Critique of the AWL on Socialist Action

"The argument between SA and Workers' Liberty is in part: what is most important - workers' self-activity and independent organisation, or nationalised property relations?

Why did Stalinist Eastern Europe collapse?"

This is a strange counter-position surely. If the question is "What was the class nature of x state" then this can only be determined by looking at the relations of production for a Marxist. Certainly bouregois and subjectivist sociologists and political scientists might look at the more superficial features of a state such as the formal levels of democracy and so on, but for a Marxist these features are just that superficial, and subjective. There is formally more democracy, and more self-activity in say Britain than there was in the USSR does this mean that Britain was in some sense a Workers State. In the 18th century Britain's natural economy gave great freedom to peasants to arrange their own economic affairs, and to workers as artisans precisely because such workers and peasants DID own their own means of production, but could this self-activity tell us anything about the class nature of the state? Of course not.

Nor can the fact of nationalised or non-nationalised property be determinate, because it depends on class relations. A society in which all means of production were owned by workers and managed co-operatively would tend to create a workers state, yet there is no requirement that the workers should give up their own ownership in favour of nationalised property. Property could be nationalised, and yet have been nationalised by a Capitalist class. What was distinctive in the USSR was precisely the fact that the exploiting classes had been liquidated prior to the transformation of property relations, and that in Eastern Europe a similar liquidation of these exploiting classes took place.

It might not fit the ideal picture of what a Workers State should look like, but reality often does not turn out to look that way we hoped. The job for a Marxist is not to turn their face against the ugliness of reality, but to analyse the nature of the disfigurement, to understand its causes the better to treat it, and to avoid the causes in future.

“Socialist Action (no 6, Feb-March 1990): "The creation by Gorbachev of conditions for Germany's reunification into a single united imperialist state sets the seal on the catastrophic course on which he has led the international working class movement." Talking of Gorbachev in this way, as if he is a leader of the international working class, is as sensible as describing Margaret Thatcher as a leader of the international workers' movement. SA take Gorbachev at his word: that he is a socialist leader. SA's problem with Gorbachev is: "from the beginning [Gorbachev worked for a] turn to a closer collaboration with imperialism."

However, "any accommodation to [imperialism], or weakness, leads not to peace, stability and advance for the left but to greater aggression by imperialism". This is a simple prescription to turn the socialists into advocates for the most aggressive, hawkish Stalinists.

The first part of this is correct though not absolutely correct. The Soviet bureuacracy held a position essentially the same as Trotsky pointed out as do the Trade Union bureuacracy in the Labour Movement. Trotsky’s attitude in that regard followed on from Lenin’s when Trotsky submitted his resolution to the Politburo over the Anglo-Russian Committee. Trotsky argued that Marxists support such leaders in so far as they are being pushed forward by the mass of the working class. We cannot deny the reality that such leaders ARE the leaders of the mass of workers despite often being the hangmen of workers struggles, unreliable, self-serving and so on. It is that latter point that marxists have to always point up to the mass of workers even at those times when they form a bloc with the leaders. But these leaders are the leaders of organisations and structures to which the mass of workers remain tied, and in order to make a United Front with the workers Marxists have to sometimes make blocs with those organisations DESPITE the leaders, in the case of Trade Unions and parties even of the most reactionary kind have even to work as members of them.

Trotsky’s works up to his last are replete with such criticisms of Stalin’s policy for not being adequate in revolutionary proletarian terms because however much certain Ultra-Left elements in his own organisation might have felt that because THEY recognised the bankruptcy of the Stalinists it was sufficient to simply write them off, many workers still did not do so, still had not written them off, still saw the Stalinists as the actual leaders. It is ultra-Left lunacy then in 1989 to pretend that a few thousand Trotskyists worldwide represent the world working class leadership as opposed to the fact that millions of workers around the world in so far as they look for a workers leadership looked to the Soviet leaders. Yet, of course it is right to criticise SA for writing as though Gorbachev the bureuacrat would do any different than a TU bureuacrat that at every opportunity looks to do a sweetheart deal with the class enemy in order to gain a quiet life.

And it is for this latter reason that the last sentence of the AWL’s makes no sense. Every militant DOES know that trying to do such deals only encourages the bosses to make greater demands, sees it as a sign of weakness, and that was precisely the way Reagan and Thatcher saw Gorbachev’s weakness. To recognise that does not commit you to supporting “Stalinist Hawks” in the sense of supporting “Workers Bomb” type theories, or greater ruthlessness against workers, anymore than opposing doing sweetheart deals with bosses commits you to supporting the hotheads that might want to burn down the factory or smash equipment during a strike, or support those that would want to curtail democracy in the union in order that the views of the leadership went unchallenged under cover of showing a United Front.

“Yes, and the crushing of the Soviet workers by Stalinism led to the emergence of Stalinist imperialism and the over-running of Eastern Europe - but imperialism for SA is something only capitalist states are capable of.”

But as Trotsky pointed out to Burnham and Shachtman the term “Imperialism” means something specific to Marxists. There have been many “Imperialisms” thoughout history, but to treat them all the same is to make the same mistake that Marx accuses the bouregois economists of making – in fact not a mistake in some cases but a deliberate effort to blur distinctions – in relation to Capital by defining all types of machinery throughout history as “Capital” irrespective of the relations of production at the time. That a Workers State might invade another country is not impossible – Lenin argued strongly in favour of the invasion of Poland – and might arise for many reasons, but the reasons will not be the same as those which drive Capitalist imperialism inexorably in that direction, even for a Deformed Workers State. This blurring of Marxist distinctions is a very worrying facet of the AWL’s politics visible in many of its writings in relation to the State, and soemthing it is clearly driven to as were Burnham and Shactman beforehand in order to make their theory fit reality. But as I have pointed out elsewhere it is a strange kind of imperialism which rather than draining resources from its colonies actually pumps its own lifeblood into them as the USSR did into Eastern Europe, Vietnam, China (initially), Angola, Cuba and into the many national liberation movements around the world it supported.

”SA make their support for democratic change in the USSR conditional and they judge Gorbachev's policy by a ridiculous yardstick: "Any shift in the Soviet Union in a leftwards direction would involve a rapid expansion of democracy. But it is absurd to believe such democratisation is itself a left wing shift because it can occur for quite different reasons. If, say, Gorbachev had accompanied democratisation in the USSR with stepped up aid to Cuba and Nicaragua, or the launching of a deeper international campaign against apartheid we would have been dealing with a left wing development."

I agree this is confused. The first part is undoubtedly correct. An extension of democracy is not of itself left-wing. It depends upon the nature of this democracy, and what is driving it. An extension of bourgeois forms of democracy pushed forward by the middle-class or sections of the bureaucracy seeking a capitalist restoration would not be left-wing, and would tend to marginalise workers. An extension of factory and workplace democracy introduced as a result of direct activity by workers for such demands, and feeding through the ordinary worker members of the Party would have been a left-wing development, however, and would have strengthened workers against the former tendencies. Why such democratisation can only be viewed as left-wing if it coupled with increased support for Nicaragua or Cuba is not at all clear other than for the fact that these two were SA’s pet Stalinist States.

”What a mess. Gorbachev was a reforming Stalinist leader - but a reformer whose 'reforms' aimed to aid the ruling class he was the leading representative of. He was not capable of a 'left' policy of any type - because, fundamentally, 'left' and 'right' are judged by an attitude towards the working class (for SA 'left' and 'right' are mainly functions of more or less aggressive policy towards the US and 'imperialism'). Gorbachev's relationship to the Russian workers was that of a reforming Tsar trying to sort out the mess the ruling elite found itself in. His aim was to make the workers pay for the crisis through speed-ups, unemployment, factory closures; 'democratisation' was limited and was intended as a mechanism which could help Gorbachev's system work better - for Gorbachev and the Russian bureaucrats and against the workers. If 'left' and 'right' have any meaning here Gorbachev's policy is another variant of a right-wing policy.”

But this is a worse mess. Why could Gorbachev not have been seen to be following a Left or Right course any more than Trotsky described the zig-zags of Stalin as following a Right or left course??? This makes no sense. Even a Tory Governemtn can be said to be following a course which veers to either the Right or the left so why, other than their pathological rather than Marxist approach to Stalinism, could such descriptions not be applied to Gorbachev?

And yes of course Gorbachev was trying to sort out the mess, but just as in the 1920’s the mess could be sorted out by a Left or a Right course. It is surely legitimate for Marxists to point out that the leader of a huge country that is looked to by millions of workers around the world for leadership is heading down a course which is in the wrong direction! And repeating the mantras about the idea was to make the workers pay, and so on because this was a new ruling class merely betray a lack of detailed knowledge. Firstly, the idea that some new ruling class existed in the USSR is clearly nonsense as I have demonstrated many times previously. Every previous ruling class in history has been centuries in the making. It has had to accrue ownership of themeans of production beneath it, and on that basis over generations develop the class solidarity, and class conscioussness necessary to take, and then hold power. The more dynamic such a class, the more cohesive it is socially the more facility with which it is able to achieve this. That is why as Marx points out the Peasantry although it owned its own means of production, was a massive social class with great potential power could never become the ruling class because it lacked the social cohesion, and the dynamism of say the bourgeoisie to achieve it. The main candidate for such a new class in the USSR – though the proponents of these theories ever specify exactly who this class was because any attempt to actaully name it falls apart like dust in the wind on contact with reality – the bureuacracy were none of these things. They neither owned the means of production – nor were even capable of passing CONTROL from one generation to the next, they were far from dynamic, and they were not only lacjing in any kind of social cohesion, but suffered considerable necessary antagonisms between different sections. Yet we are asked to believe that this new class emerged from nowhere overnight – just by coincidence at the time Lenin dies – and in just two years take power for themselves!!!! Now for a Marxist such a miraculous feat unknown previously in human history would have to signify that the social force acghieving this was something truly remarkable, something truly dynamic and progressive. But no we are told that this force is in fact less dynamic, less progressive even than the bouregoisie.

But anyone that has actually studied the USSR in detail knows that the picture painted does not meet the reality anyway. Like any Trade Union bureuacrat the Stalinists looked to their own interests, but also like any TU burueacrat they had to look to the social base on which they rested. The various schemes in the post-war period particularly Khruschev’s so called Hare Brained schemes had nothing to do with screwing the workers. They were genuine if half baked schemes designed to generally improve productivity – in Khrushev’s case agricultural productivity because he was udner pressure from the peasantry – the consequence of whch would have been to increase the output of consumer goods the major beneficiary of which would have been the working class. And Soviet Planners attempted all kinds of schemes to ensure that production met the needs of workers, including the establishment of Committees of workers to act as Consumer Panels etc. who tested western consumer products in an attempt to match the latest fads and fashions. There was no mechanism within the Soviet economy that drove the bureuacrats to exploit workers more intensely to drive up Surplus Value as there is under capitalism because there was no production of Surplus Value. Like every other state burueacracy in history the Stalinist burueacracy lived not from Capital, not from the extraction of Surplus Value, but from Revenue. And like every social group that lives off revenue there is a desire to see the total product the total quantity of Use Values produced increased, because it is that increase which enables a more lavish lifestyle to be enjoyed. To that extent the interests of the burueaucracy and the interests of the workers were the same, the contradiction between them arises not from the necessary contradiction of exploiter and exploited as is the case under Capitalism, but from the desire to maintain control, and thereby maximise the share of the Use Values being distributed. It is a subjective not an objective contradiction.

The next section of the AWL’s critique rightly rips apart SA’s cringeing in support of the Romanian Stalinists, but it says,

“This last sentence is particularly revealing: SA assume the role of advisor to the 'liberal' wing of the ruling elite - helpfully suggesting a policy for the Front; SA tell their readers that the "guiding light" of a workers' state's policy is to make "concessions" to the workers! Isn't the "guiding light" of a workers' state to be a state of the workers? And how much sense does it make to talk of a workers' state making concessions to the workers?!”

Well of course that is true of a healthy workers state, but no one would claim that Stalinists states WERE healthy workers states, and anyone wanting to cure the sickness would obviously want to do so by moving them in the right direction. But the AWL’s criticism would have more grip were they themselves not still in thrall to Leninism. Perhaps they could have given their advice to Lenin and Trotsky at Kronstadt for instance, or in response to Lenin’s statement to Kollontai and the Workers Opposition that if they really believed in their criticisms they should be voicing them guns in hand.

And in relation to much of the other discussion in this section it is important to acknowledge that we now know – because the CIA have admitted it – that huge amounts of money and resources was pumped into Eastern Europe to support petit-bourgeois organisations, to help print leaflets and newspapers and so on. True such activity can only really take off if there is some tinder for it to light, but the nature of mass movements is not necessarily rational – just look at the way angry mobs gather when they get a rumour of a paedophile on an estate – and in the absence of organised socialist forces to direct the class it is not difficult for some organised force to put itself at the head of a mob. That they were able to do this is not the sad thing, the sad thing is that in 80 years the Marxist movement throughout the world had through its sectarianism so divorced istelf from the working class that it was unable to provide any kind of pole of attraction for the workers of Eastern Europe when they needed it.

On Imperialism

I broadly agree with the AWL’s criticism of SA and the other idiot-anti-imperialists. I disagree with the way the AWL increasingly have moved away from that correct position to one of “Idiot Imperialism” a class neutral view of the state in which they make calls upon imperialism to act progressively in the same manner that they above criticised SA for doing the same thing in relation to Stalinism.

In a conflict such as that between the US and Saddam Hussein Marxists must oppose their own imperialism and work for its defeat, but that does not at all mean they have to side with a Saddam Hussein, any more than they had to side with Galtieri as a concomitant to opposing Thatcher and working for the defeat of her forces in the Falklands. The job of Marxists, particularly those inside the country being invaded is to oppose the invasion by mobilising the truly revolutionary forces as the most ardent fighters, and by pointing out why the forces of other classes cannot be relied upon to wage such a fight, why they will always seek to make some kind of deal with imperialism, and so on.

In Kuwait the background seems fairly clear. The US had sought to weaken its main rival in the area – Iran – by promoting Iraq as its client. In the Iran-Iraq war Iraq showed itself incapable of being a reliable agent for US imperialism. Faced with a growing threat to its main ally in the region – Saudi Arabia – from Al Qaeda, the US needed to ensure its own military domination of the region, and with the USSR now not in the equation to prevent the US exercising its imperialist power unrestrained it set about doing so. It required a pretext. Iraq had already been complaining to the Arab league for some time about Kuwait stealing Iraqi oil by tapping into Iraqi oil deposits from inside Kuwait. The complaints were going nowhere in resolving the situation. Iraq called in the US Ambassador to outline their intention to take military action if the issue was not resolved and sought the US blessing. What proceeded was typical US policy. In the 1950’s the dominant imperialist powers in the Middle East were still Britain and France. When Britain asked the US unofficially to give them the nod for the invasion of Suez the US gave them the wink to a blind horse. As soon as the Suez crisis erupted France and Britain’s position in the Middle East was undermined, and the US was able to step in as the good anti-imperialist. When the US Ambassador was called in by Iraq they simply stated that the matter was a local affair of no concern to the US. Of course, once the invasion took place the US obtained the pretext it required for its own invasion. And we know that the US sought a similar pretext this time round for establishing its long term presence in Iraq, a pretext obtained through nine-eleven and the conscious misrepresentation of information.

”This is disgusting stuff - SA fade out the question of Saddam, the "murdering butcher", as 'historically insignificant' and back Iraq simply because it is a smaller power than the US. Moreover, the US and Britain have installed regimes in Arab countries before - e.g. the Jordanian monarchy - and it is difficult to imagine that such a regime, or any other government they might replace Saddam's rule with, could possibly be as bad as the current regime - for "the Arab people" or anyone else.”

