Bourgeois Democracy Crumbles As It Defends Its Genocide - Part 3

The line that it was okay to criticise the actions of Israeli governments was always a lie, as every such criticism led to the same claims of them really being a cover for anti-Semitism, but if its not possible to criticise the actions of the Zionist state, a Bonapartist state, headed by Netanyahu, but governed by its Zionist ideology, as it visibly and undeniably commits genocide in Gaza and, increasingly the West Bank, when would such criticism be valid, and not characterised as “anti-Semitic”?! 

The contradictions have fully matured, and erupt violently, as appearance and reality collide. It has been erupting on the streets of the world's major cities, every weekend for months, and, now, it is erupting on college campuses in the US, Australia and elsewhere, reminiscent of the student protests against the Vietnam War in the 1960's. For regular readers of this blog, that should come as no surprise, as it is what has been analysed for years, on the basis that we are in an equivalent phase of the long wave cycle as that of the early 1960's.

Bourgeois-democracy is a sham, and a fraud. It was most easily seen to be so, in the early 19th century, when it took the form of liberal-democracy that only gave the vote to the owners of property. That led to an inevitable demand for a widening of the franchise by workers, and other sections of the masses, the petty-bourgeoisie and peasantry. The means of engaging in the struggle for the extension of those bourgeois-democratic rights, by workers, however, were inevitably proletarian, not bourgeois.

The Chartists, in Britain, for example, pursued their aims by the organisation of General Strikes, and mass mobilisations, and, for some, the mobilisation of independent, proletarian, armed struggle. It was precisely those methods that Marx and Engels advocated, as they warned the workers against being suckered in by the claims of their erstwhile allies amongst the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie. It was the same approach taken by the Bolsheviks, in 1905 and 1917, when, in pursuit of the demand for a bourgeois-democratic, republic and convening of a Constituent Assembly, they argued for the creation of soviets/workers' councils, as independent organs of workers self-government.

But, capitalism, as it entered its imperialist stage, towards the end of the 19th century, dominated by large-scale, socialised, industrial capital, was not only able to accommodate the demands of workers for higher real wages, as productivity rose sharply, but it actively encouraged it. It needed ever larger markets, and workers formed the largest section of society. Moreover, these higher real wages helped to reinforce the idea, promoted by social-democracy, that labour and capital had the same common interests that could be advanced, more or less harmoniously, given the occasional falling out, and need for diplomacy and compromise, mediated by a growing, social-democratic, professional middle-class, whose job was to manage such relations, on behalf of the good of “society”.

Liberal bourgeois democracy, had become a fetter on the free and rational development of bourgeois-democracy, just as the monopoly of private capital had become a fetter on the rational development of capital itself. The latter fetter was “burst asunder”, as Marx puts it, in Capital I, by the development of socialised capital in the form of the cooperatives, and more extensively in the form of the joint stock companies/corporations. Alongside this development, liberal democracy gave way to social-democracy, based upon the delusion of universal suffrage, and the idea that power resides in elected parliaments, rather than in the hands of the permanent state, its civil service, bodies of armed men, judiciary, and its ideological apparatus operating through the schools and universities, the media, and religious and cultural organisations.

Back To Part 2

Northern Soul Classics - Thank You Baby - Soul Brothers Six

 

Friday Night Disco - You're The First, The Last, My Everything - Barry White

 

The Chinese Revolution After The Sixth Congress, 5. Appendix – A Remarkable Document - Part 4 of 10

In China, neither imperialism nor the Chinese capitalist state was defending workers' interests. Imperialism was clearly tied to the Chinese militarists, as well as having its own bodies of armed men, in the country, to oppress the workers, and to defend its own interest. As Trotsky points out, the KMT was the party of the bourgeoisie, which, itself, was intimately tied to imperialism. The KMT's claim to be “anti-imperialist” was bogus, because of that, and amounted only to playing off one imperialist power against another. Trotsky made the same point about Ukraine, where, again, different sections of society looked to different imperialists to further their specific interests.

“Only hopeless pacifist blockheads are capable of thinking that the emancipation and unification of the Ukraine can be achieved by peaceful diplomatic means, by referendums, by decisions of the League of Nations, etc. In no way superior to them of course are those “nationalists” who propose to solve the Ukrainian question by entering the service of one imperialism against another. Hitler gave an invaluable lesson to those adventurers by tossing (for how long?) Carpatho-Ukraine to the Hungarians who immediately slaughtered not a few trusting Ukrainians. Insofar as the issue depends upon the military strength of the imperialist states, the victory of one grouping or another can signify only a new dismemberment and a still more brutal subjugation of the Ukrainian people, The program of independence for the Ukraine in the epoch of imperialism is directly and indissolubly bound up with the program of the proletarian revolution. It would be criminal to entertain any illusions on this score...

The worker and peasant masses in the Western Ukraine, in Bukovina, in the Carpatho-Ukraine are in a state of confusion: Where to turn? What to demand? This situation naturally shifts the leadership to the most reactionary Ukrainian cliques who express their “nationalism” by seeking to sell the Ukrainian people to one imperialism or another in return for a promise of fictitious independence.”

(Problem of the Ukraine)

The same is true in Ukraine, today, with the Ukrainian capitalist state oppressing Ukrainian workers in the interests of the Ukrainian oligarchs, who are intimately tied to US and Western imperialism. The claims of Zelensky's corrupt capitalist government, as with the claims of the KMT, to be “anti-imperialist”, as it opposes Putin's invasion, is wholly bogus for the reasons Trotsky described, in relation to China and Ukraine, in the 1930's. He made exactly the same analysis in relation to Czechoslovakia.

“Even irrespective of its international ties Czechoslovakia constitutes a thoroughly imperialist state. Economically, monopoly capitalism reigns there. Politically, the Czech bourgeoisie dominates (perhaps soon we will have to say, dominated!) several oppressed nationalities. Such a war, even on the part of isolated Czechoslovakia would thus have been carried on not for national independence but for the maintenance and if possible the extension of the borders of imperialist exploitation.”

Those examples, as with the position of the social-patriots and social-imperialists, today, in relation to Ukraine, are simply a repetition of the deception carried out by them, in WWI, as described by Lenin in the Theses On The National and Colonial Questions, in which they dress up defence of the fatherland in the clothes of national independence and national self-determination. The most blatant example of that is the defence of Zionist imperialism, in Israel/Palestine, on grounds of a bourgeois-defencist position of “a right of self-defence” for capitalist states.

“Recognition of internationalism in word, and its replacement in deed by petty-bourgeois nationalism and pacifism, in all propaganda, agitation and practical work, is very common, not only among the parties of the Second International, but also among those which have withdrawn from it, and often even among parties which now call themselves communist...

The age-old oppression of colonial and weak nationalities by the imperialist powers has not only filled the working masses of the oppressed countries with animosity towards the oppressor nations, but has also aroused distrust in these nations in general, even in their proletariat. The despicable betrayal of socialism by the majority of the official leaders of this proletariat in 1914-19, when “defence of country” was used as a social-chauvinist cloak to conceal the defence of the “right” of their “own” bourgeoisie to oppress colonies and fleece financially dependent countries, was certain to enhance this perfectly legitimate distrust.”

Back To Part 3

Bourgeois-Democracy Crumbles As It Defends Its Genocide - Part 2

The chaos caused in Libya spread into Mali and other parts of North Africa, and, again, it has opened the door for rivals to fill the void, most notably the role of the Russian Wagner Group, as China, also, continues to expand its economic reach. Similarly, US imperialism promotes the Zionist genocide against the Palestinians, because, much as with Sherman's genocide against the Native Americans, and the European Colonialists' genocides against indigenous peoples in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere, it is necessary to establish its unchallenged position, as a Zionist state “from the river to the sea”, as its doctrine commits it, and as the laws of capital, in the age of imperialism requires it to do. Only then can it begin to create that wider politico-economic bloc with the other US clients in Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf states, free from the repeated rebellions of the Palestinians, and the support for them amongst the Arab masses that obstructs the actions of their rulers.

Such a development is also in the interests of EU imperialism. Indeed, it is more so than for US imperialism, in the longer run, because a stabilisation of the region, and its economic growth, will mean far greater trade, and investment opportunities for EU imperialism, as its closer neighbour. So, it is no wonder that the political representatives of US, UK and EU “democratic imperialism” have been prepared to move heaven and earth to support the genocide undertaken by Zionism in Palestine, and to claim that black is white, as they try to deny it is happening. For years, they have equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, a strategy used even more intensively and fraudulently, in recent years, as they sought to attack the Left, for example, against Corbyn and his supporters.

In the 1930's, when that same “democratic imperialism” was seeking to dupe the masses into support for its imperialist wars against Germany and Japan, it did so by claiming that it was engaged in a war for “democracy”, all the while holding millions of colonial slaves in chains! As Trotsky noted,

"Three hundred fifty million Indians must reconcile themselves to their slavery in order to support British democracy, the rulers of which at this very time, together with the slaveholders of “democratic” France, are delivering the Spanish people into Franco’s bondage. People of Latin America must tolerate with gratitude the foot of Anglo-Saxon imperialism on their neck only because this foot is dressed in a suede democratic boot. Disgrace, shame, cynicism – without end!"

(Phrases and Reality)

It does so, today, aided not only by the likes of imperialist politicians such as Biden and Starmer, but also, of social-imperialists of the type of the USC, and its components such as the AWL, who play the same role, today, in that regard, as did the Stalinists and centrists in the 1930's. They have been complicit in this narrative of imperialism, including in its use of anti-Semitism witch hunts in the labour movement. But, to do that, they also had to claim that it was okay to criticise the actions of Israeli governments, even though, in practice, nearly every such criticism was met with the same charges of anti-Semitism.

The line that it was okay to criticise Israeli governments, rather than the racist, colonialist ideology of Zionism, which underpins that state, was also meant to enable imperialism to pressure those Zionist governments, such as that of Netanyahu, which were seen as too maverick, uncontrollable, and representing the same kind of petty-bourgeois interests as those of Trump, Truss, and so on. It is the same motivation that leads to liberal Zionist newspapers such as Ha'aretz, to stand against Netanyahu, and to ridiculously claim that he has failed in his aims in Gaza. He has failed their aims, not his, and not the rationale of Zionism, as now manifest, in its requirement for a final solution against the Palestinians.

Back To Part 1

Forward To Part 3

Wage-labour and Capital, Section II - Part 3 of 6

The determining factor of supply is value. If the producer can sell their commodity at a value that is greater than the value of the commodities consumed in its production, i.e. make a profit, they will engage in production. Of course, if they can make a higher rate of profit by engaging in some other production, they will move their capital to that sphere, and so, as described above, this will bring about changes in supply, prices and profits, in these different spheres. As Marx sets out in Capital III, this is why The Law of The Tendency for the Rate of Profit To Fall, in spheres where the organic composition of capital is higher, or rate of turnover of capital is lower, is a most important law for capitalism, both in determining prices of production, and the allocation of capital.

It is this, not the preferences of the consumer, that is the determinant of value/price. The consumer may, of course, decide that they do not obtain use-value/utility from any given commodity, at its market value, and so withdraw their demand for it. So be it. In that case, supply would contract also, may be even to zero! As Marx describes in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 20, and in The Grundrisse, demand is a function of use-value/utility. But, just because consumers decide they are only prepared to pay £0.50 for commodity A, rather than £1 that does not mean that the price of commodity A will fall to £0.50. It means demand would collapse, but, if no producers of A could produce it, and make average profit, at £0.50, supply would also disappear.

Marx, also, deals, here, with the false arguments of orthodox economics in relation to inflation. If we take the most basic condition of an economy, with just two commodities, A and B, both with a value of 10 hours per unit, then 1 unit of A will exchange for 1 unit of B. Put another way, the price of 1 unit of A is 1 unit of B. But, now, suppose demand for A doubles, but cannot be increased to meet this demand? As Marx described earlier, owners of B, who are buyers of A will increase competition between themselves to buy the available supplies of A. The same would be true if the supply of A fell.

As a result of this, the B price of A would rise, even though the value of A and B remains unchanged. The price of A might rise to 2B. But that is just another way of saying that the A price of B has fallen! Previously, the A price of 1 unit of B, was 1 unit, but, now, is just 0.5 units of A. The sum of all prices, therefore, remains the same. The price of A has doubled, the price of B halving, cancelling each other out.

“If the price of a commodity rises considerably because of inadequate supply or disproportionate increase of demand, the price of some other commodity must necessarily have fallen proportionately; for the price of a commodity only expresses in money the ratio in which other commodities are given in exchange for it. If, for example, the price of a yard of silk material rises from five marks to six marks, the price of silver in relation to the silk material has fallen, and likewise the prices of all other commodities that have remained at their old prices have fallen in relation to the silk.” (p 24)

Back To Part 2

Bourgeois Democracy Crumbles As It Defends Its Genocide - Part 1

Bourgeois-democracy is a sham, a fraud, a means of deluding the masses into believing that they have a real say in the running of society, when, in fact, irrespective of what colour rosette the governing parties wear, the actual control of society rests with the owners of property, and their state. Whenever the superficial rights and freedoms promised by bourgeois-democracy are actually used by the masses to promote their own interests, or to challenge the actions of the state, the ruling class, and its state, simply abandons even the pretext; it removes the velvet glove and exposes the iron first of its class dictatorship. Across the world, as “democratic-imperialism”, seeks to justify and defend its genocide in Gaza, in the face of popular revolt, bourgeois-democracy is crumbling, as it exposes that iron first. And, contrary to the bleating of subjectivists, such as Paul Mason, over the last few years, it is not the fascists of the type of Trump, Johnson, Le Pen, Wilders, or the AfD that are the instrument of that iron first, but those that Mason has looked to within the ranks of social-democracy, such as Biden, Starmer, Scholz, Macron et al, Bonapartists themselves, one and all.

I recently, noted the video from Owen Jones, detailing the arrest of a Jewish activist in Germany, on the grounds of “anti-Semitism”, for having taken part in opposing the Zionist genocide, as well as noting the arrest by British police of a Rabbi, on the same basis. It rather frames the context of the actions of Gideon Falter, and his claims in relation to the actions of police. It also, highlights the extent to which the contradictions inherent within bourgeois-democracy, and its attempts to defend the actions of “democratic imperialism”, in carrying out, and complicity in genocide, have reached the stage in which they must violently explode in crisis. As Owen Jones says, what more repulsive sight can there be than that of German state stormtroopers arresting German Jews, and claiming to be doing so on the grounds of anti-Semitism, whilst, in fact, what they are doing is defending the role of the German state, in once more being involved in a genocide?

Now, Owen Jones, in another video, featuring Yanis Varoufakis, banned by that same German state, details the crumbling of bourgeois-democracy in Germany.

 

For months, the genocide undertaken by the Zionist state against Palestinians has been undeniable, and has provoked ever greater popular protests against it. That genocide is backed to the hilt by “democratic imperialism”, that arms it, propagandises for it, and in the words of the likes of Biden, Starmer and co., stands “shoulder to shoulder” with it. Why does this “democratic imperialism” stand shoulder to shoulder with Zionism, and its genocide? Because the Zionist state, in Israel, is its tool, its proxy in the region, just as Zelensky and his regime in Ukraine, and the inheritors of Chiang Kai Shek's butchers in Taiwan, are its proxy, its foot soldiers in various parts of the world, where it has global strategic interests, and increasingly so, now, as it faces a challenge to its global hegemony, from an up and coming imperialist bloc, led by China and Russia.

The US imperialist strategy in the Middle-East, involves a regional, politico-economic bloc bringing together Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States. Prior to the Iraq War, and NATO's wars in Libya and Syria, which utilised Islamist groups against the existing regimes, funded and armed by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, the economic development of those states was enabling them to be drawn closer to the EU, in a similar manner to that of the former Stalinist states in Central Europe, prior to them joining the EU. That, in itself, was seen as a threat by US imperialism, as EU imperialism remains the most powerful potential rival to the US, despite its continued subservience to it, as both try to defend their current dominance against the rising imperialist bloc led by China.

The chaos caused by US imperialism in the Middle-East and North Africa by its wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria, ended that process of economic and social development, and also ended the process of closer integration with the EU, strengthening US imperialism against EU imperialism, and emphasising its continued dominance over it. But, European imperialism, older and wiser than US imperialism, knows that such developments as those now sought by US imperialism, have other consequences, in the longer term. US imperialism's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, cost it large amounts of treasure, and achieved its aim of removing the existing regimes, creating chaos, and so removing a potential regional power, but, in Afghanistan, China is the one, now, stepping in to offer the potential of trade and investment, furthering its own global imperialist ambitions, and influence. In Iraq, it is Iran, against whom US imperialism initially promoted Saddam Hussein as their proxy, that has gained most influence, strengthening its own sub-imperialist power, as an ally of China and Russia.

Forward To Part 2

The Chinese Revolution After The Sixth Congress, 5. Appendix – A Remarkable Document - Part 3 of 10

Marx's analysis does not say that the peasantry/petty-bourgeoisie cannot carry through revolutions, particularly where its solidified under a Bonapartist leader, or military junta. It says it cannot form the ruling class. Having carried through such a revolution/Peasant War, the state must represent the interests of capital or labour, must become some form of capitalist or workers' state, albeit with whatever deformations.

Alternatively, if, as with Pol Pot, in Cambodia, the aftermath of NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, or as with the Taliban in Afghanistan, prior to 2001, and after 2021, it tries to turn the clock back from capitalist development, to some form of agrarian society, or small commodity producing economy, everything that goes with it is restored such as landlordism, warlordism and so on, the disintegration of the nation state, leading to a failed state and collapse.

China, too, was in danger of suffering that fate, under Mao and the Cultural Revolution, and Great Leap Forward, which cost the lives of millions from starvation, until it was reversed, but, at which point, the course was set by the state to represent the interests of capital, symbolised in the policies of Deng Xiaoping.

“Let us recall that immediately after the May Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, which entrusted the leadership of the agrarian revolution to the Left Guomindang, the latter began to exterminate the workers and peasants. The position of the ECCI became completely untenable. At all costs, there had to be, and that without delay, “left” actions in China to refute the “calumny” of the Opposition, that is, its irreproachable prognosis. That is why the Chinese Central Committee, which found itself between the hammer and the anvil, was obliged, in August 1927, to turn the proletarian policy topsy-turvy all over again.” (p 212-3)

The revolution, to be progressive, could only be one led by a revolutionary, industrial proletariat, drawing the poor peasants and urban petty-bourgeois behind it. That was what the Bolsheviks did in 1917, and why The Theses On The National and Colonial Questions, as cited by Trotsky, emphasises that its only those revolutionary forces, organised, not only to fight against landlordism, imperialism etc., but also against their own bourgeois-democracy that can be supported. Its why Marxists should not support the guerrilla wars of, say, the Viet Cong, the ANC, FARC, PIRA, and so on, even if we would, simultaneously, oppose the old landlord/feudal regime, imperialism and so on. Opposing one does not at all imply supporting the other, on the basis of some kind of moralistic lesser-evilism, or “my enemy's enemy is my friend”, campism, as Trotsky explains in “Learn To Think". We are not bourgeois democrats, nor nationalists, our goal is international socialism not bourgeois nationalism.

Indeed, for that reason, even less can we accept the idea that imperialism defends the interests of workers or oppressed peoples, as social-imperialists like the AWL, and the USC would have us believe! As Trotsky points out in Lenin and Imperialist War.

“If revolutionary and progressive movements beyond the boundaries of ones own country could be supported by supporting ones own imperialist bourgeoisie then the policy of social patriotism was in principle correct. There was no reason, then, for the founding of the Third International.”

Back To Part 2

Forward To Part 4

Wage-labour and Capital, Section II - Part 2 of 6

“Let us suppose that there are 100 bales of cotton on the market and at the same time purchasers for 1,000 bales of cotton. In this case, therefore, the demand is 10 times as great as the supply. Competition will be very strong among the buyers, each of whom desires to get one, and if possible, all of the whole hundred bales for himself. This example is no arbitrary assumption. We have experienced periods of cotton crop failure, in the history of the trade, when a few capitalists in alliance have tried to buy not one hundred bales, but all the cotton stocks of the world. Hence, In the example mentioned, one buyer will seek to drive the others from the field by offering a relatively higher price per bale of cotton. The cotton sellers, who perceive that the troops of the enemy army are engaged in the most violent struggle among themselves, and the same of all their hundred bales is absolutely certain, will take good care not to fall out among themselves and depress the price of cotton at the moment their adversaries are competing with one another to force it up. Thus, peace suddenly descends on the army of sellers. They stand facing the buyers as one man, fold their arms philosophically and there would be no bounds to their demands were it not that the offers of even the most persistent and eager buyers have very definite limits.” (p 23)

One limit has been mentioned, which is the effect on the rate of profit. As Marx sets out, in Capital III, Chapter 6, and elsewhere, the increase in the price of cotton affects the price of yarn, but does not change the amount of surplus value produced, in yarn production. So, the rate of profit would fall, meaning that capital could be better used elsewhere. In Chapter 6, the other limitation is also mentioned. That is that the resulting increase in the price of yarn would reduce demand for it, possibly to a level where production becomes unviable. Consumers of cotton yarn may switch to wool, or some other material, so that yarn producers would, therefore, switch to these other inputs.

“It is well known that the reverse case, with reverse result, occurs more frequently. Considerable surplus of supply over demand; desperate competition among the sellers, lack of buyers; disposal of goods at ridiculously low prices.” (p 23)

But, Marx notes that the terms high or low prices are themselves relative. High or low compared to what?

“And if the price is determined by the relation between supply and demand, what determines the relation of supply and demand? (p 23-4)

The same applies to profit. What determines that a given rate of profit is high or low? It requires some presumption of what is a normal rate of profit, in which case, what determines the normal profit? Why should it be, say, 20%, and not 10% or 30%? It is certainly the case, as Marx describes, in Capital III, that, if firms see that, in their current line of business, they can only make, on average, 10% profit, whereas, in some other line of business, the rate of profit, on average, is 30%, capital will, gradually, move to the latter, and away from the former. As a result, supply, in the latter will rise, prices and the rate of profit will fall, whilst supply, in the former, will fall, and prices and the rate of profit will rise.

This very process results in an average rate of profit, in this case, of 20%, and is the process by which prices of production are determined as cost of production plus average profit. But, this still does not explain why this average is 20%, rather than 10% or 30%. Orthodox economics would explain it by saying that firms take their cost of production and add a percentage of mark-up, as profit. This is, superficially, what does happen. The result is then the selling price. What they can add as mark-up, this subjectivist theory would argue, is determined by what consumers are themselves prepared to pay. In this subjectivist theory, prices, and consequently profits, are determined by demand, by what the consumer is prepared to pay. But, then, we are back to the original question of what determines what the consumer is prepared to pay? It does no good to say its whether the consumer thinks the price is high or low, because high or low compared to what?

And, if the consumer thinks the price of yarn is too high, and so refuses to buy yarn, this sudden glut of yarn would lead to yarn producers slashing prices to clear their stocks, but, what then? If the price that consumers think is reasonable is below the cost of production, yarn producers will simply stop producing yarn. They do not produce it for some altruistic reason, or to satisfy the needs of consumers, but, only, to make profit.

Back To Part 1

Forward To Part 3

Why US Military Aid To Ukraine Will Make No Real Change

The US, desperate to provide even more military aid to its proxy, the Zionist state in Israel, to continue its genocide against Palestinians, has also, now, voted through a package of military aid to Ukraine that reactionary Republicans had been holding up, as they sought to tie it to closing the US border with Mexico. The US is not going to do the latter, because, faced with growing labour shortages, as the economy continues on a tear, it needs millions of migrant workers to stop US wages rising at an even faster pace than they are, squeezing US profit margins, and causing interest rates to rise further. The aid, amounting to $61 billion, will make no real difference to the proxy war being fought out on Ukraine's soil.

The reason for that is quite simple.  It is, now, Ukraine that is put in the position of being on the offensive, against a well entrenched Russian military. To overcome such defence, Ukraine needs at least a 4:1 advantage, and simply does not have it. It does not have it in military equipment, including munitions, and more importantly, it does not have it in soldiers, especially as, now, young Ukrainian workers are seeing what the war is about, and large numbers are seeking to escape, as Zelensky's corrupt regime tries to draft more of them into its imperialist war, on behalf of US imperialism.

The reason that the additional aid will make no significant difference is because the whole narrative of the war, presented by NATO, and by Zelensky, from the start, was false. The narrative was that Russia intended to annex the whole of Ukraine, as a taster, before, attacking other former parts of the USSR, in the Baltics, Poland and so on. Such a narrative was insane to begin with, and that was shown by the contradictions that emerged within it, not long after the war began.

We were told that Putin was driven by some kind of, Hilteresque megalomania, to want to restore the old USSR. Itself, such subjectivist explanations for war, which Paul Mason has promoted, in recent years, are highly suspect, and explain nothing. Marxists know that wars are motivated by underlying material interests, in short, economic interests, not the whims of individuals. Hitler did not seek to conquer Europe, because he was a megalomaniac, but, because Europe needed a large, single European market, to compete with US imperialism, and German imperialism, as the most powerful in Europe, sought to bring it about under its domination. It was simply a continuation of that from WWI.

Putin's war in Ukraine is, similarly, not driven by some kind of megalomania, or ethnic imperative, but by an understandable concern not to allow NATO imperialism to continue to expand up to Russia's borders, and from where it would continue to chip away at the various Russian Republics, stirring up ethnic tensions, as, for example, the US did by supporting the KLA to incite ethnic violence against Kosovan Serbs, so as to, at least, keep Russia busy fighting these insurgencies, if not to see its territory continually broken apart. As a former KGB operative, Putin knew that Russia could not hope to invade and annex the whole of Ukraine. It would have required vast amounts of resources and military manpower, for little real long-term advantage. Even if it could be done, it would have been impossible to hold on to, and would have economically destroyed Russia. NATO, also, no doubt, understood this, despite their narrative that this was Putin's plan.

They may have hoped to have goaded Putin into it, just as Blairite, former NATO Secretary-General, George Robertson admits, they goaded him into the invasion itself. More likely, they simply needed that narrative to get Ukrainian citizens to buy the argument, and put their lives on the line, for a war they could never actually win, as well as to sell workers, in other NATO countries, on the idea of providing vast amounts of money to finance such a war, at a time when they were being told they had to accept austerity, and pay cuts!

The reality was that Putin never had any intention of trying to invade the whole of Ukraine, or trying to annex it, any more than NATO intended to invade and occupy the whole of Serbia in order to separate off Kosovo from it. In fact, it would have been far easier for NATO to have invaded the whole of Serbia and occupied it than it would for Russia to invade and occupy the whole of Ukraine.

Having established the narrative that Russia intended to invade and annex the whole of Ukraine, a narrative that many on the Left, including those, like Eddie Ford of the CPGB, that do not support NATO, also bought,  the failure of Russia to do so means that it can be presented as a defeat for Russia, and only a matter of time before its sent packing. But, Russia never mobilised anything like the military forces and materiel required to invade, let alone occupy long-term, the whole of Ukraine. It put less forces in the field than Ukraine had mobilised, whereas military doctrine required it to have at least four times as many! Russia clearly intended only to invade and annex Eastern Ukraine, where the ethnic Russians form a majority, and that is what it has done, just as, in 2014, it annexed majority Russian Crimea.

Yes, of course, Russia attacked Kyiv and so on, but, when NATO sought to annex Kosovo, it also attacked Belgrade. In modern war, its necessary to destroy, or at least seriously degrade, command and control systems, and these are often centred on the political and administrative centres, as well as other transport and communications systems, such as energy supplies, airports and so on. As I wrote at the time, Russia, in its invasion of Eastern Ukraine, adopted the NATO play-book used in Kosovo etc. When Russia rolled its tanks into South Ossetia, in 2008, to similarly put an end to ethnic cleansing and genocide by the NATO backed Georgian government, it also rolled its tanks into the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, as it destroyed Georgian command and control. NATO and Georgia said it was going to annex the whole of Georgia, and, indeed, it easily could have done so, by that point. But, it didn't, pulling its military back into South Ossetia, once those objectives had been met. It did a similar thing in Abkhazia.

Russia could never have invaded or annexed the whole of Ukraine, by contrast. It is a vast country, and provided with huge resources from NATO. NATO may, indeed, have wanted to try to goad it into trying, so as to ruin Russia, itself, but there was no chance of it doing so. On the contrary, Russia can simply sit back in its bulwarks, now established, in Eastern Ukraine, drawing the Ukrainians on to its guns, and cutting them down likes poppies in the field, to coin a phrase. Young Ukrainian workers are simply the meat in a meat grinder perpetuated by NATO, and their Zelensky puppet, to keep Russia busy, but the cost of that, for NATO, is that it is now sucked into another forever war that is costing it far more financially to continue the military supplies than it is costing Russia, as the defender of territory, and which, with its backing from China, it is well placed to continue to do.

NATO may have fallen for its own propaganda about Russia seeking to invade the whole of Ukraine, in which case, the additional military aid would make a difference, but, given that the propaganda was itself nonsense to begin with it won't. The fact that it was simply propaganda can be seen from the contradiction inherent within it. On the one hand, it said, “Russia intends to invade the whole of Ukraine.” However, keen to emphasise its failure, and the supposed weakness of Putin, it pointed to the retreat from Kyiv, and so on. Yet, even as it was emphasising this military weakness of Russia, it continued to put out a parallel narrative that this weak Russian state, with its incompetent military brass, was, any day, also going to be posing a threat to the Baltics, Poland and Central and Eastern Europe!!!

Last year, we were told that all of the Leopard II tanks, and so on, provided by NATO to Ukraine, were going to finally see off the Russians. But, of course, as I had said at the time, it was never going to happen. Had the Russians have continued to try to invade the rest of Ukraine, as the NATO propaganda claimed they were going to do, then, yes, those tanks and other equipment would have made a difference, in the same way that such equipment made a difference in fighting against the initial Russian advance into Eastern Ukraine, and caused the Russians to lose large numbers of troops and equipment. But, so long as Russia stayed put and defended, having dug into defensive positions that was never going to be the case.

Tanks are great if they are taking part in tank battles against other tanks that are attacking your territory. You have defenders' advantage. However, if Ukraine, now, wants to take back Eastern Ukraine, it has to be the attacker. In the last year, as I had predicted, all of those hyped up NATO provided tanks proved useless, as they rolled on to Russian defensive positions, where they could be decimated by land mines, stuck in tank traps, as well as picked off by artillery, not to mention infantry using simple RPG's, drones and shoulder launched missiles that cost a fraction of a tank. The same is true of NATO provided jets. In short, this is lots of money, provided by taxpayers in NATO countries, that is basically going to finance war production in war production factories, and it is money that is going down a big hole simply to keep young Ukrainian workers – and young Russian workers on the other side – fighting in a war that is in none of their interests.

The Chinese Revolution After The Sixth Congress, 5. Appendix – A Remarkable Document - Part 2 of 10

The Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, acting under the guidance and leadership of Stalin/Bukharin, and the ECCI, had drawn the following conclusion.

“Wherever this is objectively possible, we must immediately prepare and organize armed insurrections.” (p 212)

In other words, a swing from the opportunist policy, of the previous period, where, in conditions of rising revolutionary activity, the workers and peasants were told to support the bourgeoisie and KMT, not to set up soviets etc., to, now, in a counter-revolutionary period, an adventurist policy of organising armed insurrections!

The Kiangsu Committee document sets out the material conditions in which the policy was advanced. They note that

“the workers of Hunan, after the cruel defeat, are abandoning the leadership of the Party, that we are not confronted with an objectively revolutionary situation ... but in spite of this ... the Central Committee says plainly that the general situation, from the economic, political and social [precisely! – L.T.] point of view is favourable to the insurrection.” (p 212)

And, it also notes the consequence of loss of support from workers, and increased social weight of the peasantry, in the party, which was also to play a crucial role in the development of the Chinese Party, and the class nature of the revolution it accomplished in 1949.

“Since it is already no longer possible to launch revolts in the cities, the armed struggle must be transferred to the villages. That is where the centres of the uprising must be, while the town must be an auxiliary force.” (p 212)

This was not just a significant factor in determining the class nature of the 1949 Chinese Revolution, but was also significant for the class nature of revolutions elsewhere. In the rest of Asia, be it Korea or Vietnam, or else in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, the dominant social force was that of the peasant and petty-bourgeois masses, often supported by, or even acting as agents of, external powers (most clearly observable in relation to Bangladesh whose “national revolution” was simply the product of Indian militarism, much as the 2011 “Libyan National Revolution” was purely the product of NATO militarism, and the successive Afghan revolutions have been purely the product of Russian militarism, followed by NATO militarism).

The dominant force in these “revolutions” was not the industrial proletariat. Where, a revolutionary proletarian movement existed, it was either subordinated to these bourgeois, and reactionary petty-bourgeois, nationalist movements, or else, as in Vietnam, was physically liquidated by the Stalinists and nationalists.

This was in contrast to the Theses On The National and Colonial Questions, which, as Trotsky emphasised, said,

“the need for a determined struggle against attempts to give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in the backward countries; the Communist International should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations.”

And, which also notes,

“the need constantly to explain and expose among the broadest working masses of all countries, and particularly of the backward countries, the deception systematically practised by the imperialist powers, which, under the guise of politically independent states, set up states that are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and militarily. Under present-day international conditions there is no salvation for dependent and weak nations except in a union of Soviet republics.”

The same was true in Cuba, and Latin America, but was also seen in Africa, including South Africa. The ANC, despite the existence of a developed capitalist economy, and sizeable industrial proletariat, concentrated in and around cities, engaged in the same kind of guerrilla warfare seen elsewhere.

Back To Part 1

Forward To Part 3

London Marathon Prevents Londoners Going About Their Lives

Londoners were prevented from going freely about their business on Sunday, as roads were closed, when 50,000 runners in the London Marathon occupied some of the roads for several hours. Christians seeking to cross the road to get to their local church, people wanting to get to their local pub, and others were told that it was unreasonable for them to be able to simply disregard the barriers, and to simply try to walk through the 50,000 runners. That was particularly the case given that some of those trying to do so so, were also known to be hostile to the event itself.

This restriction on Londoners freedom came just a day after police had also told a Jewish man, Gideon Falter, of the pro-Zionist, Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, who similarly wanted to walk through a large demonstration protesting against the Zionist genocide going on in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. In an edited video released by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, who just happened to also have someone there to witness, the confrontation between Mr. Falter and the police, he was seen being told not to do so, before being arrested. What the video omitted, but was shown in a further video, released to Sky News, was that before that, the police offered to escort him by a different route across to the synagogue, he said he wanted to get to, but that he refused. As he said, why should he have to do that, and similarly, why should not people be free to walk across the path of people running the London Marathon?

Why would anyone think that someone trying to do that, having brought someone along to film them doing so, was simply trying to be provocative? God forbid such a thought. In fact, I am all in favour of having such events policed and marshalled by their organisers. I doubt that had Mr. Falter simply wanted to merge into the demonstration, and make his way across it to the other side, he would have had any problem. There were after all many other “visibly Jewish” people taking part in the demonstration against Zionist atrocities, and one more would have attracted no attention.

What would have attracted attention, of course, would be if someone was protesting against the march itself, was shouting anti-Palestinian or pro-Zionist remarks, defending the genocide being committed against Palestinians. What that would have provoked is not a response against someone for being Jewish, but as with someone protesting against the Marathon, by trying to march through it, of simply being a bit of a dick. In the case of someone vociferously protesting in favour of the Zionist genocide against Palestinians, or seeking to deny its existence, rather like Nazi Holocaust deniers, it would not be surprising if the response to that was itself rather forceful.

Wage-labour and Capital, Section II - Part 1 of 6

Wages are the price of labour-power. Labour-power is a commodity, just like cotton or shoes. Its price is determined as for any other commodity. Prices differ from, but are ultimately determined by values, and values are determined by the labour-time required for production.

“By what is the price of a commodity determined?

By competition between buyers and sellers, by the relation of inquiry to delivery, of demand to the supply. Competition, by which the price of a commodity is determined is three- sided” (p 22)

Sellers all want to sell, and so compete against each other for sales, and they do this by lowering their prices. There is a limit to how low those prices can go, because, below a certain price, the costs of production are not met, and so losses are made. Capital is only advanced to make profit. Marx discussed this at length in his discussion of differential value, in Theories of Surplus Value.

If prices fall, some firms may find that they make losses. They would go out of business and supply would fall. The fall in supply would cause prices to rise. However, it may be that this reduction in supply could be made up by other, more efficient, firms, in which case, the market value of those commodities falls. It might even be the case that the firms, now able to expand to fill the gap in supply, enjoy economies of scale, reducing the market value of the commodity further. On the other hand, it may not be possible to expand supply to fill the gap, other than at a greater cost (diminishing returns), so that the market value rises. It may not rise to its previous level, however. The price would fall, but not to its previous market clearing level.

I have described various scenarios for this in the series of posts on The Poverty of Philosophy.

“But, competition also takes place among the buyers, which in its turn causes the commodities offered to rise in price.” (p 22)

If you need food, you must compete with other consumers for the available supply, which pushes the price up.

“Finally, competition occurs between buyers and sellers, the former desire to buy as cheaply as possible, the latter to sell as dearly as possible. The result of this competition between buyers and sellers will depend upon how the two above-mentioned sides of the competition are related, that is, whether the competition is stronger in the army of buyers or in the army of sellers.” (p 22)

In other words, is the unity of sellers greater than that of buyers, or is the competition of sellers, with each other, to sell, greater than the competition between buyers to buy. Is aggregate supply greater than, or less than aggregate demand. As Marx sets out, in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 17, especially in periods of already high levels of demand, i.e. economic booms, consumers may be more inclined to hold on to the general commodity – money – rather than convert it again into other commodities. In the terms of orthodox economics, their marginal propensity to consume may fall, and their propensity to save rise. This is why, Marx says, Say's Law is false, and a generalised overproduction of commodities may arise.

By contrast, the demand for commodities may exceed the supply. Again, this may be the case for individual commodities. Demand is monetary demand, and so may be derived not only from revenues, but also from the mobilisation of money reserves and savings. During lockdowns, households, partly from having their range of spending restricted, so that incomes went to pay down debt and increase savings, and partly because central banks printed money tokens, which were handed to households, had currency available to spend, when lockdowns ended. The surge in prices was explained, partly, by this excess of aggregate demand over aggregate supply, because the latter could not respond quickly to meet the demand, and, partly, by an inflation caused by the excess printing of money tokens/devaluation of the standard of prices.

Back To Section I

Forward To Part 2

The Chinese Revolution After The Sixth Congress, 5. Appendix – A Remarkable Document - Part 1 of 10

5. Appendix – A Remarkable Document

Theoretical science can make predictions about the nature of reality that may not be immediately verifiable by empirical observation. For example, it predicts the existence of chemical elements whose actual existence has not been observed. It predicted the existence of planets, in the solar system, which, at the time, had not been observed, and so on.

Of course, theoretical science, itself, is based upon past and current observation of that real world, and analysis of it, without which the theories themselves could not be formulated. Without chemistry analysing the atomic composition of known elements, it could not have developed the laws that enabled it to draw up The Periodic Table, and, thereby, to identify the gaps within it, indicating the existence of elements which, currently, have not been, physically observed. Without studying existing planets, and planetary movement, science could not have developed the theory of gravity, and so could not have, likewise, identified the existence of other planets, not then observed.

The reason this document, produced by the Kiangsu District Committee of the Chinese Communist Party on May 7, 1928, is remarkable is that those that produced it were adherents of the ideas and theories of Stalin/Bukharin, and not Trotsky, whose ideas and statements they, almost certainly, did not know. Yet, what is contained in this document is an observation of the real world as they experienced it, and this observation confirms the theory, not of Stalin/Bukharin, but that of Trotsky and the Opposition. Its for that reason that it can be said that its authors were unaware of the statements of the Opposition, because, if they were, they would not have produced a document so in conformity with them, as they knew, by this time, what costs, in the regime of Stalinism, they would incur for doing so.

“This resolution, as has already been said, constitutes a truly remarkable document, in spite of the errors in principle and the political misunderstandings it contains. The essence of the resolution amounts to a deadly condemnation not only of the decisions of the Ninth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, but in general, of the whole leadership of the Comintern in the questions of the Chinese revolution. Naturally, in conformity with the whole régime existing in the Comintern, the criticism directed against the Executive Committee of the CI bears a camouflaged and conventionally diplomatic character. The immediate point of the resolution is directed against the Central Committee itself as against a responsible ministry under an irresponsible monarch who, as is known, “can do no wrong”.” (p 211)

That was typical of the bureaucratic degeneration of the International, and its component parties. Gone was open political debate and self-criticism, as each individual sought to protect themselves, and everything was couched in vague terms, able to be used to justify future events as conforming to the infallibility of the leaders.

““After the August 7 (1927) conference,” the Kiangsu Committee relates, “the Central Committee formulated a judgement on the situation which was tantamount to saying that even though the revolution had suffered a triple defeat, it is nevertheless going through a rising phase.”

This appreciation is entirely in conformity with the caricature which Bukharin makes of the theory of the permanent revolution, a caricature which he applied first to Russia, then to Europe and finally to Asia. The actual events of the struggle, that is, the three defeats, are one thing and the permanent “rise” is another.” (p 211-2)

Back To Section 4

Forward To Part 2

Anti-Semitic Police Arrest Jews

The attempt, by Zionists, and their imperialist sponsors, to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, is necessarily having ludicrous consequences, as imperialism is led to adopt ever more Bonapartist and authoritarian methods to contain the contradictions that flow from its complicity in the genocide in Gaza.  Those contradictions, and ludicrous consequences are not new, but the scale of the attempt to suppress opposition to the genocide in Gaza, now raises them to a higher power.

During all of the anti-Semitism hysteria whipped up inside the Labour Party, for example, as a means of attacking the Left, and undermining Corbyn, the consequence of attempting to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, was to actually weaken the struggle against actual anti-Semitism, and that is not surprising, because Zionism and anti-Semitism are not opposites, but conjoined twins.  Zionism has always needed to foster anti-Semitism, in order to provide a justification for its own existence, and Zionism, as a reactionary, racist and colonialist ideology, has always needed to promote the idea that Jews are special (exceptionalism), and that, in particular, Arabs and specifically Palestinian Arabs, are inferior.  It is the same ideology and exceptionalism that stood behind the colonialism of the 17th century onwards, of European mercantilism.

Central to it, of course, was to define all Jews as the equivalent of Zionists, and, thereby, equivalent to the specific project of Zionism, the Zionist state in Israel.  That in itself, was of course, wracked with contradictions, because not every Israeli is  jew, let alone a Zionist.  Around a quarter of the population of Israel are Arabs, not Jews, and although the Zionist project has necessarily attracted mostly Zionist Jews to it, not all Jews in Israel are Zionists either.  That latter fact itself is part of the contradiction faced by the Zionists and their imperialist backers.

