work by Trotsky from the current Mehring publishing programme is the History of the Russian Revolution. First published in 1930, it is one of the most important and brilliant historical works of the 20th century.
Mehring is publishing the work in Alexandra Ramms very good translation, which was approved by Trotsky. Obvious errors have been corrected, pictures and maps have been added and a detailed list of individuals has been compiled.
David North, in his book mentioned above, The Logic of Zionism: From nationalist myth to the Gaza genocide, poses the question: What will it take to put an end to all this? And he answers:
Not individual acts of revenge, not personal acts of self-sacrifice, but a turn to the working class, the only social force that has the capacity to bring capitalism to its knees and thus destroy the foundations of militarism, because of its objective role in the capitalist production process, its position in relation to the productive forces, its potential economic power and its global character.
North continues:
So turn your anger and indignation into effective political action, into a determination to master Marxist theory, to appropriate the lessons of history and to familiarise yourselves with the great revolutionary struggles of the last century.
This begins with studying the books published by Mehring Verlag. You can visit the Mehring Verlag stand (Hall 5, Stand F111) at the Leipzig Book Fair, March 21-24.
David North will present his new book Leon Trotsky and the Struggle for Socialism in the Twenty-First Century on Saturday, March 23 from 12:00 to 12:30 pm in the Non-Fiction Forum in Hall 5 (A100).
In depth
History of the Fourth International
The International Committee of the Fourth International is the leadership of the world party of socialist revolution, founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938.
Go here to read the rest:
Leipzig Book Fair: David North to present his book Leon Trotsky and the Struggle for Socialism in the Twenty-First ... - WSWS
Tags:
Portugal’s Socialists Highlight the Rot Within the European Left – The European Conservative
Antnio Costas eight years as prime minister of Portugal reached an ignominious end on 7 November 2023, when the justice authorities carried out a total of 43 raids on government buildings and homes, including the prime ministerial residence. They were investigating misuse of funds in ambitious green energy initiatives into which European Union funding was being ploughed. The smooth, paternalistic lawyer concluded within hours that his position had become untenable and he announced that he was quitting (to be followed by an insistence that he had no plans to resume office). Over 75,000 was discovered in wine boxes and bookshelvesmoney belonging to his chief aide, Vtor Escria, who was placed under arrest. Costa himself figured in a long list of suspects but insisted (and continues to insist) that he is blameless, which may well be the case. But he was the 13th member of his government to swiftly vacate office because of criminal investigations or conflicts of interest. Soon after, yet more government ministers would be facing the attentions of state investigators.
On Sunday, 10 March, in what was the third general election in five years, the Portuguese electorate removed the Socialist Party (PS) from power. It lost heavily, but the centre-right, the nominal winner, hardly budged. It was the surge in support for the populist challenger Chega (the word means enough in Portuguese) that made this a watershed election. Its support soared from 7% to 18% on a turnout of 64%, up nearly 12% since the last election. The young turned out in big numbers. They cast their votes for Chega in the hope that it could sweep away the torpor and the cronyism and promote structural change that could stem the hmorrhage of population that has been visible since the Eurozone crisis, from 2009 onwards.
Only the over-55s have remained broadly loyal to the Socialist Party. It had created a strong power base within an ageing electorate by depicting itself as the guarantor of social protection, much of which was paid for from EU transfer funds. A steady cash flow from Brussels passed through the hands of Socialist power brokers in local councils and state agencies. Patronage structures became embedded, which made it hard for the Left to be dislodged from office. Only its chronic economic mismanagement of the country, which intensified the effects of the Eurozone crisis for Portugal, condemned it to opposition status.
The early decades of the century have been very frustrating for young Portuguese. A declining level of productivity means that when they can acquire a job it will often be in a low-wage sector such as tourism. The money earned is rarely enough to be able to start a family. One in three Portuguese aged 15-39 have left Portugal, either to avoid unemployment or the high taxation on their paltry salaries, if they are even able to break into a tightly regulated labour market.