Yes it is, but unfortunately for the AWL, which now equally disgustingly for Marxists, looks to a progressive imperialism, to carry out the progressive tasks, they have lost faith in the working class being able to accomplish, the reality of Iraq is that they HAVE created a regime far worse than Saddam Hussein’s. A regime that rests upon the Imperialist Occupation whose actions the AWL tell us they deplore, but don’t deplore enough to call for it to end.
”However these are different wars. Japan had invaded China with the intention of occupying large parts; the Chinese nationalists' war aimed to kick Japan out of Chinese territory. Iraq, on the other hand had not been invaded and was not seeking to expel a powerful neighbour. SA get it wrong because their parallel is not a parallel.”

But Iraq was occupied by imperialism, and no fly zones were imposed in the North and South. The whole country was not occupied reportedly on the request of the Saudis who feared further unrest should it happen, a fear which the current colonial policy has unleashed.

“SA see the Gulf war as "the first of a new wave of North-South wars, wars conducted by imperialism against the consequences of its economic destruction of the semi-colonial world...[the] period could be dubbed a new era of direct colonialism." (SA no. 8, pg. 4). This prediction, like virtually every prediction made by SA, has been proved wrong. There has been no return to "direct colonialism".
But in actual fact that prediction has turned out not to be so far out. The US has established a colonial regime in Iraq. The US now has three huge bases in Iraq which are clearly there for the long-term, and are intended to constitute the US means of controlling Iraq. These bases are so big that the largest one has an airport only exceeded by Heathrow, and which furnishes what is effectively a US City on Iraqi soil.

That is not to say that imperialism is going to adopt colonialisim as its modus operandi as SA suggest, I don’t think it is. The preferred method of operation is still via bouregois democracies because that has much lower overheads. But increasingly, as economic growth accelerates, and new dynamic economic powers like China, India Russia and Brazil develop with a huge hunger for resources, the US will be led to move from its current move towards Protectionism towards outright grabs for resources where it cannot outbid its rivals. The current US outposts established in the Stans are the front runners of that policy as is the current arming of its main client Saudi Arabia with the latest equipment.

”1. "The regime of capital accumulation in the third world is thoroughly disrupted. Under these conditions local ruling classes cannot be counted upon to be stable enough to guarantee imperialist interests for a prolonged period. With no stable regime of accumulation in the third world the imperialist economies [economies?] are forced once more in the direction of substituting their own direct military intervention...

"The result is a massive reinforcement of direct imperialist military force in the third world. A process of 'recolonisation' of the third world has begun."

2. The next state to receive the same treatment as Iraq is likely to be Cuba, "the Pentagon must be reconsidering the possibilities of a successful military strike against Cuba."

3. No Israeli-Palestinian deal is possible, "of even the most token kind."
"Israel has no intention of making such a deal and the US will not compel it. Confronted with this situation the Israeli regime is likely to start gearing itself up for another war to try to weaken its enemies - this time almost certainly with Syria." And, (SA no. 9, Winter 1990), "Syria's present course of allying with imperialism is strategically suicidal."

4. "There will be a political crisis in the US" due to America's inability to fund the war, and "a US heading into recession has been struck a further blow." (Can the imperialist economies take the strain?, SA no. 7, Summer 1990).
All four of these predictions have been proved utterly wrong. There has been no process of recolonisation of the third world. Regimes in the third world have been, on the whole, more stable than in previous decades. Cuba has not been invaded. Israel has struck a deal, and there has been no Israeli-Syrian war. The US has not gone into political crisis and its economy has not slumped, it has boomed in the 90s. All rubbish.”

Really?

So if we take point 1) the invasion of Iraq and its direct rule by US imperialism didn’t happen then? On 2) well no attack on Cuba yet, but despite increasing moves by European and Canadian Capital towards Cuba the US has, and probably partly because of the above relations of Europe and Canada, tightened its sanctions, and supports terrorist acts against Cuba. On 3) no deal has been reached as far as I am aware, and in fact a two states deal looks more a dead duck now than it ever has. On the back of the US invasion of Iraq, and with the USSR out of the picture Israel did provoke the Intifada, and did invade Lebanon. Finally, on 4)The US economy certainly did go into another recession in 1991, and the increase in oil prices made it worse, and the consequence was that George H. Bush lost the election because in the words of Bill Clinton “It was the economy stupid.”

So without in anyway wanting to support SA in what way were these predictions all proved wrong? In what way were they all rubbish??? If you are going to criticise someone’s position at least have the Marxist honesty to do it on the basis of the facts.

“Of course a colonial people, even led by reactionaries, should be supported in a struggle for self-determination and freedom. That is a basic duty of socialists.”

Unless of course the people are in Iraq where you have tied your fortune to the hope that the imperialist occupation might act progressively, in which case you have to cover your arse by arguing that the people’s struggle against the Occupying power is not really a struggle for national liberation precisely because it is led by “reactionaries” who have to then somehow be passed off as not being part of “the people” at all. In that case self-determination apparently runs through opposing the removal of the colonial power.

“1. "Open a period of the most extreme international reaction, pose a new, qualitative, threat to a large part of the historical gains of the world working class, and that of the peoples oppressed by imperialism."

2. "Unleash a wave of racism that would engulf Europe and probably shatter the framework of liberal politics."

3. "[The imperialists] would attempt to eliminate the welfare state."

4. "In Eastern Europe a new wave of capitalist dictatorship would set in... which would pose a long-term threat to democracy in Western Europe."

5. And if the "Russian Revolution" is "defeated" the consequence would be imperialism re-spreading like a cancer through the world. Moreover, say SA, imperialism would have a new weapon, nuclear weapons, to impose its rule.
The "destruction of the Russian Revolution would re-ignite the open contest of the imperialist powers for the division of the world... [and] a nuclear arms race between the US, Europe and Japan."

Now, in 1999, we can easily draw up a balance sheet of SA's 'perspectives'. And we can conclude that SA's comment was hysterical, babbling nonsense.”

But in 2008 we can draw up another and conclude that perhaps it was not.

1) We have seen the election of a Bush government as the most right-wing government in the US for many years perhaps even more right-wing than that of Reagan. We have seen the growth throughout Europe of outright fascist organisations and even the participation in Austria and Holland of fascist and racist parties in Government. We have seen the development by the US Neo-cons of the theory of the New American Century Project whose goal is to achieve multi spectral dominance of the globe. We have seen increasing tendencies to genocidal warfare around trhe globe. We have seen the US with British support launch an illegal war in contravention of the United Nations,a nd the acceptance as a result of the principal of pre-emption in warfare.

2) We have indeed seen racism and anti-semitism rise dramatically throughout Europe as stated above, including the development of ultra nationalist parties throughout Eastern Europe sometimes even parties achieving governmental power on the basis of nationalistic and racist rhetoric for example in Poland and Hungary.

3) Well the imperialists might not yet have succeeded in eliminating the welfare state, but I would be interested to know if the AWL no longer believe their own propaganda to the effect that they are having a bloody good go at it.

4) Well some of the dictatorships (including those that pass themselves off as democratic) are capitalist, certainly many of those in the Gold Rush region of Central Asia appear to fit that description. I wouldn’t describe Putin’s Dictatorship as capitalist it is pretty much straight forward Stalinist, but its actions certainly do seem to be a threat to other European democracies.

5) I’m not sure what SA mean by “Imperialism” here they seem to confuse it with Colonialism to which I have spoken above. As for “Imperialism” proper their seems little doubt that globalisation represents the spread of Capitalism in a much deeper and wider context thatn previously, and part of the reason for this is that in the absence of backing for nationalist movements, and given the weakness of the working class internationally domestic bouregoisies in developing countries have been able to introduce bouregois democracy more widely,and thereby create the basic conditions required for efficient capital accumulation.

“It is not true … or that there is a new "open contest" for the redivision of the world, or that there is a nuclear arms race between Japan, Europe and the US.”

Really? There are calls in Japan for the Constitution to be changed so that its military can be used in warfare, and even for the ban on possessing nuclear weapons to be lifted. Central Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East and increasingly Africa are the focus of huge battles between particularly China and the US over access to resources. Despite its dire economic position the US continues to devote huge sums to armaments including development of Star Wars 2 including its provocative deployment on the borders of Russia.

“Although racism continues in Europe, the form it takes - currently focused on asylum seekers - is internal to Europe”

No its not there is increasing racism in the US against Latin immigrants. There is increasing anti-semitism both in Europe and the US.

”and as if the Chinese market reforms had not led to great misery for millions of Chinese people and are not bound up with a great increase in unemployment, the creation of gigantic special economic zones where even the minimal workers' rights which exist elsewhere in China are scrapped, the closure of factories, the creation of a new very rich capitalist elite.”

Its certainly true that there was considerable unemployment caused by the privatisation of some of the Chinese SOE’s, but far less than occurred as a result of the privatisations and economic chaos brought about by Yeltsin’s counter-revolution that the AWL supported. But unlike the aftermath of Yeltsin’s counter-revolution the reality in China is that employment grew massively with millions of new workers being drawn into employment with real wages rising at around 10% per year! And its on the back of that that Chinese workers have gained in strength and confidence for some of the recent battles they have undertaken.

The last sentence also seems to give us a glimpse at the kind of contradiction the AWL find themselves in. In the “Capitalist” sector of the economy we are told workers do not have any rights yet in the “State Capitalist”/Bureuacratic Collectivist” sector they do, though minimal. Yet we are told that Capitalism is progressive compared to the new class mode of production introduced by the Stalinists!

”SA advocate a policy for Russia which has been tried in China, by the Chinese bureaucrats, in the interests of the Chinese bureaucrats, which has been a disaster for many millions of Chinese workers.”

I doubt the many millions of Chinese workers and former peasants who now for the first time in their lives find themselves owning houses, driving cars, owning TV’s, computers and all the gizmos western consumers enjoy, and for many even looking at the possibility of foreign holidays would agree that ist been such a disaster. I was talking to someone a while ago whose Mother in Law lives in China. Despite being on a fairly low wage she still manages to save 20% of her income.
”Of course a real workers' government in a former Stalinist state might well introduce some market relations - as part of the process of clearing up the mess left by the bureaucrats. But this would be under the direction of the working class as a whole, in the interests of the workers, with the rights and living standards of the workers protected.”

This is moralistic nonsense of the type Marx argued against in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Market relations by their nature cannot be under the control of anyone or they are not market relations. Its possible to take some areas of the economy out of the market sector – as for example capitalism does where its efficient to do so as with healthcare – but other commodities are either marketised or they are not. If you try to introduce controls then you end up with all the kinds of contradictions and distortions that the USSR faced in the 1920’s,a nd that capitalist economies have faced under wage and price controls. It is a recipe for disaster. Workers can through their own direct ownership of the means of production in co-operative enterprises gradually integrate their activities and forward plans in order to slowly replace the market with democratic planning as and when the technique and ability to do so arises, but to suggest that its possible to simply plan democratically or otherwise (in fact doing it democratically would technically be even more difficult because of the problems of the tyranny of democracy in planning) most of a complex economy from scratch is cloud cuckoo land. And to suggest that this could be done whilst at the same time protecting “the rights and living standards of the workers” is fantasy. Every new mode of production goes through a period during which living standards fall, and where the level of production itself falls. As Marx says in the CGP “Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society”, and to suggest that you can in a Stalinist state – all of which were economically backward – guarantee socialist rights to workers is to write a cheque that is destined to bounce.

”Rather than arguing for international workers' unity across national frontiers, in opposition to the managers, remnants of the old Soviet ruling class and international capitalists, SA propose popular front class collaboration in defence of "Russia" and "Russian industry".

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that we often have to combat in the British labour movement - that British workers have an interest in uniting with their managers and bosses in defence of British industry against foreign competition.”

But the AWL assume what has to be proved here that what exists is a new ruling class. The more appropriate analogy is that given by Trotsky that of the TU bureuaucracy, and the fact is that Marxists would form a common front even with a reactionary TU bureaucracy to the extent that it fought alongside workers and was pushed on by them. That was Trotsky’s critique against the ultra-lefts that rejected such an approach. But of course, yes the TU bureuacrats too would fight in their own way, which is why the Marxists advise the workers even whilst marching alongside them to watch their backs to keep their political independence, and be ready to strike out on their own.

The rest of the article which continues to ramble on is a justification for the AWL’s collapse into Shachtmanite petit-bouregois socialism, and a critique of orthodox Trotskyism. The lack of Marxism is indicated by statements such as,

”Of course state ownership simply begs the question: who 'owns' the state?
For a Marxist, the concept "workers' state" can only be meaningful if the working class holds state power, consciously, through its own organisations.
SA have come to believe that workers' states can be created by militarised Stalinist parties, which are simultaneously anti-capitalist and anti-working class - totalitarian workers' states where the workers have far fewer rights and less control over the state than do the workers in capitalist Britain.”

But for a Marxist this is wrong from start to finish. A Marxist does not look first at the ideological and political superstructure but at the material base on which that superstructure arises i.e. looks at the economic and social relations, at what classes exist in society, and which through its economic and social position is the dominant class. It is that which determines which is the ruling class even if that class does not at the particular moment exercise political power in its own name. The working class whatever the AWL might want to claim is no different than any other class in history. Leninist theory portrays it that way because on the back of such a theory Leninism justifies the need for a revolutionary party that wins political power on behalf of the working class PRIOR to such a social transformation, thereby relegating the working class to the role of foot-soldier in its political revolution, and humble recipient of the Party’s favours after the completion of that revolution. It is a thoroughly unMarxist and elitist theory that has no foundation in the writings of Marx himself who argued instead for the working class to make itself the dominat economic and social class through the establishment by its own hand of workers co-operatives, spread throughout the economy, and the development on the back of that material foundation of socialist class conscioussness, and an alternative workers power and democracy. IN this Marxist perspective there is no room at any point for the development of any burueacracy or elite holding state power separate from the workers as a class that can develop into the abscess that Leninism became in the form of Stalinism.

The AWL do not explain why the concept “Workers State” can only be meaningful if the workers hold power themselves consciously through their own organisations any less than can a bouregois state be a bourgeois state without the bouregoisie themselves necessarily holding power in that way – of which history knows many examples – nor do they explain how they can then define the USSR in its early years under Lenin as being such a Workers State, when in fact none of the conditions they outline as a requirement existed either!!!

Nor do they explain why a Workers State cannot be established by means of an armed intervention – that after all was Lenin’s intention in invading Poland! As Lenin himself pointed out history has known many forms of social transformation, why the AWL believe they alone understand the sole means by which a Workers State can be created is a mystery. As Trotsky pointed out in relation to the Stalinist invasion of Poland Marxists may well oppose such an invasion as being reactionary because it strengthens the idea of bureuacratic revolution, and weakens the principle of independent workers action, but that does not prevent the consequences of such an action having a progressive result. Imperialism’s action in colonising India was reactionary, yet the consequence of that action, the destruction of old moribund economic and social forms, and the introduction of capitalism was historically progressive.

The facts come down to these both the orthodox, post-Trotsky Trotskysist and the Shachtmanite anti-Trotsky Trotskyists had to find a way of squaring an awkward circle. Both had to explain the degeneration into Stalinism whilst retaining their support of Leninism. The Orthodox Trotskyists squared the circle by increasingly turning Stalinism into something that could be reformed. The anti-Trotsky Trotskyists simply wished the problem away, wanting to hide the Stalinist regimes away like a mad auntie in the attic. They simply redefined the problem by declaring the workers states that had been created as not being workers states at all. The AWL apply the same method elsewhere, for example when they define workers in Venezuela as being “careerists” because they do not fit their criteria of what those workers should be like, what they should do, or when they describe workers in the LP as middle class, or when they say they are in favour of self-determination for a people, but not self-determination for an actual people as in Iraq, only their concept of what that people should be. It is the typical castle building of the petit-bourgeois, castles free from any earthly impurity because they are so far up in the air.

See Also:The Nature of the Soviet State