In Israel, those non-Zionist Jews have to be delegitimised by the Zionists.  They have to be categorised as the wrong kind of Jew, and so, not really a jew at all.  In and of itself that is anti-Semitic.  Given that Zionism has never been able to convince Jews that it is the solution to their problems - only around a third of the world's Jews live in Israel, despite being given incentives to move there, and privileges when they do live there - it becomes a growing problem for it, when a majority of world Jewry turns actively against Zionism and its genocide in Gaza, and pogroms in the West Bank and Israel proper.

In the Labour Party, we saw long-time Jewish activists suspended or expelled for supporting Corbyn and the Left, and opposing the anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism line, used to witch hunt the Left.  When those activists visibly demonstrated against that witch hunt, we saw the propaganda arm of the British state, the BBC, call on Corbyn to take action against them.  Corbyn, terribly advised by his Stalinoid advisors, and their Popular Frontist policies, of course, appeased those demands, rather than mobilising against them, leading to his own isolation and defeat.  But, since the Zionist Starmer has taken over, more Jews have been expelled from Labour than ever!

This same contradiction, and its ludicrous consequences have been seen across the western imperialist countries.  In the US, where as many Jews live as in Israel, the majority are opposed to Zionism, and increasingly so as they see the unfolding genocide committed by the Zionist state against Palestinians.  Most of them are traditionally Democrats, but, now, find themselves in the predicament of a choice to grit their teeth and vote for Genocide Joe, or else risk Netanyahu's clone, Trump, moving into the Whitehouse, though most, now, see that as inevitable.   It is no surprise that amongst Trump's fascistic popular base, utilised on January 6th, there is a large component of Zionists, alongside the other racists and white nationalists.  Indeed, the biggest support for the Zionist state, in the US, comes not from US Jews, but from right-wing, fundamentalist Christians, the nutters who believe we are in the End of Days,  of the second coming, and that a war in Israel is its herald.

So, the imperialist media has had to try to deny the reality of large numbers of Jews taking part in the demonstrations in western cities, in the US and across Europe, in opposition to the Zionist genocide in Gaza, which has turned it from its previous state as the largest open air prison in the world, to the Zionist equivalent of Belsen, with ten of thousands of babies, toddlers, men, women and children turned into mere skeletons covered in skin, their bodies torn apart by Zionist bombs, supplied by the US, German and other European powers, complicit in that genocide, and now, ravaged by pestilence and disease.  Indeed, the Four Horsemen do ride in Gaza, but it has nothing to do with some biblical apocalypse but with the deliberate actions of Zionism, and of its support from Genocide Joe and Holocaust Harris, of Scholtz, van der Lyon, Macron, Starnak, and all the other imperialist butchers.

The imperialist media has had to try to deny the existence of large numbers of anti-Zionist Jews on demonstrations, in order to continue with its narrative of those demonstrations being fundamentally anti-Semitic, and causing Jews in the West to feel threatened and intimidated.  Of course, anyone who does not actually witness the actual demonstrations, but listens to the siren calls of the Zionists such as the former Director of Labour Friends of Israel, David Mencer, who is now the Press Spokesman for the Zionist state, in Israel, who claimed he had had to go to Israel for fear of Corbyn, might be forgiven for such an impression.

It is also central to the narrative of the state, as it tries to impose ever more harsh authoritarian measures, to suppress a mobilising working-class, and masses.  Those measures used, today, to clamp down on protests against genocide will, tomorrow, be used to clamp down on workers striking for wages, and better conditions, railing against the consequences of Brexit, and the growing drive to war.  And, of course, that is not just in this country.  The most obvious contradiction, and height of ludicrous consequences is in Germany.  It has recently banned even a conference on Palestine, and discussion of the genocide.  As part of that it has arrested German anti-Zionist Jews, for anti-Semitism.  It is also clear in the video that the police that did so, were themselves making anti-Semitic comments about him.

But, its not just in Germany, where this ludicrous consequence of equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism has been seen, and, in Britain, as a totem of that ludicrousness, has arrested a Rabbi for anti-Semitism, and inciting race hatred!!!  

The government has tried to claim that even carrying a Palestinian flag, on demonstrations near to Jewish communities could be considered offensive and threatening, and so anti-Semitic, but the logic of that is, then, that Jewish symbols, equated by the Zionists and their imperialist backers as equivalent to Zionist, o Israeli symbols, must likewise be offensive and threatening to Palestinians, and their supporters.  So, now, we have the ridiculous sight of police having to try to implement that irrationality, on the ground - and the Scottish Hate Laws will reproduce these insanities many fold - by arresting a Jewish, pro-Zionist campaigner, just for openly appearing Jewish!!!

Of course, we all know that the capitalist police arrest people on such spurious charges all the time.  Back in the 1980's, when I was President of the North Staffs Trades Council, and led a group of activists to leaflet outside the Co-op in Hanley, in support of the Silentnight workers, two of us were arrested on precisely this charge of behaviour likelihood to cause a breach of the peace, which when I queried exactly what that behaviour was, was told handing out leaflets that some people might disagree with!

Of course, socialists, and even consistent democrats cannot support laws that lead to, or allow the arrest of people for being "openly Jewish", even if we vehemently disagree with, and find offensive, their apologism for the genocidal acts of the Zionist state, any more than we can support laws that allow, and, indeed lead to, people to be arrested for carrying Palestinian flags, burning Zionist flags, or other such activity that someone might find offensive.  After all the most offensive behaviour of all currently is the genocide in Gaza, and the complicity in it of western imperialism.

Northern Soul Classics - There Can Be A Better Way - Smith Brothers

 

Friday Night Disco - Son of Shaft - The Bar-Kays

 

Wage-labour and Capital, Section I - Part 8 of 8

Unlike the slave or serf, the wage labourer is free, tied neither to the slave owner, nor the landlord. They are tied only for a contracted period to a given employer. Outside that period, they are free to sell their labour-power to the highest bidder. In times of labour shortage, competition between those bidders push money wages higher and vice versa. However, because, as a class, workers must sell their labour-power to live, although they can refuse to sell to any given employer, they cannot refuse to sell to all employers as a class.

Competition between workers prevents wages rising above the value of labour-power, and, because capital only employs labour in order to produce profits, the demand for labour-power itself is reduced if wages rise to a level, whereby, they erode those profits. The manifestation of that comes in the form of a crisis of overproduction of capital, whereby, first, the least efficient firms see their profits turn into losses, and they go out of business. But, capital also has the power to control the demand and supply of labour, when those profits are squeezed to this extent. When wages rise and profits re squeezed, capital engages in a technological revolution to replace labour with fixed capital (1820-43, 1865-1890, 1914-1939, 1974-99 periods of intensive accumulation). So, the demand for labour-power is reduced, relative to supply, because any given amount of output can be produced with less labour. The supply of labour-power rises, as population grows, but fewer of them are required to produce any increase in output. A relative surplus population is created.

As the supply of labour-power, relative to demand, rises so the market price of labour-power, money wages, fall. But, also, this technological revolution reduces the value of all commodities, as productivity rises, including the value of wage goods. So, as well as money wages falling, the value of labour-power also falls. For those workers in employment, that may still result in a rise in real wages. In other words, if the fall in money wages is less than the fall in the prices of wage goods, real wages (standard of living) would rise. But, that still means that relative wages would fall. In other words, the share of wages in total output would fall, as output grows by a larger proportion.

This was seen in the 1930's/40's, and 1980's/90's. On the one hand, unemployment rises, and structural long-term unemployment, in specific geographical areas and industries, grows disproportionately. But, for those in employment, and often, now geographical areas, and often also, new industries, living standards rise, as the value of existing wage goods falls, and new types of wage goods become available. On a global scale, that was seen from the 1980's onwards, as industrialisation of economies in Asia, Latin America and Africa went along with deindustrialisation in developed economies. Living standards in the former rose significantly in absolute terms, and relative to those in developed economies.

Back To Part 7

Forward To Section II

Back To Table of Contents

The Chinese Revolution After The Sixth Congress, 4. Once More On The Slogan of The Democratic Dictatorship - Part 3 of 3

The revolution, when it came, both in 1905 and in 1917, was led by the workers. Those workers first established factory committees, and this was followed by the creation of workers' councils/soviets, in each area, to which delegates were directly elected from the workplaces. Rather than establishing bourgeois parliamentary democracy, the workers spontaneously established soviets, as an expression of their own self-government, as the workers in Paris had done, in 1871. The peasants followed suit, in rural areas, and, in 1917, in conditions of war, the soldiers and sailors, drawn from the ranks of the workers and peasants, also sent their own delegates that became a powerful weapon in the revolution itself.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks made the algebraic formula more precise, on the basis of these developments. They changed the formulation to The Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat Leading The Peasantry. But, by this time, it was also apparent that these soviets already held power in society. Although the peasants and petty-bourgeoisie still demanded the convocation of a National Assembly, in which their numbers would translate into political representation, and large numbers of workers still had illusions in such a parliament, it was clear that the only way it was going to be convened was if the soviets themselves brought it about.

But, if the soviets already held power in society, what was the point of a National Assembly, which would, at some point, have come into conflict with the soviets? Moreover, the National Assembly would reflect the numerical weight of the peasantry, as against the soviets, where it was the workers that held sway, and where the Bolsheviks were becoming dominant, on the basis of their opposition to the war, and the bourgeois-defencism of the Mensheviks et al. It was on that basis that Lenin raised the demand for “All Power To The Soviets”, and began to prepare the ground, not for a bourgeois parliamentary government, but a soviet government.

Stalin, Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev had never accepted Lenin's dropping of the Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry, seeing it as capitulation to Trotsky and Permanent Revolution. In China, therefore, they resurrected that old formula. Indeed, the Stalinists even adopted the formula of the Democratic Dictatorship of the Peasantry and Proletariat.

In Russia, the peasants had established the SR's as a political party representing their interests. When the Bolsheviks established the Soviet Government, they shared power, in it, with the SR's, for eighteen months. But, in China, the peasants had not even risen to this level! They found their representation only through the Communist Party, and following the slaughter of the worker-communists in 1927, they formed an increasing social weight within it, thereby, having a crucial impact on the subsequent events, as it moved from the cities to rural areas, and proceeded on the basis of rural guerrilla warfare, rather than proletarian revolution.

“The year 1917 showed that when the peasantry bears on its back a party (the Socialist Revolutionaries) independent of the vanguard of the proletariat, this party proves to be in complete dependence upon the imperialist bourgeoisie. In the course of the period from 1905 to 1917, the growing imperialist transformation of the petty-bourgeois democracy as well as of international Social Democracy, made gigantic progress. It was because of this that in 1917 the slogan of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry was really realized in the dictatorship of the proletariat, drawing with it the peasant masses. By this very token, the “transformation by growth” of the revolution, passing from the democratic phase to the socialist stage, already took place under the dictatorship of the proletariat.” (p 208)

That was seen again with the Popular Front governments in France, Czechoslovakia and Spain, in the 1930's. It is seen again, today, with Ukraine, where the social-democracy has affiliated itself directly with Zelensky's corrupt regime, itself directly dependent on US imperialism. And, worse than that, even outside Ukraine, it is manifest both in the position of social-democracy, but also of a petty-bourgeois “Left” that has tied itself to that imperialism in a most debased and debauched form, claiming that “imperialism defends the interests of workers”!!!

What makes this position so miserable is that China was a developing economy, seeking to carry through a bourgeois-democratic, national revolution, whereas Ukraine is already an independent, capitalist state, imperialist in nature, given the dominance within it of monopoly capitalism, and ties to global finance capital. It is already a bourgeois-democracy, albeit a grossly dysfunctional and corrupt one. If socialists should raise any demands, in relation to it, it is the need to oppose the current corrupt political regime of Zelensky, and for the implementation of measures of consistent democracy within it. Instead, both social democracy and the petty-bourgeois “left”, have thrown themselves entirely into the camp of that corrupt, illiberal and anti-working-class regime, and its imperialist backers, cutting off any possibility of a credible struggle for consistent democracy, let alone an independent working-class alternative.

That they do so under cover of claims of “anti-imperialism”, or “the right to national self-determination”, is merely a continuation of that petty-bourgeois, Stalinist/Menshevik Popular Frontism that the “Left” has pursued in relation to actual national liberation struggles for the last 80 years, i.e. it is “idiot anti-imperialism”. That has simply reached its own culmination in which “anti-imperialist”, national liberation, based on subordination of workers' interests to those of the bourgeoisie (bloc of four classes/Popular Frontism), has evolved into subordination of those interests to imperialism – just a different imperialism to the one, supposedly, being opposed. It is “anti-imperialism” as “pro-imperialism”, or to give it its true description – campism.  In essence, its no different to the campism of social-democracy, prior to WWI and WWII.

Trotsky explained why the betrayal and defeat of the Chinese Revolution, and subsequent stabilisation, made it impossible to raise the demand for the Democratic Dictatorship, in future.

“The period of inter-revolutionary stabilization corresponds to the development of the productive forces, to the growth of the national bourgeoisie, to the growth and the increase of the cohesion of the proletariat, to the accentuation of the differentiation in the villages and to the continuation of the capitalist degeneration of democracy à la Wang Jingwei or any other petty-bourgeois democrat, with their “third party”, etc. In other words, China will pass through processes analogous in their broad outlines to those through which Russia passed under the régime of June 3.” (p 209)

The Bolshevik evaluation that this would culminate in revolution had been confirmed. The contradictions, in Russia, had been sharpened by its more rapid capitalist development, spurred on by the regime of Stolypin.

“The social changes which the inter-revolutionary régime will introduce in China depend especially upon the duration of this régime. But the general tendency of these modifications is henceforth indisputable: it is the sharpening of the class contradictions and the complete elimination of the petty-bourgeois democracy as an independent political power. But this signifies precisely that in the third Chinese revolution, a “democratic” coalition of the political parties would acquire a still more reactionary and more anti-proletarian content than that of the Guomindang in 1925-27. There is therefore nothing left to do but to make a coalition of classes under the direct leadership of the proletarian vanguard. That is the road of October. It involves many difficulties, but there exists no other.” (p 209)

In Ukraine, not only the social-democracy, but also those that still claim to be Marxists, have adopted the diametrically opposite and reactionary policy. Instead of seeking to unite the revolutionary and democratic forces under the leadership of the working-class, they have adopted the position of Stalin/Bukharin, and subordinated the workers and democratic forces under the hegemony of the corrupt regime of Zelensky, the oligarchs, western capitalist states, and NATO imperialism. It is a betrayal of the international working class, and socialism on an epochal scale, equivalent to that prior to WWI.

Back To Part 2

Forward To Appendix - A Remarkable Document

Back To Table of Contents