Chegas fluent, and self-confident leader, Andr Ventura, won over enough young people to place his party firmly on the electoral map. He has a varied career profile, unlike the worthies from the mainstream parties, which are staffed by lawyers or local government barons who often have backgrounds in teaching or public administration. His partys vote appears to have more than doubled, which means that a party which didnt even exist five years ago will now have 49 deputies elected. Late results seem set to give Chega two of the four seats allocated to the numerous Portuguese living overseasa group with no love for the blockedpolitics they left behind. Ventura is a professor of law who later became a popular radio sports commentator. His verbal prowess enables him to be a dominating presence in the National Assembly, and his social media followers outnumber those of the other main political contenders added together.
Conversely, the new leader of the PS, 46-year-old Pedro Nuno Santos, proved no match for Ventura on the campaign trail. Santos exemplifies the tendency across Europe for left-wing parties to choose leaders who promote a political order based on virtue rather than the ability to get things done. Santoswas infrastructure minister until his removal by Costa, in 2022, after he announced the location for a much-disputed new airport serving the capital, when the PM was out of the country, and without having cleared it with him. More seriously, billions of euros were wasted in a saga over the state airline, TAP, which is seen as one of the favourite sinecures of the PS. Originally privatised when the centre-right was in office, it was re-nationalised only for its privatisation to be arranged once again at huge cost to the exchequer but with no visible benefit.
Like any number of prominent Socialists across Europe, Santos owes practically his entire career to the party from student days onwards. From his teenage years, he has been a full-time politician, drawn from a middle-class family in business, the bulk of whose wealth derives from trading with the state. His attention is focused on redistributing wealth, not producing it. Just like the more moderate Costa, he lacks an economic vision for Portugal. He obtained the leadership by emphasising far-left themes requiring people to make major adjustments to their lives in order to fit in with the lofty climate and racial equality agendas imported from elsewhere.
Except for Chega, the aspirants for office are a pretty dull and uninspiring lot, perhaps because Portugal has been content to follow EU directives on most aspects of domestic policy. In office for most of the last third of a century, PS oversaw a period when what was once a trading organisation massively expanded its reach over perhaps most aspects of governance. The opening up of the Portuguese economy to competition from the rest of the EU has resulted in the shrivelling of the countrys once respectable industrial base and the rapid decline of its agriculture.
Most of the nations political players have come to accept Portugals dependency status because supervision is accompanied by what seems like a generous injection of funds on a regular basis. Portugal has thus far received 133 billion worth of EU funding, from joining the entity in 1986 to the start of 2023 (a figure that does not include the large amount released in order to promote post-COVID economic recovery). The property sector and infrastructure have benefited from this injection of funding. These are sectors which do not strengthen the labour market or long-term growth. Perhaps the lions share of EU funding goes into maintaining a large social state. The PS is careful to channel the money towards its own support groups via state agencies, where the party often has a strong grip.
A recent best-selling work, As Causas do Atraso Portugus (The Causes of Portugals Backwardness) by Nuno Palma, an economics professor at the University of Manchester, contends that Portugal would be better off in the long-run ifwithout leaving the EUit were weaned off external support from the EU and required to stand on its own two feet to carry out long-overdue structural reforms.
Arguably EU largesse has been a recipe for social stability. It has kept elite quarrels to a minimum and muffled social and economic tension. Without the avuncular supervision of the EU, it is an open question whether the liberal republic could have endured for so long. But the price has been high in terms of stagnation. As well as declining productivity, the Socialists have been content to preside over both a rate of emigration unsurpassed since the 1960s, and one of Europes lowest birth-rates. Moreover, the political class does not have to account for how the money from Brussels is spent. Checks are lax, and the heavily-subsidised local media rarely makes life difficult for the authorities by investigating potential scandals.
