Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 00:44:59 +0100 From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell) Subject: Rollback of working class privileges Brad wrote: >What of the working class in this period, today? One of its salient >features has been the relentless rollback of precisely these privileges >within the imperialist countries. Why this is occurring now is an >interesting theoretical problem that needs to be solved (I have my own >ideas on this). But if this trend continues, an explosion of class >struggle is inevitable. In this case, the LAST thing needed is Maoist, >New Left or Postmodern pessimism concerning the proletariat. Basically, I would reply that the rollback is due to the growing crisis of capitalism. There are several factors that gave capitalism an artificial lease of life after the second world war, and most of them can be summed up under the heading of a Stalinist sell-out of the international revolution in the name of socialism in one country and peaceful coexistence - a counter-revolutionary alliance of Stalinism with imperialism. Besides such glaring examples as the Soviet diplomats accompanying Chiang Kai-Shek to Taiwan when Mao took power in China, and the opposition of the Cuban CP to the Cuban revolution, there were more subtle aspects to the deal. A fundamental characteristic of the post-war period was the administration by counter-revolutionary leaderships of enormous concessions to the workers and the 'popular masses'. 1. Petty-bourgeois nationalist leaderships administered the newly liberated colonial nations, whose revolutionary movements had made them impossible for the imperialists to retain - India, Indonesia, Ghana, Kenya etc. (In passing, Indonesia 1965 is to Maoism's internationalism what China 1927 was to Stalinism's). 2. Stalinist bureaucracies administered the expanding bloc of workers' states, including relatively autonomous variants in countries where an independent revolutionary movement had swept away the imperialists - Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam and Cuba, for instance. 3. Social-Democrat governments introduced and administered welfare states in a number of imperialist countries, such as Britain, Sweden and others. This class collaboration, orchestrated from Moscow, gave the imperialists the chance to exploit the fantastic destruction of capital during the war by producing for reconstruction and then for the huge new market opened up for them courtesy of Stalinism. Ironic, isn't it - capitalism was dead on its feet, and instead of a new world for the workers, Stalinism came up with new markets for the imperialists! Well, one by one these concessions have been reeled back in. First the semi-colonial nations were forced into submission and then gang-raped. Their subsistence-farming rural populations have been brutally torn from the land and driven into vast urban slums as a classic proletariat with no ties to the land or any other means of production, and only their labour power to sell. Then the Stalinist bureaucracies themselves became unable to bear the antagonistic tensions mounting between the craving for profits and expansion of post-boom imperialism and the class pressures of a working-class demanding its birthright in the workers' states. They caved in to imperialism and attempted to make over the workers' states to the bourgeoisie, just as Trotsky had predicted they would in the Transitional Programme of the Fourth International in 1938: 'The political prognosis has an alternative character: either the bureaucracy, becoming ever more the organ of the world bourgeoisie in the workers' state, will overthrow the new forms of property and plunge the country back to capitalism; or the working class will crush the bureaucracy and open the way to socialism.' The problem was that the working class was beginning to move, and although it didn't crush the bureaucracy, it was in no mood to just have a whole new bourgeois class foisted on it, especially when the new bourgeoisie was composed of its old enemies the bureaucracy and the imperialists, and its new enemy the mafia. The battle is still on in relation to the character of the new states emerging from the ex-Soviet bloc. Property relations rooted in a mode of production cannot just be wished away or signed away with a stroke of the pen. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the political relations underlying the Stalinist regimes were not identical with the economic relations that constituted the foundations of the workers' states. And now - in the period of the most splendid victory for the world bourgeoisie in its history, namely the humiliation and destruction of the Soviet Union, born of the socialist revolution - you'd think they'd be cock-a-hoop and leading the world in joyful celebrations! But no. In its finest hour, imperialism without the Stalinist counterweight to restrain it is once more revealing its true features of limitless greed, brutality and bloodlust. And chaotic instability - it's lurching about like a crazed elephant and god help anyone in its path. And in the process it's starting to attack the material concessions in terms of wages and welfare ('prosperity' - if you compare it to the conditions that Engels described in England in 1844, or that workers and the poor have to endure in semi-colonial countries today) that have bought off the working class in the imperialist heartlands for so many decades. By 'bought off' I mean been a significant part of the material pressure preventing the workers from chucking the union and Labour bureaucracies off their backs and using their organizations to fight for their own class interests. So with the national independence movements down the tubes, workers' states under Stalinist management a nostalgic CP dream (no more junkets to Georgia!), and the imperialist welfare states going to the dogs, irreversibly, what can the working class do? Any ideas? Cheers, Hugh --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005