EU structural funds exist to narrow the gulf between rich and poor EU states and promote eventual economic convergence. Portugal is not the only country where this lofty goal has been forgotten, but it is perhaps one of the most glaring examples at present. Social mobility has declined, as favoured groups (often linked to those who wield influence) succeed in determining recruitment on informal rather than meritocratic criteria. More importantly, structural reform is ruled out in favour of gaining short-term advantages by the Machiavellian distribution of EU funds. Perhaps the main beneficiaries of the externally shaped status quo in Portugal are not vulnerable social groups relying on state help but rather cartels in the media and commerce. There is evidence that they are able to receive state financing, or else are shown leniency over price-fixing, in return for backing during elections and times of crisis.
It is perhaps no coincidence that the major media companies, with their plunging circulations and disappearing profit margins, have appeared keen to prevent Chega enjoying a major breakthrough in this election. Nevertheless, early results show that Portugal has become the latest European country where populists have broken through.
Even though his party now seems destined for opposition, Antnio Costa could still be the one who has the last laugh. If the authorities decide that he has no case to answer, he could end up holding the top job in the EUs European Council. He was seen as a favourite because of his negotiating skills and the friendships he had built across the political spectrum. Indeed, some allege that he neglected his duties at home to lobby for this position. It is unelected and it seems that such positions are the ones left-wingers on the continent of Europe have the best chance of acquiring these days.
Meanwhile, his successor Pedro N. Santos surveys the ruins of the Socialist house. The PS has lost 43 seats and has seen its vote share reduced by 13%. It was pinning its hopes on next months celebrations to mark the 50th anniversary of the army coup in Lisbon that placed Portugal on a long leftist path to socialism. However, the occasion is more likely to seem like a funeral than a festival.
Chega has eaten into the Lefts support base in what used to be its southern strongholds. Dismissing the vigorous political upstart as far-right means that the PS and parties further to the left (which mostly fared disastrously on 10 March) are besmirching many of their former supporters, and potentially alienating them permanently. The final bitter pill to swallow is that Chega will get nearly 4 million of state aid while PS funding has been slashed.
A majority right-wing government able to determine its spending priorities and its reform aims would have four years to dismantle the empire which the PS has constructed within the state apparatus, one that has enabled party bigwigs and their lieutenants to do business in politics with other peoples money.
The PS notables played the system and refused to govern. Santos and his shrinking army of Socialist sloganisers will be pinning their hopes on Chega playing a strong hand badly, resulting in it crashing to earth once early elections take place. This could be a forlorn hope. Most of Chegas 49 deputies are unlikely to be of any special calibre, though some may prove pleasant surprises. But in Ventura, the party has a skilful and tenacious commander. He currently has no equal elsewhere in Portuguese politics.
A low-grade political class, devoid of leadership, intellect and, above all, a sense of public service has got what it deserves. Enough voters deserted the Left, or else gave up on their non-voting habits, to place a new contestant in the game. Whatever comes next, the sterile two-party system, dominated by a swarm of usually unprepossessing careerists, looks like it has had its day. A critical mass of Portuguese have shaken off their deference and chronically low expectations.
Enough Portuguese seem still to believe in the nation and its need for long-overdue structural reforms in order for it to remain viable and keep its citizens productive and at home, rather than successful but abroad.
To the dismay of a shabby political class recruited to pursue business in politics and ill-equipped to perform its national duties, the Portuguese have suddenly become alert, vocal, and even demanding. A people too readily dismissed by the political bosses as ignorant, stupid, and incapable, seem at last to have awakened. It will be quite a job getting them to go back to sleep, especially because of the uproar that is occurring across Europe. Socialists who lost touch with electoral bases, and instead ended up pushing niche causes incubated in universities or woke boardrooms, are now struggling to stay relevant. In Portugal, the chances of them putting in place a status quobased on the post-national objectives dreamt up by European bureaucrats, corporate managers, and woke activistssuffered a considerable setback on 10 March. There is now a small window of opportunity for Portugal to renew itself, so that anniversary celebrations next month in favour of liberty might ring a little less hollow.
This essay was originally published at Scotview. It has been edited for length and is republished with kind permissionoftheauthor.
Read the original post:
Portugal's Socialists Highlight the Rot Within the European Left - The European Conservative
Tags: