gadda23 wrote:
真當過房東就不會這...(恕刪)
牛奶伯 wrote:
說得法院公證好棒棒似...(恕刪)
的確，法律程序本來就曠日廢時，對於擺爛的一方也是效果有限，
如果房東有認真篩選房客、走完法律程序，相信發生違約的機率及損害就已經降到最低了，
法律再怎麼修，也很難修到把違約行為的損害降到0
但我覺得這篇文章主要在討論台日兩國對於「履約」的房東與房客的權利義務規範，
討論「違約」行為這種例外事件，已經偏離原文所討論的範圍內了
jim1996 wrote:
但我覺得這篇文章主要在討論台日兩國對於「履約」的房東與房客的權利義務規範，
討論「違約」行為這種例外事件，已經偏離原文所討論的範圍內了...(恕刪)
樓主認為台灣房東會任意加租.
但一來合約期間是不能加租的. 租約過期要加不是不行. 01鄉民不是常說台灣空屋幾百萬戶, 房東加到合理水平之上, 房客就搬走了, 貪心房東連本來的合理房租都收不到, 被懲罰的是貪心房東.
像台北東區或是台中逢甲商圈這種原本炙手可熱的商圈, 的確有一些貪心房東任意加租, 最後就是優質房客被逼走, 再來只能租給花車特賣和抓娃娃機, 還是根本租不出去關蚊子. 呷緊弄破碗. 被懲罰的還是貪心房東.
要永續經營, 還是要想怎麼和房客雙贏. 亂加租只會自砸飯碗. 另立新法其實也是假議題.
Ruth2011 wrote:
你是共產黨員嗎?
我不知道目前共產黨在台灣是否合法,
但是台灣不是共產國家,
不奉行馬克思主義.
換言之,不是馬克思說甚麼,台灣人就要照做.
這點你不知道嗎?
你舉了一堆馬克思的論述做為support的理由,
有一點詭異.
你被兩蔣的麥卡錫主義+法輪功+美國之音洗腦了
絕大多數批評馬克思主義的連資本論甚至共產黨宣言這樣的基礎東西都沒看過
台灣現在是有共產黨的歷史上也有
歷史上的台灣共產黨
台灣共產黨
但是我推測可能現在台灣的2個共產黨是假共產的改良主義和修正主義
並非真正意義上的推動階級革命建立無產階級專政
所以才會稱為台灣民主共產黨
不論是托派共產黨、盧森堡主義 或是正統列寧主義派都主張應該革命
但是改良主義共產黨則認為可以透過民主選舉的方式來達成
另外目前英國工黨的柯濱就是相信馬克思主義
但是它是改良主義者
臺灣民主共產黨
中華民國共產黨
另外共產黨在許多國家都有的只是沒有執政不是執政黨而已
法國共產黨
美國共產黨
美國共產黨（英語：Communist Party USA），簡稱美共（CPUSA），是美國的一個共產主義政黨，總部位於紐約曼哈頓。目前，該黨辦有電子刊物《人民世界》。
德國共產黨
德國共產黨（德語：Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands），簡稱德共（KPD）。1918年12月30日，斯巴達克同盟聯合不萊梅左派創建了該黨。該黨的創始人是卡爾‧李卜克內西和羅莎‧盧森堡，後來則由恩斯特‧台爾曼長期領導。1933年納粹黨上台後，德共被取締。1945年，納粹政權瓦解後，英美法蘇四國分別佔領德國。1946年，德共、德國社會民主黨兩黨在蘇聯佔領區的組織合併為德國統一社會黨，德共在其它佔領區的組織則繼續活動。1956年8月17日，西德當局取締德共。
Ruth2011 wrote:
________________________________________________
你是共產黨員嗎?
我不知道目前共產黨在台灣是否合法,
但是台灣不是共產國家,
不奉行馬克思主義.
換言之,不是馬克思說甚麼,台灣人就要照做.
這點你不知道嗎?
你舉了一堆馬克思的論述做為support的理由,
有一點詭異.
Kenji.K wrote:
什麼叫被西方蹂躪了200年，什麼叫生靈塗炭
我告訴你，文革才是蹂躪，大躍進才是生靈塗炭
1.毛哲東本身的理論水平很低的他17歲才讀小學 馬克思是博士生兼哲學家+經濟學家
會搞出文革和大躍進是對馬克思主義的嚴重扭曲
2.史達林的大清洗並不是只有清洗一些反動的資產階級
他同時清洗掉很多正統派的列寧主義者,甚至是拖洛斯基也被史達林所暗殺
列夫‧達維多維奇‧托洛斯基
第四國際
3.列寧還有大學生程度
但是就以理論水平和對經濟學理解的程度來看 馬克思>普列漢諾夫 >列寧
格奧爾基‧瓦連京諾維奇‧普列漢諾夫
4.毛哲東和史達林走的是「一國社會主義路線」 ,並不熱衷於世界革命和建立共產國際
毛哲東大煉鋼更是露出了他本身對於經濟理論和科學的無知(我已說過毛本身只有國小學生程度 17歲才讀中學)
毛輸出革命也只能往第三世界國家輸出,因為他沒聽懂列寧的工人貴族理論，不理解要如何打破帝國主義的壟斷模式
而中國的資本有機構成 和勞動生產率當時都是處於比西方社會低很多的狀態,
所以馬克思才會認為真正的社會主義革命應該會發生在西方而不是東方,
但列寧觀察到工人貴族現象 ,因此推斷壟斷的資本主義制度即帝國主義是最高階段會進一步加強和鞏固這一模式
「帝國主義是資本主義的最高階段」、「國家與革命」、這兩本書就已經表明列寧的思想
但列寧以為一國革命後不可能馬上發展出社會主義,因此才會提出先鋒隊理論等
他們並不懂200年前亞當斯密 李嘉圖和馬克思等人就已經知道的現象,所以不斷嘗試在一國之內建成社會主義
會把毛哲東和馬克斯混為一談的通常是受到如美國之音、法輪功等媒體妖魔化+洗腦無知的表現 或是兩蔣時代灌輸的洗腦教育
所謂市場分工和細化提高了勞動生產率,亞當斯密舉出鐵釘的例子
西方的經濟學之父亞當斯密 說過如下的話 ----------
如果一個人來完成生產鐵釘或針，所有生產步驟他一天可能可以做10個針或鐵釘
(比如找鐵匠製作)
如果把鐵釘的生產拆解成1000個基礎的步驟
讓一群工人在工廠的流水線上分工合作
人均產量一天可能可以生產1000個鐵釘 相比之前的手工生產10個1人完成所有製程 單位產量提高100倍
人均產量在分工之下效率得到極大的提升 成本被降低
這就是資本主義生產戰勝農業時代手工業的原因
但是也因為資本主義的生產方式 導致勞動者本身不擁有了生產資料
發生「生產資料所有權」和生產者勞動者之間發生的分離現象
在中世紀 許多農民本身就有生產資料 在英國也有許多小農 小店主本身是有自己的生產資料可以自己完成生產和銷售
而分工的效率提高帶來的提升導致「生產資料所有權」掌握在資本家手上 和實際生產者的分離
馬克思就觀察到這種矛盾性的存在
這種制度的未來會如何會產生的結果雖然提高「勞動生產率」降低了成本
但是也就是資本有機構成會提高 利潤率會在競爭之下變得越來越低
《國富論》中，第三章題目就是「論勞動分工受市場規模的限制」。斯密在第一段中提到：
「分工的程度要受……市場大小的限制。市場要是過小，就無法鼓勵人們始終專於一業，因為在這種狀態下，他們不能用自己勞動生產物的剩餘物隨意交換自己所需」。（斯密，1776年，31頁）
在不同經濟發展水平下，市場範圍和生產範圍也是相關聯的：
「有些職業，即便是普通的職業只能在大城鎮存在。如搬運工，無法在除了大城鎮之外的地方找到工作並得以生存。在荒涼的蘇格蘭高地，那些人跡稀少的小鄉村，甚至不可能會有制釘這一行業。如果制釘工人每天能生產1000枚鐵釘，他們每年能生產出30萬枚鐵釘。但在蘇格蘭的窮鄉僻壤間，即便像制釘這樣的行業不可能存在，因為一年不可能售出1000枚鐵釘。」（斯密，1776年，31頁）
從中我們可以看到，斯密對大規模生產的優勢理解是廣義的，而不僅僅侷限於常常提到的「規模經濟」。「規模經濟」通常是指對於同一產品生產，其大規模生產的成本要低於小規模生產。斯密的理論是廣泛意義上的規模經濟，即大市場下的大規模生產，使得勞動分工成為可能—而勞動分工是促進生產力發展的最有力因素。因而，市場規模提高了整個經濟的生產力發展水平，而不是對某一特定產品生產而言的。從而斯密用一整段話來闡釋這一觀點：
「我們應該銘記，製造業的完美發展得益於勞動分工；而勞動分工的程度可以應用在各個製造業領域，但我們很有必要控制這個分工程度。市場的範圍決定了勞動分工的程度。」（亞當斯密，1776年，680頁）
亞當斯密已經知道市場分工的規模會影響到生產效率 也就是「規模經濟性」分工越細化成本越低,這個馬克思也知道,社會主義革命的國家人口的多寡和市場規模的大小會影響到發展的前景,永遠不可能再小國家的經濟體內建成發達社會主義經濟的分工體系,否則只會造成類似北韓那樣的悲慘結果,前蘇聯大約有3億人口,但西方不論控制的人口即市場規模最大和有資本機構成都超過東方,俄國一開始的資本有機構成就沒這麼高,另外帝國主義國家壟斷了生產資料和高附加價值產業還有金融體系的剝削,並用那些剩餘價值去收買他們本國的底層形成「勞工貴族」,勞工貴族團結在資本家內部被民族主義和唯心主義所洗腦,因此也很難輸入革命到發達國家內部,例如我舉出的「美國麥當勞工人比印度麥當勞工人工資高20倍」的例子就可以看的出來絕對有跨國剩餘價值轉移過程.也就是帝國主義. 另外普列漢諾夫的觀點和列寧有所不同
但是這種情況最近正在瓦解 ,從中美貿易戰中可以觀察出來,高技術產業正在擴散到開發中國家打破帝國主義國家的壟斷,例如中國的2025計畫,也就是減少了美國能夠分配到的剩餘價值,因此底層的工人貴族才會去支持川普搞民粹主義和新納粹主義,最終貿易戰博弈的結果假如是美國失敗很可能就是帝國主義國家內部從外國榨取的剩餘價值量變少,這種情況下美國社會內部矛盾會加大,然後出現資產階級難以分配他們國家內部的底層足夠的剩餘價值這狀況帝國主義會解體,甚至中產階級(小資產階級)也會減少,就有可能發生內部革命
普列漢諾夫和列寧關於在俄國能否實行社會主義的爭論
Plekhanov and Lenin's Debate on Whether the Socialism Can Be Put into Practice in Russia
內容提要：十月革命前夕，普列漢諾夫與列寧曾經就資本主義落後的俄國能否立即推翻資產階級臨時政府、實行社會主義革命展開過激烈的爭論。普列漢諾夫秉持歷史決定論的立場，主張俄國革命必須嚴格遵循由資產階級民主革命循序漸進地演變到社會主義革命的規律，認為俄國當前的任務是建立資本主義民主制度，大力發展生產力，而不是立刻實施社會主義。而列寧則主張在資產階級革命成功後不失時機地將革命引向社會主義，由布爾什維克奪取政權。在這場爭論中，就成功地奪取政權、建立人類歷史上第一個社會主義國家而言，列寧無疑是勝利者。而從後來社會主義實踐的進程來說，普列漢諾夫的一些觀點對我們今天的社會主義建設事業也不無啟示意義。
關 鍵 詞：社會主義/資本主義/十月革命/民主
一、引言
眾所周知，如何才能在一個國家實行社會主義，即實現社會主義的條件，這對以實現社會主義和共產主義為最終目標的馬克思主義者來說，是一個極為重要的理論和實踐問題。在這個問題上，經典的馬克思主義秉持歷史決定論的立場，主張社會主義必須在資本主義高度發達的基礎上才有可能實現。因此，對那些經濟文化落後的非資本主義國家而言，社會主義只是其最終的必然歸宿而不是近期的前景，其當前的迫切任務是努力發展資本主義生產力，待生產力發展到一定高度，社會主義的任務才能被提到議事日程上來。由於馬克思主義創立的時代絕大多數國家還處在前資本主義階段，所以馬克思主義創始人一方面激烈地批判資本主義，另一方面卻在很大程度上肯定了資本主義的歷史功績。馬克思主義對資本主義的這種態度為後繼的革命家和馬克思主義者對待資本主義的立場提供了不同的選擇，更何況，晚年的馬克思在回答上述問題時確實與早期相比顯得有些猶豫和謹慎，不似早年那麼堅定。不過，在後來首先成功實現社會主義革命而當時經濟文化卻十分落後的俄國，表現出急於跨越資本主義「卡夫丁峽谷」的人，主要是後來那些被稱為民粹主義者的革命者而不是馬克思主義者。相反，俄國早期的馬克思主義者(包括後來較晚才改變觀點的列寧在內)倒是在這個問題上表現得非常實際，甚至可能是由於俄國相比於西歐的極端落後而表現得比馬克思主義創始人在這個問題上更為謹慎。在這方面，普列漢諾夫是一個典型的代表人物，而且他這方面的觀點自始至終沒有改變過。正是由於這一點，引申出了他的許多其他方面的觀點，並最終導致他與以列寧為代表的布爾什維克分道揚鑣，在馬克思主義發展上最終被定格為「機會主義者」、「時代落伍者」。因此，仔細研究普列漢諾夫在這個問題上的觀點及他與列寧的爭論並給予儘量不帶偏見的客觀評價，不僅對於普氏本人的思想和政治定位十分重要，而且對於有關社會主義的一些重大理論和實踐問題的認識和解決也非常必要。
二、落後的俄國能否立刻實行社會主義？
基於馬克思主義的歷史決定論和相關具體理論，並考慮到俄國經濟文化落後的實際狀況，普列漢諾夫對俄國資本主義的發展和實現社會主義的態度和立場應該說非常明確、毫不含糊：當前俄國社會的現狀是，資本主義的發展嚴重不足，因此實行社會主義的條件還極不成熟，還需要大力發展資本主義。在其開始成為馬克思主義者後發表的著名的《社會主義與政治鬥爭》(1883年)一文中普列漢諾夫指出：「社會主義的組織，正如任何其他的組織一樣，要求有與之相適應的基礎。而這樣的基礎在現代的俄國是沒有的。人民生活的舊基礎是太狹隘，種類太不相同而片面了……生產的客觀社會諸條件還沒有成熟到可以有社會主義組織的程度……」①在同年撰寫的《社會民主主義「勞動解放社」綱領》中，他也指出：「當代的俄國所遭受的……不僅是資本主義生產發展的痛苦，而且也有這一發展不夠的痛苦。」②後一說法，他在以後還多次重複過。根據對社會主義和俄國社會現實的這一認識，普列漢諾夫進而指出：「我們完全不害怕資本主義的發展。我們堅決地相信資本主義越是有力地發展，資本主義社會固有的矛盾越是大大地尖銳化，社會主義革命的勝利就越會臨近。」③「如果我們不願意背叛我們所代表的那個革命階級的利益，那麼我們應當毫無例外地堅決抵抗一切停止歷史車輪的企圖，換句話說，也就是堅決抵抗一切阻礙資本主義發展的企圖。」④「凡是已經有可能用另一種更高的生產關係來代替資產階級生產關係的地方，我們就力求消滅資產階級生產關係；凡是我們只能在這種關係和過時的前資產階級生產關係之間作一選擇的地方，我們則為它掃清道路。」⑤因此，俄國社會主義者當前的迫切任務不是立即實行社會主義變革，而是儘力為資本主義在俄國的發展掃清障礙，建立民主和自由的政治制度：「一方面是爭取政治自由的鬥爭，另一方面是使工人階級準備去扮演它的將來獨立的和進攻的角色，據我們的意見，在現時所可能『規定的黨的任務』，就是這樣的。想把推翻專制制度和社會主義革命這樣兩種實質上不同的事情聯結為一，想在進行革命鬥爭時把社會發展的這兩個環節在的歷史中合而為一——就是等於把前者和後者到來的時刻都推遲」⑥。
基於這樣的認識，普列漢諾夫堅決主張俄國革命應分兩步走：革命的最近目標是推翻專制制度，建立資本主義民主制度，保障無產階級和廣大勞動群眾基本的政治權利和自由，同時大力發展社會生產力，提高人民的生活水平以及文化水準，待資本主義的經濟、政治和文化都達到一個相當高的程度時，再準備向社會主義社會過渡，並最終在俄國實現共產主義。考慮到俄國社會的極端落後，普列漢諾夫在提出上述革命的終極策略時，總是不忘強調這一革命策略不能僅僅被理解為一種邏輯的劃分，而應特別注意其時間性，即兩個革命階段之間必須有一個相當長的時間間隔，而決不能「畢其功於一役」。用他的話說就是「社會主義的勝利不能同專制制度的崩潰同時並舉」⑦。因此，他堅決反對當時俄國革命陣營中為相當一部分人所熱衷的那種「不斷革命」的「左」傾論調。
從這一革命的總策略出發，普列漢諾夫認為，在俄國革命的第一階段即民主革命階段，社會民主黨人的基本策略是必須與俄國社會中一切反對沙皇專制制度的人結成同盟，只有這樣民主革命才有成功的可能。針對當時革命隊伍中普遍存在的對資產階級的恐懼和不信任心理，普列漢諾夫認為，馬克思主義創始人所指出的那種無產階級與資產階級尖銳對立的情形，只是在資本主義發達國家才會有的現象，而並不是落後的俄國社會的現實。在他看來，在俄國意欲實現民主革命的現階段，資產階級不但不是革命的障礙，反而是革命的一支重要力量，因為無產階級與資產階級的利益並不是永遠對立的，二者至少在民主革命中是一致的。所以二者在革命中結成統一戰線是完全有可能的，關鍵是社會民主黨人的策略是否對頭。因此，在民主革命過程中，完全不必過分擔心和害怕資產階級。當然，像所有馬克思主義者一樣，普列漢諾夫也沒有過高估計資產階級的革命性：「這種一致性決不會達到同一性的地步：資產階級要同舊制度的各種殘餘勢力和睦相處比起無產階級來容易得不能相提並論。德國資產階級即為一例。」⑧因此，「我們的策略隨時隨地也都應當這樣，當資產階級作為革命階級同舊制度進行鬥爭的時候，我們同它一起走。當資產階級放慢腳步，當它不再是革命階級的時候，我們就批評它」⑨。
在20世紀初之前，列寧基本贊同普列漢諾夫的上述看法，不過，後來列寧的觀點發生了很大的變化。在他看來，普列漢諾夫的觀點書生氣十足，完全不能適應俄國革命形勢的發展，已經墮落為機會主義了。列寧的這種判斷來源於他此時對資本主義的一個新的認定：與早期不同，20世紀以後的資本主義已經發展到了一個新的歷史階段即帝國主義階段，這個階段的資本主義是「腐朽的」、「垂死的」，是沒有任何進步性可言的。當然，列寧也承認這樣的判斷是就整個世界範圍內的資本主義而言，他從來沒有否認過在經濟文化落後的國家裡資本主義還有一定的進步意義。作為一個成熟的馬克思主義者，列寧當然不會忘記馬克思主義創始人關於實現社會主義條件的教誨，在20世紀初之前，他也曾經多次以此為理論依據駁斥過俄國一些民粹主義者的社會主義空想⑩。那時候，與普列漢諾夫相似，列寧表現得像是一個堅定的「西歐派」。不過，列寧畢竟首先是一個革命家、特別是一個革命策略大師，「與時俱進」、善於抓住稍縱即逝的革命時機是像他這樣的革命者的天性，於是他主張(至遲在二月革命後不久)，在資本主義雖不如西方國家發達但確已達到相當水平的俄國，不失時機地推翻專制制度並實現社會主義。如果不這樣做，就是對歷史和人民的犯罪。實際上，早在1905年俄國第一次革命時，當時剛剛形成不久的以列寧為首的布爾什維克就已經初步形成了這樣的想法，只不過鑑於當時的形勢和布爾什維克的力量，這樣的想法還完全不可能付諸實施，弱小的布爾什維克也沒有公開亮出這樣的旗幟。後來革命失敗，使列寧意識到無論是布爾什維克奪取政權還是社會主義的實現都還是一個非常遙遠的事情。然而，歷史確實充滿弔詭和偶然性，第一次革命僅僅過去十餘年，布爾什維克的機會就不期而至，於是機敏的列寧力排眾議、不失時機地率領布爾什維克一舉奪得了政權，開創了人類歷史的新紀元。
這裡必須指出，列寧觀點的改變不能僅僅歸結為外部環境變化的刺激和他善於調整和改變自己觀點的個性，馬克思主義理論內在邏輯的制約也是一個不容忽視的重要因素。這就是，雖然馬克思終其一生始終肯定社會主義的實現和最終成功必須依賴於資本主義的一定發展，因而它始終鄙棄民粹主義的那種空想社會主義，但馬克思並沒有明確說明(實際上也不可能說明)他所說的建設社會主義所需要的「一定」的資本主義前提究竟是什麼？是否有精確的指標即資本主義究竟要發展到一個什麼樣的具體水平才能考慮實現社會主義的可能性？正如列寧所說：「誰也說不出這個一定的『文化水平』究竟是什麼樣的，因為這在各個西歐國家都是不同的。」(11)在列寧看來，既然資本主義已經日薄西山、氣息奄奄，遲早會被拋棄，那麼，我們就算稍稍提早一點拋棄這個過時的廢物，至少不是什麼歷史罪過，還很可能是一樁功德無量的大好事。何況等革命者掌權後再來補資本主義生產力落後這一課也為時不晚！就像列寧所說的，就算俄國目前暫時還不具備實行社會主義的客觀經濟前提和文明前提，但「我們為什麼不能首先在為這種文明創造前提，如驅逐地主，驅逐俄國資本家，然後開始走向社會主義呢？你們在哪些書本上讀到過，通常的歷史順序是不容許或不可能有這類改變的呢」(12)？所以，客觀地說，即便以經典馬克思主義的原理來衡量，我們也難以得出列寧的觀點和行動一定是錯誤的結論。
列寧之所以發生這種後來被證明具有極為深遠的歷史影響的變化，深層次的原因在於他思想深處有兩種相互衝突的觀點。「一方面，列寧根據俄國社會經濟的發展程度以及俄國無產階級的覺悟和組織程度，認為俄國當前的革命是資產階級性質的，俄國社會缺乏社會主義革命的條件，革命將加強資本主義的統治，革命後俄國將走上資本主義發展道路。另一方面，列寧有時又認為，工農民主專政之後無產階級有可能在一定的條件(按：無產階級的覺悟和組織程度的提高及歐洲革命的勝利並援助俄國革命)下通過鬥爭把民主革命轉變為社會主義革命。1917年二月革命後列寧發揮的正是這後一思想。但是在這之前，在列寧的思想中佔主導地位的還是前一想法。」(13)「在關於工農民主專政前途的第一種考慮(按：即資本主義前途)中，對俄國客觀條件的尊重無疑佔了上風。……而在後一種設想(按：即社會主義前途)中，俄國『客觀條件』的不足已為無產階級的政治能動性和國際無產階級的援助……所克服，因此在這種思路中政治鬥爭、無產階級在革命時期的能動性就被提到首位，通向社會主義之路上物質條件的匱乏可以由這種能動性的發揮而得到克服。」(14)另外，列寧之所以在二月革命後很快放棄以前的觀點，主張將資產階級革命立刻轉變為社會主義革命的原因還在於：由於列寧只是把工農民主專政看作完成俄國民主革命的一個工具，那麼在革命完成之後革命者就自然面臨著這一工具的存廢問題，從而尖銳地提出了非資產階級的革命政權與資本主義發展的關係問題。馬克思關於生產力與生產關係矛盾運動的原理早已告訴人們，在和平發展時期，資本主義的經濟基礎之上是不能存在一個工農政權的，因而在資產階級革命完成即工農民主專政建立後的進一步選擇只能是：或者是工農民主專政轉化為資產階級專政，或者是(在西方無產階級的幫助下)這一專政快速轉向無產階級專政。在1917年以前，列寧傾向於認為前者是俄國革命的前途，但二月革命爆發不久，列寧的看法改變了(15)。
其實，就連普列漢諾夫這樣「穩健」的馬克思主義者也難以真正抵擋住社會主義美好前景的誘惑。他的如下這段話無疑可看成是對被他視為「激進」的布爾什維克的讓步：「但是這兩個時刻(按：指資產階級革命和社會主義革命)的接近是取決於我們的。我們應當傚法德國共產主義者的光輝榜樣，他們如《共產黨宣言》所說的，『當資產階級還採取革命行動時，同資產階級一起去反對君主專制』，同時，『一分鐘也不停止在工人中間努力培養儘量明了資產階級和無產階級間敵對情形的意識』。當這樣做時，共產黨人是要使『德國資產階級革命成為無產階級革命的直接序幕』。」(16)既然俄國資本主義已經有「一定」的發展(這是布爾什維克和反對他們的人都一致認可的)，那我們何必過分拘泥於馬克思主義的個別詞句(何況這些詞句有些也是含糊不清的)從而束縛住自己的手腳呢？
可普列漢諾夫究竟不是列寧，他更像是一個學究氣十足的理論家，他一生不僅很少變化而且似乎對列寧式的「善變」不屑一顧。他以不同的詞句反覆申述同一個觀點：「在，資本主義生產方式所能容納的全部生產力，還遠沒有發揮出來。更確切一些說：與其說我們吃資本主義的苦頭，不如說我們吃資本主義不夠發達的苦頭。」(17)「以馬克思的學說為依據的社會主義政策當然有自己的邏輯。如果一國的資本主義尚未達到阻礙本國生產力發展的那個高級階段，那麼號召城鄉工人和最貧苦的農民推翻資本主義就是荒謬的。」(18)俄國並沒有做好走向社會主義的準備，「這是神聖的真理，只有不可救藥的空想主義者才能拒絕它」(19)。政權轉入社會主義者手中「無非是『無產階級和農民的專政』。勞動群眾還沒有實行這種專政的準備。正像恩格斯指出過的，對於任何一個特定的階級來說，最大的不幸莫過於在它還沒有充分發展而不能適當的利用政權的時候就得到政權：因為在這種情況下它一定要遭到慘重的失敗。至於勞動群眾，那麼，如果它奪取政權，它的失敗也會是必然的，因為大家知道，俄國現在正遭受空前的經濟破壞。……俄國歷史還沒有磨好將來要用它烤成社會主義餡餅的那種麵粉，因此當它還沒有磨好這種麵粉的時候，為了勞動者本身的利益必須讓資產階級參加國家管理。……資產階級參加國家管理，在目前這個十分特殊的時期是特別必要的」(20)。
三、對普列漢諾夫和列寧上述爭論的評價及這一爭論對落後國家建設社會主義的啟示
作為不帶偏見的歷史研究者，我們應該如何看待普列漢諾夫當時對在俄國實現社會主義的認識呢？今天這可能依然是一個見仁見智的問題。不過有一點可以肯定，再給普氏貼上過去那種本身就含糊不清的意識形態標籤——「機會主義」的做法是難以被稱為客觀的研究了。因為只要我們仔細研究當時俄國的國際國內形勢，就不難真切地感受到普列漢諾夫如此謹慎的原因。實際上，當時如此謹小慎微的不僅是普列漢諾夫和孟什維克這樣的「穩健派」，就連在一向被視為「激進」的布爾什維克內部，許多人也對在二月革命後不久就奪取政權和實現社會主義充滿疑慮和不安。對此，列寧的回答(21)一開始還顯得比較謹慎，他一方面正面反駁加米涅夫等人關於俄國資產階級革命尚未完成的觀點，指出從革命的含義是指國家政權從一個階級手裡轉到另一個階級手裡來說，俄國的資產階級革命已經完成。而且，「資產階級民主革命是否已經完成？」這一問題提得不正確：因為在理論上，這樣抽象地、簡單地提問題，忽視了極其複雜的現實狀況；而在實踐上，這是向「小資產階級的革命性」舉手投降。現實情況是，政權轉移到了資產階級手中，這可以說是資產階級民主革命已經完成，同時除了現實的政府外還存在著一個附屬政府，即蘇維埃，這也是一個政府，而加米涅夫的「資產階級革命還沒有完成」這一老布爾什維克的公式沒有包括這種現實。另一方面，他回擊對他的冒險主義的指責說：「在我的提綱中，絕對保險一點也沒有跳過尚未失去作用的農民運動或整個小資產階級運動，一點也沒有由工人政府『奪取政權』的兒戲，一點也沒有布朗基主義的冒險行動，因為我直接提到了巴黎公社的經驗。……這種經驗完全排斥布朗基主義，完全根據大多數人的自覺行動，充分保證大多數人實行直接的、絕對的統治和發揮群眾的積極性。」(22)但很快列寧就改變了看法(保證布爾什維克不奪取政權的《論策略書》寫作於1917年4月8—13日之間，而改變觀點的《無產階級在革命中的任務》的寫作時間是同年4月10日)：「不推翻資本的權力，不把國家政權轉到另一個階級即無產階級手中，就不能跳出帝國主義戰爭，不能爭得民主的非強制的和約。」(23)1917年6月上旬在全俄工兵代表蘇維埃第一次代表大會上的講話中，列寧更是斬釘截鐵地指出：「任何一個政黨都不會放棄這樣做(按：指掌握全部政權)，我們的黨也不放棄這樣做，它每一分鐘都準備掌握全部政權。」(24)不過，隨著後來蘇俄社會的發展，特別是實施新經濟政策以後，列寧的觀點似乎有了一些變化。在其最後著作之一的《論革命(評尼‧蘇漢諾夫的札記)》一文中，列寧承認，十月革命前俄國在社會經濟關係方面還沒有完全做好實施社會主義的準備，只是由於當時俄國社會的矛盾異常尖銳，面對第一次世界大戰所造成的那種革命形勢的人民，在毫無出路的情況下，只能奮起鬥爭，奪取政權。但革命的成功使得他們能夠利用這一政權著手創造和發展文明，並「開始走向社會主義」(25)。甚至還在此前四年多就寫成的《論「左派」幼稚性和小資產階級性》一文中，他指出：「社會主義蘇維埃共和國這個名稱是表明蘇維埃政權有決心實現向社會主義的過渡，而決不是表明新的經濟制度就是社會主義制度。」(26)
二月革命後，列寧和普列漢諾夫關於俄國革命的爭論實際上主要集中在兩個問題上：一是無產階級應不應該繼續革命，推翻臨時政府，奪取政權；二是社會主義革命的條件是否成熟，社會主義者是否應該將資產階級民主革命迅速轉變為社會主義革命。不過在普列漢諾夫看來，這兩個問題實際上是同一個問題，如果俄國無產階級在二月革命後馬上繼續革命，推翻臨時政府，奪取政權，那就是實施社會主義革命，而社會主義革命的條件在他看來當時還遠未成熟，所以他斷然否認當前革命轉變的可能性。這方面他的理論公式很簡單，就是：無產階級奪取政權=社會主義(革命)。而列寧的看法則不同，十月起義發生前，列寧和俄國大多數馬克思主義者一樣，承認俄國近期的革命將是資產階級革命，社會主義革命對俄國而言還是比較遙遠的未來。但與普列漢諾夫不同的是，在大多數場合下(特別是為了反駁普列漢諾夫等人對他想「提早」實行社會主義革命的指責時)列寧是將上述兩個問題分開對待的：先奪取政權，再創造條件實現社會主義。也就是說，在列寧看來，無產階級奪取政權並不意味著立刻實現了社會主義，或者奪取政權本身就是社會主義革命。前面已說過，《四月提綱》提出時，列寧並沒有明確提出奪取政權的要求，更沒有把奪取政權後要建立的巴黎公社式的新型國家看作是社會主義的。那麼，十月革命成功後的情況又如何呢？從列寧那時公開發表的文章和演講來看，起初他只是稱這一革命為「工農革命」或「工人、士兵、農民的革命」，而沒有將其界定為社會主義革命。「從1917年革命事件一開始，列寧和布爾什維克就明白了俄國尚未為直接『實施社會主義』作好準備。但是他們奪取政權不是為了直接實現社會主義變革，而是為了完成民主變革。」(27)「在十月起義的進程中，並沒有特彆強調這場正在進行的革命的社會主義性質。與後來的許多宣傳用的套話和聲明相反，起義當天——10月25日(11月7日)——說的是『布爾什維克始終認為必要的工農革命(而不是社會主義革命——本文作者注)，已經成功了。」(28)托洛茨基在描述列寧當時的立場時指出，這一立場導致的結論是「在只有工人階級佔統治地位的情況下，才能完成民主革命」(29)。這就是說，在列寧看來，雖然已經發生了二月革命，但這一革命是不徹底的民主革命，沒有實現他早在1905年革命時就提出的「工農民主專政」的理想，所以必須繼續革命，使無產階級和貧苦農民奪得政權，才能真正完成資產階級民主革命的任務。這就是列寧著名的「沒有資產階級的資產階級革命」思想。
當然，對十月革命性質的界定，列寧的看法不久就發生了改變，明確肯定它屬於社會主義革命。後來「十月社會主義革命」的說法就成為公認的、流行的觀點了。之所以會有這樣的轉變，道理不難理解：雖然十月革命前列寧明確反對托洛茨基激進的「不斷革命論」，但一旦布爾什維克奪取政權後，情況就可能有所改變，之前如民主革命向社會主義革命轉變這一被認為似乎是難以踰越的界限，現在可能變得不那麼不可企及了(30)。就像托洛茨基所說的：「無產階級一旦掌握政權，『最低』和『最高』綱領(按：指資產階級革命和社會主義革命)之間的界限便立刻不存在了」，因為「無產階級的政治統治和它在經濟上受奴役的地位是不相容的。不論無產階級是在什麼政治旗幟下取得政權，它都必須走上社會主義政策的道路」(31)。從邏輯上說，托洛茨基的觀點並沒有必然性，列寧區分革命的兩個階段或主張「沒有資產階級的資產階級革命」在邏輯上是可能的，但從後來各社會主義國家的實際情況來看，托洛茨基的看法確實是符合實際情況的。這是因為，雖然從理論上說革命可分為資產階級革命和社會主義革命兩個階段，但這兩個階段之間的時間間隔有多長列寧並沒有明確說明，這就使這一「兩個革命階段」的理論具有相當大的彈性，為後來以種種理由縮短這一進程或認為社會主義革命時機已經成熟預留了空間。列寧本人雖然經常強調俄國社會主義革命的條件還不成熟，因此不應該過早地實行社會主義，但同時他也有另一方面的思想，即一旦時機成熟就應該毫不猶豫地把資產階級革命轉變為社會主義革命。只不過在二月革命爆發前，前一方面的思想表現得比較突出，後一方面的思想比較隱晦。但二月革命發生以後，列寧逐漸改變了觀點，要求俄國社會民主黨迅速奪取政權，並將資產階級革命不失時機地轉變為社會主義革命。這樣的轉變固然有其政治敏銳這一因素的作用，但也不能忽視列寧思想中早已存在的這後一傾向的潛在影響。
一方面，在上述問題上，相比於列寧政治上的高度敏銳和靈活性，普列漢諾夫確實顯得比較呆板和教條，列寧對他在這方面的批評是正確的。而且從無產階級的利益出發，列寧和布爾什維克奪取政權本身也無可厚非。如果像普列漢諾夫和孟什維克這些自認為「正統」的馬克思主義者那樣，死抱著「無產階級只能在資本主義鞏固的基礎上才能奪取政權，才能實行社會主義」這樣的觀點不放，那恐怕社會主義永遠沒有成功的那一天(按照這種「社會主義條件論」來看，最具備實行社會主義條件的西歐資本主義國家卻至今也沒有實現社會主義)。因此，如下一段話是比較公允的：「孟什維克始終不渝地忠於他們的信仰，這種品格確實是一種值得稱讚的品質。但是，他們的學說有嚴重缺陷，孟什維克運動因此而衰落下去，終於銷聲匿跡。有組織的無產階級可以在不發達的俄國為資產階級民主主義而奮鬥，而自己不想去奪取政權，這種見解在理論上似乎有道理，但在實際上是非常不現實的。要是沒有工人階級大規模地參與的話，資產階級革命就不可能進行，那麼期望無產階級把自己政治上和經濟上的願望壓在心底，難道合理嗎？可曾有過什麼階級為革命出過力，然後自願退讓，讓別的階級去獲取革命的大部分果實？」(32)
另一方面，從後來社會主義的實踐來看，普列漢諾夫對在俄國實現社會主義條件的認識也有其合理之處和一定的啟示意義。首先，二月革命推翻沙皇專制制度後，包括列寧在內的許多馬克思主義者都認為，資產階級民主革命的任務已經完成，革命者應該繼續前進，將革命不斷向深處引導。即使不能馬上進行社會主義革命或建設社會主義國家，但現在至少已經具備向社會主義過渡的最基本條件，所以應該立即推翻資產階級臨時政府，建立無產階級專政，然後再進一步創造條件，實現社會主義。十月革命正是在這樣的思想基礎上發動的。應該說，革命確實獲得了成功，建立了人類歷史上第一個社會主義國家。然而從社會主義近一百年的實踐過程來看，當初的革命者在民主革命、社會主義革命和建設這些事關重大的問題上的看法是有些過於樂觀了。在這方面，普列漢諾夫雖然反對布爾什維克奪取政權、立即實行社會主義轉變，從而被視為機會主義者，但客觀地、實事求是地說，在他的這種反對中隱藏著這樣一個今天看來非常值得重視的意見，那就是：二月革命雖然成功地推翻了沙皇專制制度，建立了資產階級臨時政府，但這並不意味著民主革命就已經真的大功告成了。對像俄國這樣的資本主義不發達、資產階級民主本來就很薄弱甚至完全闕如的落後國家來說，社會主義者在奪取政權以後，並不能簡單地認為民主革命已經徹底完成、資產階級民主已經徹底過時，從而急於向社會主義過渡。相反，與那些具有比較長期和深厚的民主傳統的國家相比，落後國家在進行社會主義建設的過程中更應該注重和加強民主政治建設。這是我們今天反思以往的社會主義實踐時所應獲取的一個極為重要的經驗教訓。的確，從歷史來看，「在一個充滿著『領地』、『封邑』、『小公爵』、『獨斷專行』和『家族統治』的社會裡發動一場反對資本主義的『階級鬥爭』，在一個無論資產階級還是無產階級都處於第四等級地位的中世紀社會裡發動反對近代文明的『革命』，會造成什麼結果？『文化大革命』那場『反修防修』的浩劫說明了這一切」(33)。
其次，作為一個馬克思主義者，普列漢諾夫的最終政治目標無疑是要在俄國社會實現社會主義，但作為一個馬克思主義的歷史決定論者或歷史唯物主義者，他又深深地相信，歷史的發展必須循序漸進，不可單憑某一個階級或黨派甚至個人的主觀好惡而隨意跨越那些本不可以輕易跨越的歷史階段。在他看來，資本主義就是這樣的歷史階段。與列寧及以後的馬克思主義者有所不同的是，普列漢諾夫所謂「資本主義不可跨越」，不僅指資本主義的大生產不可跨越——即使社會主義革命在落後國家勝利了，也必須補上資本主義大生產缺失這一課，否則社會主義的最終勝利是不可能的——這一點列寧和布爾什維克也同意；而且也指資本主義的民主政治可以為無產階級專政所加以借鑑和利用，這點至少十月革命後的列寧是不會贊同的。特別是考慮到長期的封建專制歷史使俄國社會極度缺乏民主和自由，普列漢諾夫特別重視這個問題。當然，和所有馬克思主義者一樣，普列漢諾夫談論民主和自由都是在「資產階級民主和自由相比封建主義的專制是個巨大的歷史進步，但終歸會被未來更先進的社會主義所代替」這一歷史決定論的理論架構中進行的。只不過，比較而言，普列漢諾夫更多地談到前者，與列寧相比他顯然更多地注意到俄國缺乏民主和自由的傳統(後者在談到俄國社會的落後時，似乎更關注經濟和文化方面的內容)，並且還認為二月革命後的俄國應該允許資本主義有一個較長時期的發展，因為既然俄國社會已經走向資本主義，資本主義又暫時不能被超越，那談論資本主義民主已經過時、社會主義民主比資本主義民主更優越在他看來就是不適當的，也沒有多少實際意義，當務之急應該是在俄國社會儘快地補上民主自由缺失這一課。
如此看來，雖然在普列漢諾夫眼裡，資產階級民主並不像有人認為的那樣有害和恐怖，反而對俄國這樣的落後國家在相當長的時期內是有益的東西，但我們必須注意到，普列漢諾夫在談到這個問題時始終都沒有遊離於經典馬克思主義的框架之外，始終都是在社會主義革命的最高利益前提下進行的。他多次強調的一句話「革命的成功是最高的法律」(34)就是這個意思。「要順利地為社會主義而鬥爭，必須有政治自由。」(35)「爭取政治自由應該是，而且只能是為在多少遙遠的未來實現社會主義革命作準備的必要條件之一。」(36)正因為這樣，他也沒少像一般馬克思主義者那樣抨擊資本主義的民主和自由，認為自由、平等和博愛這些口號的價值只是形式上的，因而是冠冕堂皇的，批評這個口號「一百多年，這個出色的口號最好不過地同經濟上、政治上和思想上剝削群眾的現象和平地相處」(37)。更是因為這樣，他才會要求對民主應有所限制：「革命的成功是最高的法律。而如果為了革命的成功需要暫時限制一下某個民主原則的作用，那麼在這種限制面前停步不前就會是罪過的。」(38)姑且不論普列漢諾夫的上述看法是否正確，但他對民主和自由的認識和強調，對我們反思幾十年來社會主義實踐的經驗教訓，對建設社會主義的民主政治是有重要參考價值的，值得我們今天加以注意。
站在今天的立場上，我們固然不能因為後來蘇聯解體、蘇共失去執政地位而事後諸葛亮般地指責列寧和布爾什維克當初選擇社會主義是錯誤的，是冒險主義；同樣，對普列漢諾夫反對在俄國立即實行社會主義，因而反對布爾什維克發動十月革命這件事，我們也不能再像過去那樣只是將其斥之為「落後者」、「機會主義」而簡單了事。今天看來，普列漢諾夫關於革命應有步驟、分階段、循序漸進地進行，在革命過程中革命者不可急於求成等觀點還是相當有預見性的。我們看到，在革命漫長的過程中，一代又一代的革命者，無論是以孫中山為代表的舊民主主義者，還是以共產黨人為代表的共產主義者，他們都具備堅忍不拔的革命毅力和百折不撓的革命精神，前赴後繼、義無反顧地奔向他們心中神聖的革命目標。但歷史地看，他們當中許多人當初都犯了一個共同的毛病，即革命的「急性病」。無論是孫中山的「畢其功於一役」，還是毛澤東的「一萬年太久，只爭朝夕」，都是這種革命急性病的典型表現，其後果已如「大躍進」這樣的歷史悲劇所一再證明。與此不同的是，改革開放以後的，以「實事求是」的務實精神重新審視革命和建設等事關重大的問題，於是行動的目標變得實在了，路線、方針、政策變得切實可行了，表面上看目標似乎降低了，建設速度也降下來了，但由於腳踏實地、一步一個腳印，反而取得了扎紮實實的成效。
①②⑥《普列漢諾夫文選》，張光明編，人民出版社2010年版，第72、14、79頁。
③④⑤⑦《普列漢諾夫機會主義文選(上冊)》，虛榮譯，生活‧讀書‧新知三聯書店1964年版，第172、174、305、126頁。
⑧⑨《普列漢諾夫機會主義文選(下冊)》，虛榮譯，生活‧讀書‧新知三聯書店1965年版，第227、66頁。
⑩直到二月革命發生時，在1917年3月中旬回國前夕，列寧還對瑞士工人說：「俄國是一個農民國家，是歐洲最落後的國家之一。在這個國家裡，社會主義不可能立刻直接取得勝利。」(《列寧全集》，第二十九卷，人民出版社1985年版，第90頁。)
(11)《列寧選集》，第四卷，人民出版社1995年版，第777頁。
(12)《列寧選集》，第四卷，人民出版社1995年版，第778頁。
(13)(14)(15)曹浩瀚：《列寧革命思想研究》，中央編譯出版社2012年版，第96—97、97、165頁。
(16)《普列漢諾夫文選》，張光明編，人民出版社2010年版，第79頁。
(17)(18)(19)(20)《在祖國的一年—— 一九一七 — 一九一八年言論全集》，王蔭廷、楊永譯，生活‧讀書‧新知三聯書店1980年版，第203、23—24、203、207頁。
(21)這裡有必要說明，與過去人們普遍的看法有所不同，筆者發現在列寧著名的「四月提綱」中並沒有明確提出由布爾什維克奪取政權的設想，更沒有提出立刻向社會主義革命轉變的問題，相反，列寧認為：「我們的直接任務並不是『實施』社會主義，而只是立刻過渡到由工人代表蘇維埃監督社會的產品生產和分配。」(《列寧選集》，第三卷，人民出版社1995年版，第16頁。)該提綱中比較激進的地方只是：不給臨時政府以任何支持，工人代表蘇維埃是革命政府唯一可能的形式，不要議會制共和國，一切土地收歸國有，等等。
(22)(23)《列寧選集》，第三卷，人民出版社1995年版，第30、47頁。
(24)(26)《列寧選集》，第三卷，人民出版社1995年版，第77、521頁。
(25)參見《列寧選集》，第四卷，人民出版社1995年版，第777—778頁。
(27)(28)(29)[俄]阿‧帕‧布堅科：《蘇聯歷史的現實悲劇》，載李宗禹主編《國外學者論斯大林模式(下)》，中央編譯出版社1995年版，第637、638頁、637頁注(23)。
(30)何況十月革命至少還是「沒有資產階級的資產階級革命」，而不是舊式的資產階級革命，即介於舊式資產階級革命與社會主義革命之間的革命階段，它實行的不是資產階級專政，而是無產階級和貧苦農民的專政，甚至直接就是純粹的無產階級專政。
(31)[俄]托洛茨基：《不斷革命論》，蔡漢敖譯，生活‧讀書‧新知三聯書店1966年版，第63、62頁。
(32)[俄]亞伯拉罕‧阿謝爾編：《俄國革命中的孟什維克》，石菊英、余瑞先譯，中共中央黨校科研辦公室1985年發行，第40頁。其實孟什維克有時也表現得不像人們想像的那麼教條，他們曾經有如下主張：「雖然我們一定要經歷作為社會主義革命序曲的民主革命，但是這兩場革命可能不像西方那樣，被一段長時期的和平發展分割開來。假如內戰延長，作為民主革命而開始的革命，很可能就會轉變成社會主義革命。無論如何，我們切不可忽視這種可能性。社會民主黨同空想的無政府主義相反，始終認為，俄國不經過資產階級革命就不可能躍進到社會主義階段。但是，我們並沒有想要規定出這兩者之間的確切間隔時間。世界資本主義在繼續發展，資本主義條件開始在改變俄國的舊秩序。在這種情況下，歷史越是延緩專制制度崩潰的時間，人們就越有理由期望從民主革命直接過渡到社會主義革命。」(見前書第63頁。)
(33)金雁、卞悟：《農村公社、改革與革命——村社傳統與俄國現代化之路》，中央編譯出版社1996年版，第321頁。
(34)《普列漢諾夫文選》，張光明編，人民出版社2010年版，第263頁。
(35)《普列漢諾夫機會主義文選(下冊)》，虛榮譯，生活‧讀書‧新知三聯書店1965年版，第3頁。
(36)《在祖國的一年—— 一九一七— 一九一八年言論全集》，王蔭廷、楊永譯，生活‧讀書‧新知三聯書店1980年版，第22—23頁。
(37)《普列漢諾夫機會主義文選(下冊)》，虛榮譯，生活‧讀書‧新知三聯書店1965年版，第417頁。
(38)《普列漢諾夫文選》，張光明編，人民出版社2010年版，第263頁。
首先樓主會認為毛哲東是馬克思主義者,很顯然就是完全的無知+被法輪功美國之音和兩蔣洗腦灌輸教育 自己就沒認真獨立思考過
再不然就是自己本身是小資產階級(中產階級)因此才有的反動思想,你自身的經濟狀態決定你的思想
馬克思主義者有以下流派
1.馬克斯列寧主義 正統派以第三國際為代表
2.托洛斯基主義 托派以第四國際為代表
3.民主馬克思 改良社會主義修正主義 以考斯基、德國的伯恩斯坦 英國工黨的柯賓為代表
愛德華‧伯恩施坦
4.盧森堡主義
5.史達林主義以 一國社會主義和蘇聯計畫經濟為代表
六藝君子 wrote:
不必陷入名詞的遊戲與思考的泥沼, 馬克思的共產主義有重大的辯證缺陷, 而且這個辯證缺陷還經過了實務的驗證:
1. 馬克思的共產主義堅持無產階級專政, 請問無產階級人數眾多, 如何專政? 誰說了算?
2. 承接(1), 必然性地, 必定由無產階級專政轉化成共產黨專政
3. 同樣的問題再度發生, 共產黨員這麼多, 如何專政? 誰說了算?
4. 植基於武裝鬥爭路線, (3) 必定演變成槍桿子出政權, 由控制最大武力的少數共產黨員專政
於是人類最大的悲劇就是滿懷理想色彩, 嘗試拯救被奴隸人們的共產主義, 毫無例外地, 一個一個變成恐怖的暴力獨裁集團, 借助無上的烏托邦理論, 超越人類社會的道德與法律之後, 反而將每個個體逼入了最醜陋的求生動物本性, 毫無仁愛, 反對溫情, 集體失智, 全部變成共黨最高統治者精神與肉體的奴隸, 打破了所謂的封建, 卻建造了最大的人間地獄, 打倒了帝王, 卻製造出比帝王更獨裁的暴力獨裁者.
以剝奪個人自由意志為遂行手段的任何主義, 即便描繪的是天堂, 在地上實現的卻往往是地獄 -- Mobile01/六藝君子
1.馬克思主義有許多流派 比如盧森堡主義、列寧主義、托洛斯基的第四國際
我的提法是所謂列寧主義的流派，但他並非是馬克思主義的全部形式
羅莎‧盧森堡
第四國際
比如盧森堡主義的馬克斯就認為要和多黨制的西方民主結合
這種「政治多黨制民主」的馬克思主義在西方國家有支持者
羅莎‧盧森堡是西方國家政治多黨民主+經濟民主的馬克思主義者，
我的提法是列寧主義的馬克思主義學說，但是不能代表全部的馬克思形式
羅莎‧盧森堡和列寧對無產階級專政的理解完全不同，甚至批判過布爾什維克的一黨專制
但是你知道羅莎‧盧森堡後來怎麼死的嗎？
就是被資產階級暗殺掉的 所以「西方的多黨制民主馬克思就胎死腹中了」
而托派的「第四國際」也主張布爾什維克不應該一黨獨大，但他堅持要推不斷革命和推動世界革命
因為不符合蘇聯當時的國情行不通，在波蘭遭遇慘敗
托洛斯基主張十月革命後應以先支援其他國家共產黨革命為最優先路線，
史達林則是以先鞏固建設蘇聯這世界上第一個社會主義國家為優先路線，後行有餘力再支援世界革命。
後來史達林把它暗殺在墨西哥了 ，托派的第四國際也並是馬克思主義非主流的形式
羅莎‧盧森堡，1895年
我個人認為「盧森堡的西式多黨制民主馬克思」根本都行不通
因為最終一定會演化成資產階級專政
但是盧森堡的確是令人敬佩的馬克思主義者和第二國際理論家
她為革命付出生命 最終還被資產階級暗殺掉了
英國工黨 民主馬克思主義者(改良主義和修正主義者)柯賓的困境
英國大選在即馬克思為何受推崇？ - BBC News 中文
英國工黨領導層大力推薦《資本論》，讚揚馬克思是"偉大經濟思想家"。馬克思的《資本論》究竟是本怎樣的書？
騎腳踏車上班、欣賞馬克思的英國老左派：工黨領袖柯賓-風傳媒
柯賓無疑是一位惇厚而忠實的改良主義者。但，也因此，他將面臨改良主義的全部問題。
2015年5月7日，在英國國會大選中面臨再次敗選的工黨，當時的工黨領導人——知名馬克思主義國家理論學者之子艾德‧米勒班（Ed Miliband），隔日隨即宣佈負起政治責任，辭去擔任了約4年8個月的黨魁一職。
該年9月，自1983年成為國會下議院議員後，從未擔任過任何內閣（或者影子內閣）成員，被視為工黨內左派的邊緣候選人——傑若米‧柯賓（Jeremy Corbyn），在工黨黨魁選舉中，獲得了壓倒性的勝利而當選。
隔年，僅短短9個月多月左右時間，工黨內的中、右派藉脫歐公投等議題，開始對柯賓的領導權提出挑戰，黨內影子內閣成員紛紛辭職逼宮，黨內多數國會議員支持對他發起不信任投票，黨內情勢完全不利於柯賓，然而拒絕辭職的柯賓，在2016年9月；一年內的第二次黨魁選舉中，再一次囊括了超過六成的選票，強勢擊退了競爭者歐文‧史密斯（Owen Smith）。
從最不受歡迎到離唐寧街10號一步之遙？
事實上，從柯賓當選工黨領導人的那一刻起，英國的主流媒體（尤其是右派傳媒），就毫不遮掩的攻擊柯賓明確偏左的主張與立場，不斷透過將他描述、定調為unelectable（無法選贏的）在野黨領導人。甚至將他比喻為工黨1980年代上一位試圖將黨帶往左轉的黨魁富特（Michael Foot），並以1983年富特與工黨在大選中慘敗的經驗，預言柯賓帶領下的工黨必然將在選舉中走向潰敗1。
對於工黨黨內主流的中、右派以及英國媒體，幾乎堅定不移的看法是：工黨在1994年布萊爾當選為在野黨領導人後，所逐步確定的「共識」或「真理」是，工黨只有在意識型態與政治主張上，放棄傳統偏左的「改良主義」色彩，放棄以工人階級為主要支持對象，極力往中間靠攏，將黨定位為「大眾黨」而非「工人階級政黨」，才有可能獲得執政的機會。這個所謂的黨內甚至社會的所謂「共識」，主宰、制約了工黨黨內超過20年的發展路線。
然而，這個被不斷警告牢不可破、不應該越雷池一步的「共識」，在今年6月份的英國國會大選開票後，徹底的粉碎與瓦解了。
柯賓在2015年成為工黨領導人後，不同於他的前任黨魁米勒班——對於黨內路線「左轉」顯得搖擺不定、遲疑躊躇，面對工人與學生的抗爭態度曖昧、模糊。柯賓打從一開始就高舉了左轉的大旗，他大大方方的自稱為「社會主義者」（雖然，這裡「社會主義者」的意義與內涵還是在改良主義的框架下來界定）。
舉例來說，當米勒班在2015年大選前，終於略為抱定主意、明確表態，將推動讓大學學費從9,000英鎊，較為溫和的調降為6,000英鎊時（2010年保守黨政府一次性地將大學學費自3,000英鎊巨幅調漲至9,000英鎊，而引發數十萬高中生與大學生的大規模抗議，而事實上，將高等教育推向商品化與市場化，最劇烈的轉變其實是出現在布萊爾執政的時期）。柯賓成為黨領導人後的主張，卻是直接廢除學費，讓英國的大學回到早年免學費的傳統。
這種明確、不再是模稜兩可的「左轉」主張，事實上一直是柯賓成為國會議員以來的長期立場，這也是他過去在黨內「邊緣」的主因，但當他成為黨的領導人後，這樣的主張與立場，讓許多過去對工黨已經死心與絕望的工人與青年，開始重新對工黨產生希望，其中更有許多人開始主動參與到「支持」／「保衛」柯賓路線的運動。
大幅成長的年輕選民支持
今年4月，保守黨首相梅伊宣佈解散國會、提前進行大選，梅伊與保守黨原本的算盤，是希望在脫歐公投後，操作脫歐的議題、先發制人，希望透過提前改選重挫工黨，來「確保英國擁有更穩定、更有力的政府」。然而6月份大選結果出爐後，結果卻讓保守黨以及工黨內中、右派啞口無言。
柯賓領導下的工黨，在選舉期間推出了被形容為自1983年富特以來最「左傾」的選舉政策主張宣言，除了廢除大學學費外，還包括了將推動鐵路與郵政部門重新國有化、打擊企業逃稅、取消給企業的稅賦減免等等政策主張。柯賓在選戰中結合各大小左翼組織、青年團體與草根社會運動團體2，透過大小演講、社群媒體等方式直接與民眾接觸，繞過主流媒體不友善與敵視的干擾，最終，工黨勝選的席次大幅度增加了30席（發動提前改選的保守黨反倒減少了13席），如果以總體得票率來看，柯賓帶領下的工黨拿到了超過40%的得票率，足足比2015年的大選增加了將近10%選票，這是自1974年以來工黨在大選中的第三高得票率（前兩名分別為1997年的43.2%與2001年的40.7%）3。
如果從選民支持的年齡結構來看，工黨在18-24與25-34兩個年輕的年齡層民眾當中，分別獲得了超過六成與接近六成的壓倒性支持率（相較於2015兩者皆呈現了約20％的成長），而且，根據媒體的報導，青年登記成為選民的人數更是創下新高。即便在35-44這個年齡層，工黨也拿到了獲得了超過50%的支持4。
若以選民階級與區域來看，柯賓領導的工黨，此次也拿回了許多本來就是傳統工人社區的重鎮，過去在工黨右轉時期流失的選票。
「柯賓現象」反應了什麼？
大選過後不久，柯賓竟然從主流媒體過去「最不受歡迎」與「無法選贏」的黨領導人，在最新的民調中，成了英國民眾眼中「最適合擔任首相」的政治人物。經濟學人雜誌在選後幾天的一篇評論中，下了這麼樣的一個標題：
布萊爾路線在6月8日正式終結，工黨現在是屬於柯賓（路線）了！5
2015年工黨輸掉大選時，倫敦金融時報寫的一篇題為「米勒班的左轉讓工黨輸掉選舉」的專文分析6。然而，不過事隔兩年，當下「柯賓現象」背後所反應的，其實是工人階級與青年們，這一、兩個世代的民眾，過去三十多年新自由主義風潮下最大的受害者，在歷經金融危機後新一輪的「樽節政策」進一步攻擊各項「社會福利」與「公共服務」後，用清楚的行動與態度，表達出對現行資本主義制度與貧富不均的憤怒與不滿。
換言之，米勒班與工黨在2015年輸掉大選，並非如主流媒體所宣傳的太過「左傾」，而是根本不夠「左傾」。
入主唐寧街10號是當前左翼的最高目標？
這其實才是英國社會興起的「柯賓現象」背後所傳達出最寶貴而關鍵的訊息。對資本主義的不滿，對新自由主義的憤怒，對走不出金融危機的不耐，讓民粹主義隱隱蠢動著，這股社會集體憤怒、失落與焦躁，需要一套分析與解釋、需要一個可以說服的計畫與方案、需要一個可以讓安置他們憤怒的政治選擇，這樣的選擇，如果左翼無法承擔，那麼，極右翼與法西斯就會趁勢而入。
對於左翼而言，或者更明確的說，對於不同於改良主義的社會主義左翼而言，「柯賓現象」終於在英國政治撐開了一些左翼發展的空間與契機，然而，「柯賓現象」同時也伴隨著危機與風險。
簡單來說，將柯賓與工黨送進唐寧街10號，會是或應該是「左翼」的最高目標嗎？對於工黨黨內目前暫時休兵、閉嘴的中、右派而言，現階段當然是開始殷切著期盼的柯賓重新帶領工黨重返「執政榮光」。但對於為數眾多過去根本放棄工黨的左翼小團體與草根社運組織，讓工黨重新入主唐寧街10號，很可能只會再一次重演過往歷史上不斷發生改良主義的各種侷限、甚至悲劇罷了。
事實上，綜觀柯賓在大選所提出來的政策主張宣言內容，一來，在社會主義左翼經濟學家的分析中7，其實非但稱不上太過激進，實際上左轉的力道恐怕都還尚嫌不足，對「戰略性事業」國有化的規模，其實並不足以撐起疲弱不振的國內投資，而更關鍵的是，即便是這樣的政策綱領，以目前工黨內仍舊是中右派當道的情勢，以目前英國具壟斷地位的跨國金融機構仍強勢主導、影響著英國的各項政策方向，以目前資本家與媒體對柯賓左傾路線不斷上升的敵意，一旦工黨與柯賓真正透過選舉重新執政，恐怕都很難讓這些目前提出來政策綱領一一落實。這其實並非只是當前英國的政治困境，坦白說，這很可能是長久以來所有改良主義者與改良主義政策的根本困境。
回顧Syriza：在希臘的崛起、困境與「背叛」
上述英國的政治困境絕非孤例，同為歐盟一員的希臘這些年來的發展，即可作為佐證，這些年來一度打著「反樽節」旗號，在希臘政治局勢中不斷擴張、捲動大規模左翼與社會運動團體支持的新興政黨Syriza（激進左翼聯盟），2015年甚至在獲得多數希臘工人與青年的支持下，成為希臘國會的第一大黨主導組閣執政。
然而，Syriza的快速崛起的過程中，為了迅速獲得最大支持、取得執政權，原先較為激進主張逐漸被更加溫和與改良者所取代。甚至在執政後，即便在公投壓倒性反對繼續接受歐盟、歐洲央行所提出對勞工與基層民眾無比嚴苛的「樽節方案」，Syriza的執政團隊依舊選擇留在歐元區，甚至以更加嚴苛的條件，接受了國際貨幣基金會、歐盟及歐洲央行「三駕馬車」所提出的紓困「樽節方案」，而被嚴厲批評為「出賣靈魂」8。
Syriza的困境其實與英國左翼或者全世界左翼的困境多多少少有些類似，在過去近四十年來新自由主義當道的右翼意識型態霸權之下，2008年危機後的工人階級群眾，事實上，呈現的一種意識型態近乎真空的狀態。當前對資本主義危機與新自由主義的不滿與憤怒，多數恐怕是來自於素樸的直觀，而相對缺乏完整對左翼意識型態的整體認識與思想準備，在這樣的情況底下，Syriza或者柯賓主導下工黨，雖然短時間一定程度上回應了這樣的社會集體需求，而成為不滿與憤怒下的新選擇，然而，一旦這樣的政治力量在掌握國家機器執政後，受限於各種隨時準備反撲的反動力量，以及改良主義本身的政治選擇，發生類似上述Syriza被視為「背叛」的重新轉向，對左翼政治與左翼力量的反挫與重創，恐怕將是更為嚴重！
怎麼辦？
那麼，倘若重新高舉「正統」或「古典」改良主義的旗幟，試圖在資本主義的代議制度中取得「執政權」，尋求推動改良主義政策，恐怕並非當前左翼運動最重要與最關鍵的目標的話，那麼，面對世界各地工人與青年在金融危機後對資本主義與新自由主義的不滿與憤怒時，左翼運動優先的工作與任務又會是什麼呢？
無論是在英國、希臘，或者是其他所有的資本主義國家內，把握住在這些因政治經濟大環境變動所極為難得開啟民眾意識轉變的契機與空間，透過對左翼與馬克思主義理論積極推介與傳播，讓更多的工人與青年，能夠清楚而正確的認識到：資本主義制度剝削的本質與其內在必然且無法調和的矛盾；能夠充分意識到：當前的困境，無法靠著努力解決資本主義「內」所產生的問題來克服，因為資本主義「本身」就是問題；能夠耐著性子理解到：要取代資本主義，不可能藉由在資本主義內取得「單一」一個國家「一時」的執政權來完成，它必然需要仰賴一個全球的、國際主義式的漫長全面性革命進程。
而這不代表左翼應該自動放棄掉日常生活各個戰場的政治或經濟鬥爭（諸如代議制度選舉或個別工會的組織工作與活動），相反地，左翼應該更積極的介入，但重點是我們需要同時賦予這些行動更深刻與更長遠的意涵。讓群眾在資本主義代議制度中看見它的侷限與反民主本質，讓工人在工作組織起來的行動中，體認必須超過資本主義僱傭制度才能達到真正的解放。使工人階級與青年的意識型態與政治認識全面提升與武裝，以作為下一波擴大左翼運動的堅固基礎，直到我們能夠真正翻轉並取代資本主義制度。或許，才會是左翼在無論是英國的科賓熱、希臘的Syriza熱等現象中，真正最優先的工作與任務。
•1. 對於1983年工黨黨魁富特敗選原因的分析，有評論指出事實上富特的所謂「過度左傾」並非主因，而是受到英國與阿根廷所爆發的「福克蘭群島戰爭」的影響，可參見"1983: the biggest myth in Labour Party history"。諷刺的是，事實上，富特本身當時同樣支持英國出兵「捍衛」遠在南大西洋的福克蘭群島。
•2. 不少分析指出，科賓2015年當選為工黨黨魁不久後，以支持科賓與「左翼化」工黨為宗旨而成立的草根運動組織「Momentum」，在科賓的兩次黨魁選舉與今年的國會大選中，扮演著協助科賓獲得青年與社運組織支持的重要功能。至2017年7月，Momentum在英國各地擁有約150個地方團體（local group），會員人數超過2.7萬人。
•3. Jeremy Corbyn just made history with the greatest increase in Labour's vote share since 1945.
•4. Young voters, class and turnout: how Britain voted in 2017.
•5. The Labour Party now belongs to Jeremy Corbyn.
•6. Ed Miliband's move to the left lost Labour the election.
•7. 推薦參考Michael Roberts發表於2015年9月11日文章"Corbynomics – extreme or moderate?"。該文翻譯可見〈「柯賓經濟學」：極端的還是溫和的？〉。
•8. 可以參考Costas Lapavitsas 所寫的"One year on, Syriza has sold its soul for power"。
布哈林長期以來被看作「人民公敵、匪幫、法西斯走狗、外國間諜、謀刺列寧的殺人犯」。布哈林冤案於1988年2月4日得到平反昭雪。直到蘇聯最高法院都為托洛茨基、布哈林平反了，蘇共才公開承認史達林殺錯了他們
尼古拉‧伊萬諾維奇‧布哈林
1
尼古拉‧伊萬諾維奇‧布哈林 (Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin) ，蘇共中央政治局委員，馬克思主義理論家和經濟學家，共產國際重要領導人。 曾被列寧稱為「受黨愛戴的人」
對於布哈林這個名字，共產黨人一點不陌生。早在1920年代大革命時期，許多中國共產黨人就是從閱讀布哈林的《共產主義ABC》等啟蒙小冊子走近馬克思主義的。此書成為當年每個入黨申請人的必讀書。
隨著斯大林1930年代的大清洗，布哈林這個名字從我們的記憶中被「清洗」掉了。直到上世紀80年代，我們國家把工作重心轉移到經濟建設上來，隨著對農業發展到底應該走一條什麼樣道路認識的深化，布哈林再次走近我們。當年布哈林與斯大林激烈論戰並最終造成個人悲劇的「新經濟政策」，後來被譽為「唯一正確的建設社會主義農業的道路」，布哈林本人也被譽為列寧身後布爾什維克高層最理解新經濟政策意義的人。1980年代我國經濟學界還掀起了一股「布哈林熱」。
經濟政策論爭被上綱到政治鬥爭
列寧逝世後，布哈林是繼承和發展新經濟政策的代表人物，但對於發展社會主義農業應該走一條什麼樣的道路，布哈林與托洛茨基、季諾維也夫之間發生了衝突。
托洛茨基在社會主義建設方面提出了超工業化計畫，主張通過降低農產品價格、提高工業品價格、增加賦稅等犧牲農民的辦法來發展工業。布哈林認為這將破壞蘇維埃政權工農聯盟的基礎並出現災難性後果。他針鋒相對地提出：革命形勢發生了變化，應該從「戰時共產主義政策」向「新經濟政策」轉換，應該進一步減少對農民的限制，鼓勵個體經濟的發展，使農村雇工合法化，減少農業稅收，讓農民自由地種地、生產和銷售糧食，同時降低工業品的價格，從而獲得農民的支持，促進農村經濟和整個國民經濟的發展。布哈林有一句名言：「俄國將拉著農民的大車以蝸牛爬的速度建設社會主義。」這句話充分體現了布哈林「階段性不能超越」的新經濟政策觀。在1925年黨的十四大前夕，布哈林向農民發出號召:「發財致富吧！發展自己的經濟，不要擔心有人壓制你們。」
季諾維也夫指斥布哈林的講話是「富農傾向」，並強調富農的危險性，要求對富農保持壓力，增加對富農的稅收，部分地恢復戰時共產主義政策，推廣大型集體農莊，更加重視工業的發展。季諾維也夫強調說：「新經濟政策只是一種向資本主義的退卻，它的基礎是國家資本主義，而不是社會主義。因此，不能掩蓋新經濟政策的消極面，必須防止右傾的危險。」他還特別攻擊了布哈林讓農民發財致富的思想。
布哈林與托洛茨基、季諾維也夫經濟政策上的論爭，客觀上配合了斯大林政治鬥爭的需要。在這場關於經濟政策論爭的初期，斯大林靜觀雙方爭執，一直不表態。斯大林充分而巧妙地利用布哈林的經濟才幹和理論權威地位，在駁斥和批判反對派的鬥爭中佔得先機。斯大林一方面贊同布哈林的主張有現實操作性，是非常時期的「權宜之計」；另一方面，又要布哈林承認「發財致富」的口號是錯誤的。
布爾什維克1925—1927年間的經濟政策，基本上是布哈林的思路。托洛茨基和季諾維也夫等人對布哈林進行猛烈抨擊，而斯大林營壘則稱布哈林為「我黨最優秀的理論家」、「我黨最優秀的幹部」、敢於「說出自己思想」，是「我們大家全體愛戴和支持」的人。
後來，當托季聯盟被徹底摧毀後，布哈林這個昔日功臣、斯大林的座上客淪為了階下囚。
斯大林大權在握後便試圖改變新經濟政策，開始雄心勃勃地執行「大規模建設社會主義」的方針。這樣，布哈林的經濟政策又不可避免地與斯大林「對落後的俄國工農業生產進行社會主義改造的偉大嘗試」發生嚴重對立。
美國人科恩在《布哈林》一書中說：「斯大林的政策人為地製造了1932—1933年的饑饉，俄國歷史上最可怕的饑饉。」50多年後《真理報》報導：「1932年和1933年冬春相交之際，餓死的人大約有三四百萬。」這是長期以來諱莫如深的一個數字。
1927年秋冬，蘇聯發生糧食收購危機。斯大林認為危機的原因是富農囤積糧食和商人投機倒把，主張採取反對富農的強制措施，包括沒收餘糧。斯大林還強調要在1932年秋冬之前，在所有的糧食生產地區完成集體化。
這就使「農業集體化運動」達到了「狂熱的頂點」。由於要求太高太急，不少地區出現了強迫命令的現象。為了達到集體化的百分比要求，一些地區大刮浮誇風，以行政命令代替說服教育，有的地方竟採取「剝奪財產」、「褫奪選舉權」等手段，強迫農民加入集體農莊。一些地方領導人出於「邀功請賞」心理，公然違反中央關於「集體農莊運動，只是把基本生產資料公有的農業勞動組合」的指示，蠻橫地跳過勞動組合而徑直組織農業公社，把住房、自用奶牛、小牲畜及家禽等也實行了公有化。於是，有些農民就用屠宰牲口的辦法進行反抗。據披露：1929年頭幾個月，在全國3400萬匹馬中，有1800萬匹被宰；1400萬頭牛被宰， 67%的羊被宰……
當布哈林在下面看到一片觸目驚心的饑饉景象時，感到如果不站出來說話就「有昧於一個布爾什維克的良心」。在1928年11月的政治局會議上，布哈林和斯大林發生了激烈爭吵。在強制農民加入集體化農莊遭到布哈林反對時，斯大林說：「在舊制度下，農民進行單干，用古老陳舊的方法和舊式農具工作，為地主和資本家、為富農和投機分子工作，自己過著半飢半飽的生活而使別人發財致富。」這就把經濟政策論爭上升到了階級立場和階級感情的高度，也表明二人政治、經濟上的衝突已達到了不可調和的地步。布哈林罵斯大林是「渺小的東方暴君」，並且退出會場。隨後，布哈林與李可夫、托姆斯基一起提交了事先寫好的辭職聲明。據說，斯大林接到這些辭職聲明時，臉色蒼白，雙手哆嗦。不僅如此，從1928年底到1929年初，布哈林還連續發表3篇文章，不點名地對斯大林的路線進行了公開抗議。其中《列寧的遺囑》一文，闡明了列寧晚年的一系列重要思想，實際上就是一篇反對斯大林經濟政策的宣言。在隨後的政治局會議上，布哈林與李可夫、托姆斯基等一起再次批評了斯大林的過激行為。
斯大林的經濟政策在現實中遭遇了挫折，1932年秋，蘇聯國內廣大地區普遍遭受了嚴重的饑荒。面對難以收拾的局面，他在會上被迫作出讓步。
然而斯大林有著「文過飾非」的心理，為了證明自己一貫正確，甚至會做出「掩耳盜鈴」的舉動。斯大林忌諱提饑饉，只要一提「饑饉」這個詞，立即敏感地判定為「別有用心」，「反革命鼓動」。斯大林對一個膽敢在政治局會上談到饑饉的人咆哮道：「你應該辭掉州委書記和烏克蘭中央委員的職務，到作家協會去，去寫童話，好給傻瓜讀。」
妻子娜傑日達自殺對斯大林的嚴重創傷
斯大林對敢於提出異議的結髮妻子也毫不客氣。1931年11月18日斯大林的妻子娜傑日達開槍自殺，當年《真理報》的說法是「由於長期以來的精神憂鬱」。托洛茨基在《我的生平》中披露：「那一天晚上，所有的要員都聚在伏羅希洛夫家，阿盧利耶娃（娜傑日達）表達了對導致饑荒的農民政策的批評。斯大林用俄語中最骯髒的字眼厲聲責罵她。回到家裡後，克里姆林宮的服務員發現她情緒激憤，過了一會兒，她的房間裡就響起了槍聲……」
娜傑日達是斯大林老戰友阿盧利耶夫的女兒。十月革命初期，斯大林孤身一人來到彼得格勒時曾寄宿在老戰友家中。1919年，39歲的斯大林與不滿18歲的娜傑日達成婚。娜傑日達年輕、貌美、上進，她具備與斯大林夫人身份相適應的知識水平與工作能力。她隨斯大林上過前線，在列寧辦公室當過秘書……
斯大林的女兒斯維特蘭娜在給友人的信中，對媽媽作了這樣的回憶：
問題在於媽媽一直堅持自己對於生活的理解。她從不妥協。她自己屬於革命的年輕一代，這一代是最初的五年計畫的熱情勞動者。他們是具有堅強信念的新生活的建設者，他們自己就是新的人，他們虔誠地相信革命把人們從市儈習氣和舊社會的罪惡中解放出來的新的理想。她用革命理想主義的全部力量相信這一切，而她周圍的人也用自己的行動證實了她的信念。在這些人中間，我父親曾是她心目中新人的最高典範。
娜傑日達自殺前給斯大林留下一份遺書，斯大林看後，感到「氣憤至極」，「憤怒壓倒了悲傷」， 立即將遺書撕毀。斯大林認為這是他「最親密和忠誠的朋友」對他的「背叛」。大概正因為如此，在娜傑日達的遺體告別儀式上，斯大林走近棺材站了一會兒，突然用雙手推開棺材，轉身走了。此後，斯大林也沒有再到新聖母公墓去參加妻子的葬禮。
解力夫在《縱橫捭闔斯大林》一書中有這樣一段記載：
斯大林的女兒斯維特蘭娜從看到過這張條子的人那裡得知，條子上充滿了對斯大林個人以及對一些政治問題的申斥和指責。當時正是農村為使農民加入集體農莊而出現了強迫現象最嚴重的時候。
斯維特蘭娜說：「媽媽死後，爸爸的心靈上受到嚴重的創傷。他對旁人的不信任感加深了，思想上好像蒙上了一層陰影，同親屬和朋友的關係疏遠了。他相信一切現行的或潛在的反對派必須根除和摧毀。他的猜忌和獨裁也有了進一步的發展。」
斯維特蘭娜還說：「爸爸一直在尋找致媽媽於死命的『罪魁禍首』是誰，是什麼？」
也許從那一刻起，布哈林的悲劇命運就已經注定了。
布哈林犯了極其幼稚的政治錯誤
斯大林一向善於把經濟論爭上綱為政治鬥爭。1928年4月召開的聯共（布）中央和中央監委聯席會上，斯大林不點名地批評「有人想在農村實行一種既使富人喜歡又使窮人喜歡的政策，這種人不是馬克思主義者，而是傻瓜」。5月28日，斯大林在紅色教授學院的報告中，再次不點名地批評布哈林是「恢復富農經濟……離開了列寧主義」，「投奔到工人階級的敵人方面去了」。
布哈林已經走到了斯大林容忍極限的邊緣，但他「不撞南牆不回頭」。
在隨後一系列政治局會議和中央全會上，布哈林又指責斯大林的政策是恢復「軍事共產主義」，是對農民實行「軍事封建剝削」；打擊農民生產積極性的後果，必然導致農業生產的衰退。
斯大林被布哈林逼到了無以轉圜的死角，他開始了猛烈反擊。在1929年4 月召開的中央和中央監委的全會上，斯大林作了長篇發言，全面而廣泛地批評了「布哈林、李可夫和托姆斯基集團」，第一次在全黨面前公開了持續一年之久的黨的最高領導層內部的分歧。全會還作出決議：堅決譴責布哈林等人的經濟觀點，並撤銷布哈林在共產國際和《真理報》的職務，但仍保留政治局委員的職務。這就相當於給布哈林亮出了「黃牌警告」，或者說是下了「最後通牒」。
但布哈林仍「執迷不悟」，「決心帶著他的花崗岩頭腦去見上帝」。在1929年11月12日召開的中央全會上，布哈林與李可夫和托姆斯基發表聲明，宣稱堅持自己的觀點。最後，全會作出決議：撤銷右傾分子的領導者布哈林政治局委員的職務。
面對斯大林的嚴厲反擊，布哈林卻在政治上犯了一個極其幼稚的錯誤。他秘密約見加米涅夫，並非常激動地指責：「斯大林的路線總的來說是對革命的災難。這條路線將會給我們帶來毀滅……他是個沒有原則的陰謀家，把一切都服從於維護他自己的權力……」布哈林沒想到加米涅夫把這次談話作了記錄，是他自己為經濟論爭塗抹上政治派別的色彩，這就給斯大林提供了打擊布哈林的把柄。1929年初，政治局委員和中央監委幾位領導人召開聯席會議，譴責布哈林進行「派別活動」。斯大林指控「布哈林集團」反對黨的路線，提出了一個「右傾機會主義的投降主義政綱」，企圖「同托洛茨基分子拼湊反黨聯盟」等。布哈林沒有屈服，他提出了一份長達30頁的反訴書，指控斯大林的政治行動和政策。
斯大林在1930年聯共（布）中央全會上別有深意地暗示「最近黨內出現了一些異己分子，他們不瞭解階級政策的原則，企圖同富農和睦相處」，「階級鬥爭越來越尖銳化」……這已經成為「屁股坐在哪一邊」的立場問題。斯大林提醒全黨，時刻不要忘記階級鬥爭，要提高警惕性，「查找隱匿的階級敵人」。並提出那個貽害無窮的論斷：「社會主義建設越深入，階級敵人會更多地冒出來。」至此，布哈林與斯大林的矛盾完全達到了不可調和的地步。
斯大林輕諾寡信，布哈林被處死
布哈林和列寧之間，有著長期而親密的友誼。在那封被稱為「政治遺囑」的信中，列寧給予布哈林極高的評價：「是最傑出的力量（在最年輕的力量中）」；「布哈林不僅是黨的最寶貴的和最大的理論家，他也理所當然被認為是全黨喜歡的人物」。列寧患病期間，布哈林經常去看望他。布哈林一到，列寧總是拉住他的手，把他領到花園去，談論各種問題。
要消除布哈林的影響，首先就要破壞人們印象中列寧與布哈林親密的關係和感情。斯大林要通過法庭向人們宣佈：「布哈林從來就不是列寧的親密戰友，而是列寧最凶惡的敵人。」斯大林命令審訊人員，必須讓布哈林承認曾企圖暗殺列寧。內務部人員起草了一份審訊筆錄，其中寫道：早在1917年，當他得知德國政府為列寧提供火車包廂，同意列寧在戰爭狀態下穿越德國的時候，就開始懷疑列寧同德國人之間有見不得人的勾當。後來，當列寧堅持要與德國人簽訂布列斯特和約時，他便確信列寧是德國間諜，從而生出了殺害列寧的念頭和計畫。這是一箭雙鵰的陰謀，既陷害了布哈林，又貶低了列寧。布哈林拍案而起，拒絕在供詞上籤字，並怒不可遏地說：「斯大林這是要把死去的列寧也送上被告席呀！」
在最初的幾個月裡，布哈林一直拒絕招供。內務部人員加緊了刑訊，偵訊人員增加了一倍。內務人民委員葉若夫親自督戰，伏羅希洛夫作為政治局的代表也參與審訊。他們把布哈林的妻子和兒子作為「人質」，以他們的安全為要挾，對布哈林「曉以利害」。內務部像對待其他受審人一樣，以斯大林的名義向布哈林許諾，只要布哈林能滿足「政治局的全部要求」，他的妻子和兒子就會平安無事，他本人也只會受點監禁之苦。
斯大林是施展此類手腕的高手。
就在兩年前1935年的一次宴會上，斯大林還親自為布哈林敬酒，說：「我們都瞭解他熱愛他，誰要是老記著過去，誰就從我的眼前滾開！」與此同時，內務部卻正在準備一份布哈林「過去反列寧」的材料。
1936年，十月革命19週年紀念日，布哈林拿著《消息報》主編的通行證參加紅場的慶祝活動。一年前，他是作為國家領導人登上列寧墓上的主觀禮台，而現在只能站在觀禮台的一側了。這時，一個衛兵跑過來向布哈林敬了個禮，說：「布哈林同志，斯大林同志請我轉告您，您站的不是您應站的地方，他請您馬上到主觀禮台去。」就在說這話的時候，斯大林已決定把布哈林從憲法起草委員會的名單裡清除出去。
1936年12月底，內務部人員帶著搜查證闖進布哈林家。正要開始搜查時，通向克里姆林宮的專線電話響了。電話是斯大林打來的。布哈林侷促不安地告訴斯大林內務部的人正在家裡搜查，斯大林大聲吼道：「叫他們統統滾出去。」於是搜查停止了。而當時，斯大林正在召開會議討論是否馬上逮捕布哈林。
「前車之鑑，後車之覆」。無數事實讓布哈林對斯大林有了清醒的認識。布哈林知道自己難免一死，早將個人生死置之度外，他只有一個念頭：保護好自己的家人。
最後，雙方作出妥協，達成一個方案：在法庭上，布哈林可以不再提列寧與德國勾結之事，也可以不說企圖謀殺列寧，只說為阻止和約簽訂而打算將列寧逮捕，並扣押一晝夜。布哈林也可以不承認自己是德國間諜，但必須承認參與了對基洛夫和高爾基的謀殺，還得承認企圖謀殺斯大林。這樣，布哈林的家人將不受任何牽連，他本人也能保全性命。然而斯大林再次「輕諾寡信」，布哈林最終還是被處以極刑。
斯蒂茨‧科恩在《布哈林與布爾什維克革命》一書中說：「布哈林死的時候嘴裡咒罵著斯大林。他是挺著胸脯站著死去的，而不像季諾維也夫和加米涅夫那樣，是趴在地下室的地上哭泣著要求憐憫。」
入獄之前，布哈林已作了最壞打算。他草擬了一封《致未來一代黨的領導人的信》，要求妻子拉林娜一遍遍地背誦，直至一字不差。信中寫下了一個老布爾什維克這樣的遺言：
我命在旦夕。我低下我的頭，但不是在無產階級的斧鉞面前，因為它必定是無情的，但也是純潔的。面對著一部凶惡的國家機器，我感到無能為力……我向所有的黨員呼籲！在這些可能是我生命中的最後幾天裡，我堅信，經過歷史的過濾器，早晚不可避免地將會把我頭上的污穢沖掉……同志們，你們要知道，在你們向共產主義勝利進軍的高舉的旗幟上，也灑有我的一滴鮮血。
讀著布哈林的遺書，不知是應該感動還是嘆息。革命浪費了億萬人民對它的感情，或者說是粗暴地蹂躪和踐蹋了人們曾對它有過的忠誠，這才是悲劇中的悲劇。
從布哈林的政治悲劇中，我們看到了性格因素所起的作用。但是，當我們把蘇維埃早期幾位政治人物的政治悲劇放到一起，則驀然意識到：儘管托洛茨基、季諾維也夫、加米涅夫、布哈林性格特點各異，但在殘酷的政治鬥爭中都毫無例外地扮演了同樣的悲劇角色。
White bear wrote:
不不不，現在的中國其實也是走資本主義，像樓主這種道道地地的共產主義可能要去北韓看看有沒有機會。
lichujen wrote:
現在世界僅存的馬克斯國家叫北朝鮮，歡迎直接過去，然後對金小胖暢言你的心得感想，最後看是要炮決還是車裂自己選。
這點顯示你的無知
朝鮮嚴禁馬克思主義 在1960年代末就已經完全禁止民間閱讀馬克思主義相關的書籍
北韓是全世界唯一個閱讀馬克思主義會被抓去坐牢的國家
而且還搞金日成個人崇拜，另外歐洲有許多國家都在實行社會住宅制度
例如瑞士住宅自有率只有50%，並且政府有很嚴格的房價管制措施
這些都不是你的妖魔化社會主義和馬克斯能解釋的，之前英國工黨的柯賓就是一個馬克思主義者
另外馬克思只有有許多流派 例如社會民主派(如改良主義) 德國的 羅莎‧盧森堡(西方民主馬克思) 馬克思列寧主義(正統派) 托洛斯基(托派等) 史達林主義(一國社會民族主義和計畫經濟派 國家資本主義派)等等等
朝鮮嚴禁馬克思
朝鮮有個讓很難理解的禁忌，在社會主義的朝鮮馬克思等的著作是遭禁的。提示中國的馬克思愛好者，到了朝鮮不要妄言馬克思、恩格斯，更不要向當地人贈送《資本論》......
朝鮮嚴禁馬克思主義
1946年2月，北韓臨時人民委員會宣佈成立。同年7月，金日成被史達林指認為朝鮮領導人。1948年9月9日，金日成宣佈成立朝鮮民主主義人民共和國。在那時金日成的肖像同馬、恩、列、斯並排懸掛。直到上世紀60年代末為止，書店的書架上還擺著《馬克思選集》、《恩格斯選集》及《資本論》、《反杜林論》、《哥達綱領批判》等著作。到了1967年後朝鮮當局稱已建立了領袖的「主體思想」，馬克思、恩格斯的書籍從朝鮮消失了。書店裡銷售的有關思想觀念的圖書，只有《金日成語錄》和《金日成著作選集》。在大學裡一切有關馬克思主義的講座均被取消。屬於馬克思主義範疇的哲學、辯證唯物論等都被變作了金日成語錄，把馬克思、恩格斯的註解都弄成「據偉大領袖金日成教導…」。1980年10月的第6次黨代會上刪掉了「朝鮮勞動黨以在全社會實踐馬克思列寧主義而鬥爭為方針」的語句，轉換成了「金日成主義」。在朝鮮《憲法》序言部分金日成三個字竟出現了17次之多，而馬克思、列寧卻一字不提。
朝鮮為何禁止馬克思主義
對此金正日強調主體思想是「不能在馬克思列寧主義框架內解釋的獨創的思想」。他說：「主體思想」是以唯物辯證法「為前提」的，二者「具有共同性」，但同時又克服了唯物辯證法的「片面性」和「侷限性」。「主體哲學」是與馬克思主義哲學有「根本區別」的。「先前的社會主義理論，只把物質經濟的因素看作革命鬥爭的根本條件」，主體思想「把社會主義提到了新的科學基礎之上」，從此「開闢了人類歷史發展的新時代──主體時代」。1976年10月，金正日在同黨的理論宣傳工作者的談話中說，「無論從內容上看還是從組成來看，金日成主義是不能在馬克思列寧主義框架內解釋的獨創的思想。」「金日成主義是同馬克思列寧主義有區別的獨創的革命思想。」
維基百科網站上這樣寫道，在朝鮮，什麼時候開始禁止進行馬克思主義研究的，朝鮮官方1967年開始起用「主體思想」取代了馬克思列寧主義這個詞彙，後者不再扮演重要角色。而且朝鮮領導人也不承認他們與馬克思恩格斯是一個體系的。
1967年以後，朝鮮回收了所有馬克思和列寧等有名的社會主義革命理論家們的著作，禁止一般百姓閱覽。圖書館把這些書列在閱覽書目中，但只有得到相關機關特許的人才能借閱。
1970年後在朝鮮勞動黨的所有會議上只懸掛金日成的肖像，馬克思等均被打入冷宮.
1972年12月，《朝鮮民主主義人民共和國憲法》規定，「把馬克思列寧主義創造性地運用於我國現實的朝鮮勞動黨的主體思想作為自己活動的指針」。主體思想在1977年之後取代了馬克思主義和列寧主義，成為朝鮮勞動黨和朝鮮式社會主義建設的指導思想。1980年10月，朝鮮勞動黨第六次代表大會通過的新黨章把「金日成同志的革命思想、主體思想作為唯一的指導方針」。
北韓完全就不是一個遵守馬克思主義教導的國家 而是一個背叛者
他當初能這樣搞就是因為中蘇兩國在1960年代都在拉攏北韓
主體思想實際上是一種階級壓迫，是馬克斯反對的
沉思行者 wrote:
哈 宣傳馬克思主義的樓主 趕快找資料繼續貼 看你還有多少資料
馬克思這個老骨董世界各國都沒人信了 還跑到台灣來宣傳
中國是共產極權下權貴資本主義 上層將國家掠奪一空 造成嚴重社會矛盾
經濟好的時候還可以以勉強度日 經濟不好所有矛盾都會爆發出來
我們就繼續看著社會矛盾 會不會產生階級鬥爭 然後重新無產階級專政
生產力沒有極大提高 共產主義就不會實現 要解放人力除非自動化
機器取代人類 讓人類去剝削機器 然後除非給智腦管 一切按造程序來
不然用人管 共產主義只是方便上位者去收繳下層的經濟果實罷了 不會有公平
存在
國際馬克思主義趨勢的全球視角為2018：構成我們對世界政治目前的情況分析，並約在那裡我們領導的預測。這份文件草案進行討論，並在都靈的IMT的2018世界大會上最終確定。這是寫在今年的前幾個月，雖然有些描述的事件已經開發以來，這些發展不僅進一步證實了我們的世界形勢的總體分析。
資本主義正在經歷其有史以來最嚴重的危機。這是一起社會、經濟和政治制度的危機，並且在開始爆發在世界各地的政治動盪中表現出來。儘管統治階級不遺餘力地試圖埋葬馬克思主義，卻沒有比今天更需要應用它的時刻了。在這篇更新後的文章中，馬克思主義理論家及保衛馬克思主義網站主編艾倫‧伍茲（Alan Woods）介紹了馬克思主義的意涵以及其能在今日世界中能夠扮演的角色。
譯者：章羅儲林
1992年，弗朗西斯‧福山出版了《歷史的終結》，這本書很快成為了紅極一時的暢銷書。在書中，福山大聲地宣告了共產主義、社會主義、馬克思主義的消亡和市場經濟和資產階級民主的徹底勝利。福山宣稱，蘇聯的失敗預示著從今以後僅僅只有資本主義的市場經濟能夠存在，在這個意義上，歷史終結了。
這個念頭似乎被連續多年的利潤暴漲和持續不斷的經濟增長所代表的市場經濟明顯的成功印證了，政治家、央行行長和華爾街的投資經理都深信，他們終於馴服了資本主義發展中的週期性災難，在所有資本主義世界內，結局永遠會是美好的。
但處理歷史並非易事，從那之後歷史很快發生了巨變。僅僅在《歷史的終結》一書出版16年以後，2008年的的金融危機使全球資本主義架構近乎崩潰，全世界也隨之陷入了20世紀30年代以來最嚴重的危機之中。直到今天，世界也還在掙紮著從深淵中解脫出來。
福山每一個自信的預言都被接踵而至的事件證偽。在2008年的金融危機之前，資產階級的經濟學家宣稱，資本主義經濟繁榮-蕭條-繁榮的危機週期不會再發生。他們提出了一個「效率市場假說」的奇妙新理論，根據這一理論，市場可以自己解決所有問題。
實際上，這個假說毫無新意，不過是「薩伊定律」的老調重彈：市場經濟的供需平衡不可能產生過度生產的危機。馬克思早在一個世紀之前，就駁倒了這種無稽之談。連約翰‧梅納德‧凱恩斯也譏諷這種斷言」早晚「市場會解決一切問題的想法和反正遲早我們都會死的想法一摸一樣。
在今天，堅持這種像舊日的殘骸一樣的思想變得毫無意義，因為資產階級和它的戰略家都已陷入了深深的低谷。托洛茨基早在上個世紀三十年代就曾說過「資產階級正閉著眼睛踏進災難」，這些話跟今天的狀況何其相似。
我們越來越清楚，資本主義已經耗盡了進步的潛力，它並非如我們想像的一樣，是在發展工業和科技，恰恰相反的是，它是在逐步毀滅它們。不再有人相信統治階級說我們正處於復甦的前夜的一再保證。生產力停滯甚至下降，工廠就像火柴盒一樣關閉，數百萬人失業；對世界經濟發揮重大作用的中國龐大的經濟正在大幅放緩，而日本的經濟則處於停滯狀態；所謂的新興經濟體正處於某種程度的危機之中，美國則經歷著前所未有的社會經濟的社會政治危機；在大西洋的另一邊，歐洲資本主義正處於水深火熱之中，希臘的困境是最為典型的例子，但葡萄牙和西班牙也處於危機之中，法國和意大利則距離危機不遠，在決定退出歐盟之後，曾經被視為歐洲最穩定國家之一的英國則經歷了英鎊不斷下滑，經濟危機的惡化和政局長期的不穩定。所有這些跡像都表明，世界範圍內的生產力發展，早已超越了私有制和民族國家的狹隘邊界，這是當前危機的根本原因，也是資本主義理論破產所揭示的最為直接的意義。
資產階級的政治學家和經濟學家和幾乎所有的改良派，正在拚命尋求復興的跡像來擺脫這場危機。資產階級的政治學家和經濟學家將恢復商業週期視為救贖；工人階級、工會和社會民主黨的領袖認為，這場危機是暫時的他們認為可以通過對現有制度進行一些調整來解決問題，他們要求更多的控制和管制，從而讓我們可以回到先前的狀態。
但他們錯了。這既不是一場普通的危機，也不會是暫時性的。這場危機是一個根本性的轉折點，它標誌資本主義在歷史上已經到了無可救藥的死胡同。對我們來說，可以預期的最好結果，不過是伴隨著高失業率和長期的緊縮所帶來的生活水平持續下降的乏力復甦。
資產階級思想的危機
馬克思主義首先是一套哲學和世界觀。在馬克思和恩格斯的哲學寫作內，我們並不會找到一整套既成的，一成不變的哲學系統。反而，我們會找到一系列精闢入裡的見解和方針。如果將它們加以發展後，則會為科學研究的方法論提供一個可貴的新篇章。
在哲學的領域內，資產階級的意識形態最明顯的曝露了其自身的危機。在資產階級還扮演著進步角色的早期階段，它有能力培養偉大的思想家：霍布斯和洛克，康德和黑格爾；但在資本主義日漸衰微的時代，資產階級產生不了偉大的思想，事實上它根本無法產生任何新的想法。
由於當今的資產階級毫無能力做出任何重要的概論，他們也直接否定了意識形態這個概念的存在。在資本主義概念下看不到進步可能的他們否認了進步的概念，這就是後現代主義者談論「意識形態的終結」的原因。恩格斯曾經說：「哲學與現實世界的研究有著如同手淫和性愛一樣的關係。」而現代資產階級哲學相比之下似乎更喜歡前者，它執著的為了反對馬克思主義，把哲學拖回了過去最古老也最衰微的時期。
我們都知道，相變的研究是當代物理學最重要的領域之一。現代的混沌理論和衍生的觀點證明了量變引發質變這一觀點，同時也終結了科學界長達一百多年的機械還原論的統治。有無數例子表明數量轉化為質量是一個普遍規律，更令人驚訝的是，這個規律可以表達為一個稱為冪定律的數學公式。馬克思和恩格斯早已預見到這些顯著的發現，早在十九世紀他們的學說就已經和混沌理論在數學上所表達的一種期待高度統一，它們都關注事物之間的相互聯繫和不同實體和過程之間關係的有機本質。
在馬克思之前，黑格爾已經在辯證法上做出了卓越貢獻，在「蝴蝶效應」一詞出現之前，黑格爾就在他的「邏輯學」中寫道：「讓小小的事業產生巨大的影響已經成為歷史上常見的笑話」。馬克思和恩格斯則在唯物主義的基礎上使用辯證法，提出了辯證唯物主義。辯證唯物主義是一種動態地理解自然、社會和思想的視角，它遠非十九世紀的過時觀念，而是一種對自然和社會的驚人而現代的看法。辯證法不再像古典物理學一樣機械地將世界視為固定、僵化而毫無生氣的樣子，而是將世界視為變動的，在某些情況下，事情會變為相反的方面。
革命亦是如此，像火山噴發和地震一樣，革命並非突如其來而是長期矛盾緩慢積累的結果，當矛盾累積到臨界點時，革命就會爆發。
Friedrich Engels恩格斯
唯物史觀
每個社會制度都認為它是人類唯一可能的生存形式，它的制度，宗教，道德都是人類發展的終極狀態。這是食人族、埃及神父、瑪麗‧安托瓦內特和沙皇尼古拉斯都熱切相信的理念；這也是福山在在《歷史的終結》中所要表明的，即所謂的「自由市場」制度是唯一可能的制度 -即使他提出它的時候自由市場已經開始下沉。查爾斯‧達爾文在《物種起源》中揭示了一個規律：物種不是一成不變的，它們擁有一個過去，現在和未來，並且一直在變化和發展，與之類似的，馬克思和恩格斯說，一個特定的社會制度也不是永恆的。當然，社會與自然之間的比喻只是近似的，但即使是最膚淺的歷史考察也表明，漸進主義的解釋是沒有根據的。社會和大自然一樣，長期以來都不僅僅有著緩慢而漸進的變化，這種變化也會被劇烈的戰爭和革命所打斷，從而大大加速變革的過程。而且事實上這些事件，而非漸進的變化，正是歷史發展的主要動力。
馬克思主義分析了從最早的部落社會到現代人類社會發展背後隱藏的主要原因。馬克思指出，革命性變化的根本原因是一個特定的社會經濟制度已經到了極限，不能像以前那樣發展生產力。唯物史觀使我們能夠理解歷史發生的真正原因，不是糾結於表面上和變化發生相關的一系列無關緊要和不可預見的事件，而是把變化作為一個清晰理解和相互關聯的過程的一部分——一個涵蓋政治、經濟、社會發展等全方位的因素的過程，這些現像之間的關係則是一個複雜的辯證關係。
人們常常試圖用對馬克思主義歷史分析方法的歪曲來抹黑馬克思主義。通常的歪曲是馬克思和恩格斯「把所有的東西都歸結為經濟學」。這個歪曲被馬克思和恩格斯多次糾正，正如下面對恩格斯給布洛赫的一封信的摘錄：
「根據唯物史觀，歷史過程中的決定性因素歸根到底是現實生活的生產和再生產。無論馬克思或我都從來沒有肯定過比這更多的東西。如果有人在這裡加以歪曲，說經濟因素是唯一決定性的因素，那末他就是把這個命題變成毫無內容的、抽像的、荒誕無稽的空話。經濟狀況是基礎，但是對歷史鬥爭的進程發生影響並且在許多情況下主要是決定著這一鬥爭的形式的，還有上層建築的各種因素：階級鬥爭的各種政治形式和這個鬥爭的成果——由勝利了的階級在獲勝以後建立的憲法等等，各種法權形式以及所有這些實際鬥爭在參加者頭腦中的反映，政治的、法律的和哲學的理論，宗教的觀點以及它們向教義體系的進一步發展。這裡表現出這一切因素間的交互作用，而在這種交互作用中歸根到底是經濟運動作為必然的東西通過無窮無盡的偶然事件（即這樣一些事物，它們的內部聯繫是如此疏遠或者是如此難於確定，以致我們可以忘掉這種聯繫，認為這種聯繫並不存在）向前發展。否則把理論應用於任何歷史時期，就會比解一個最簡單的一次方程式更容易了。」
共產黨宣言
當今人們可以讀到的與現代最相應的書是1848年出版的《共產黨宣言》。當然，書當中的細節必須改變，但是真正令人吃驚的是，在所有的基本原理上，共產黨宣言的思想在今天同樣重要。相比之下，一個半世紀以前寫的絕大多數書籍今天僅僅是對歷史有興趣的人才有吸引力。在宣言出版後的一個半世紀裡，《宣言》所說的變化是多麼的微不足道。相比之下，我們現代的「專家」今天只能為他們昨天寫的東西而感到羞恥。
在《宣言》中，最引人注目的是它如何預測目前世界範圍內引起我們注意的的那些現像。比如說，在馬克思和恩格斯寫作的時候，大型跨國公司的出現依然是遙遙無期的。儘管如此，他們在宣言中就已經預告了「自由企業」和競爭將不可避免地導致資本集中和生產力的壟斷。閱讀所謂的「市場」辯護者所提出的關於這個問題的批判，不得不感到一種滑稽，因為實今天，馬克思所預見的資本集中過程在過去幾十年中已經發生，正在發生，並且確實達到了前所未有的程度，這是絕對不爭的事實。這說明馬克思所做出的「自由企業」和競爭將不可避免地導致資本集中和生產力的壟斷的預言，其實是最精闢而準確的預言之一。
幾十年來，資產階級社會學家企圖反駁《共產黨宣言》中的論斷，「證明」社會變得更加平等，階級鬥爭就像手搖和木犁一樣過時了。他們說，工人階級消失了，我們都是中產階級。至於資本集中的趨勢更是子虛烏有，未來所存在的將是」小而美「的中小企業。這些證明現在聽起來是多麼諷刺啊？這個世界的經濟現在由不超過200家絕大多數設在美國的公司所控制，世界上最大的公司所擁有的財富遠遠超過許多國家的財富，這是對大企業不斷增長的力量的一個明顯的例證。世界經濟壟斷達到了空前的程度，反貧困慈善機構「全球正義」的一項研究發現，前100家經濟實體中的企業數量從去年的63家躍升至2015年的69家，147個超級龐大的企業擁有世界40％的財富，這些巨型企業是全球經濟的真正統治者。
列寧指出，在帝國主義（壟斷資本主義）發展階段，經濟權力集中在大銀行手中。目前的情況完全證實了這一分析。世界經濟主要由金融資本主導。瑞士聯邦研究所（SFI）在蘇黎世發佈了一項名為「全球企業控制網絡」的研究，該研究證明了全世界被一個由財團（主要是銀行）組成的小型財團控制著。
這些權勢最大的銀行包括了：巴克萊銀行、高盛銀行、摩根大通、領航投資、瑞銀集團、德意志銀行、紐約梅隆銀行、摩根斯坦利、美國銀行，以及法國興業銀行。
這些由投資計畫，衍生品等組成的複雜網絡緊密相連的強大金融機構的投機活動，是全球金融崩潰的催化劑。 SFI的系統理論家James Glattfelder解釋說：「實際上，只有不到百分之一的公司能夠控制整個網絡的40％。」
銀行家和資本家在宣傳緊縮政策的同時，自己卻從工人階級中不斷搾取剩餘價值，變得越來越富有；那些龐大的公司正在如同貪婪的食人族一樣不斷吞併和收購其他的公司，數十億美元被瘋狂地用於擴大大型壟斷企業的規模和盈利能力。這種狂熱的活動並不意味著生產力的真正發展，恰恰相反，這種企業行為必然伴隨著資產的剝離、工廠關閉和工人被解僱，全世界的國民收入中的利潤份額都處於歷史最高水平，而工資份額卻處於歷史最低水平：在美國，工人的平均工資是十多年前的三分之一，但實際工資卻停滯不前或下降。利潤一直在蓬勃發展，富人變得越來越富裕，工人階級卻越來越難生活下去。全球不平等現像在不斷增長，世界上一半的財富僅僅屬於總人口的1％那一部分人；也就是生產資料被肆意揮霍和破壞，成千上萬的工作被擺上資本和利潤的祭壇。
全球化
讓我們再舉一個更加明顯的例子吧：全球化。
世界市場的壓倒性的統治是我們時代最重要的狀態，這似乎是最近的發明。實際上，全球化在150多年前被馬克思和恩格斯預言和解釋了。在《共產黨宣言》這個非凡的文件的序言中，我們讀到了以下內容：
「資產階級，由於開拓了世界市場，使一切國家的生產和消費都成為世界性的了。使反動派大為惋惜的是，資產階級挖掉了工業腳下的民族基礎。古老的民族工業被消滅了，並且每天都還在被消滅。它們被新的工業排擠掉了，新的工業的建立已經成為一切文明民族的生命攸關的問題；這些工業所加工的，已經不是本地的原料，而是來自極其遙遠的地區的原料；它們的產品不僅供本國消費，而且同時供世界各地消費。舊的、靠國產品來滿足的需要，被新的、要靠極其遙遠的國家和地帶的產品來滿足的需要所代替了。過去那種地方的和民族的自給自足和閉關自守狀態，被各民族的各方面的互相往來和各方面的互相依賴所代替了。物質的生產是如此，精神的生產也是如此。各民族的精神產品成了公共的財產。民族的片面性和侷限性日益成為不可能，於是由許多種民族的和地方的文學形成了一種世界的文學。」
當這個假說被提出時，根本沒有經驗或數據支撐這樣的假設。當時世界上唯一真正發達的資本主義經濟只有英國，法國和德國的幼稚工業（德國甚至都還未統一）仍然躲在高關稅的壁壘後面，這一歷史事實很容易被刻意地忽視，因為西方政府和經濟學家需要說服世界各地開放經濟，然而如今，這一切都已成真。
所謂全球化，是資本主義超越國內市場狹窄的局面，發展和強化國際分工的必然趨勢。這為世界各國人民之間的未來繁榮與合作開闢了一個耀眼的方式，但是在資本主義制度下，這種人類發展的巨大潛力被迫進入利潤生產的束縛，它不僅沒有促進經濟和社會的發展，反而成為大公司掠奪整個星球的完美秘訣；它不但沒有減少矛盾，減少戰爭和衝突的風險，反而加劇了它們，導致了一場又一場的戰爭。
全球化的災難是驚人的，根據聯合國的數字，有12億人每天靠不到兩美元維生，每年有800萬男女老少死亡，因為他們沒有足夠的錢維持生存。每個人都同意，納粹屠殺600萬人是一個危害人類的可怕罪行，但是在這裡我們有一場無聲的大屠殺，每年殺害八百萬無辜的人，但卻沒有人為此提出嚴厲的譴責。在這些痛苦的人以外，還有一部分人正在進行炫耀財富的狂歡。根據彭博億萬富翁指數，世界上最富有的30人控制著世界經濟中驚人的部分：1.23萬億美元。這比西班牙，墨西哥或土耳其的年度國內生產總值還要多。在2000年，最富有的200人甚至擁有和20億最窮的人一樣多的財富。世界上最富有的八位億萬富豪擁有的財富相當於全球人口中最貧窮的一半人的全部家當，這是財富不斷增長和危險集中的最顯著的標誌。
一個合理的生產計畫
Marx anniversary MAIN馬克思
資產階級掃除阻礙封建制度下生產力發展的一切障礙：地方稅收，貨幣和關稅壁壘，阻礙貿易自由發展的無休止的通行費，狹隘的狹隘和農村的小農生產；資產階級建立了國內市場，並在此基礎上建立了現代意義上的民族國家。但是資本主義制度下的生產力的發展早已超越了國內市場的狹隘界限，現在已經變成了經濟發展的障礙，正如舊時期的封建主義地方保護一樣。全球化的來臨，僅僅是民族國家成為人類進步道路上的一個障礙的一個象徵而已。資本主義制度是一種無政府性的制度，它以貪婪為基礎，不斷尋求新的剝削和強姦星球的方式來增加少數人的財富和權力。大公司對環境毫不顧忌，他們瘋狂地追逐利潤，摧毀了雨林，毒害了海洋，消滅了動植物物種，污染了我們呼吸的空氣、飲用水和食物。資本主義制度的延續對我們生活的這個星球以及人類的未來構成了致命的威脅。
嚴重而急迫的事實告訴我們，通過合理的生產計畫來協調使用地球的龐大資源已成為必要之事。客觀來講，我們擁有解決我們面臨的每一個問題的一切條件，我們掌握了消滅貧窮、疾病、失業、飢餓、無家可歸、無盡的苦難、戰爭、衝突和所有其他罪惡的必要技術和科學手段。但我們沒有這麼做，不是因為不能做到，而是因為如果我們試圖去根本解決這一問題，就必然違背純粹以利潤為基礎的經濟體制，而人類真正的需求，從未進入統治地球的銀行家和資本家的計算之中。這是一個嚴肅的問題，它的答案將決定我們的未來。樂施會呼籲採取新的經濟模式來扭轉不平等的必然趨勢，但改良主義的道路已經無能為力了，我們必須徹底改變這個體制。人類發展的兩個主要障礙是：生產資料的私有制和野蠻而殘忍的民族國家。無產階級將會消除文明進步的障礙：私有制將被民主的生產計畫所取代；民族國家將被放置在在歷史古蹟博物館裡。社會主義革命將掃除一切國家障礙，釋放生產力發展的巨大潛力，建立世界聯合體，以有計畫而和諧的方式集聚地球的無限資源，滿足全人類而非一些超級富有的貪婪寄生蟲的需求。
階級鬥爭
歷史唯物主義告訴我們，實踐決定了意識。唯心主義者一直將意識作為人類進步的動力，但即使是最簡單的歷史事實也表明，人的意識總是往往落後於事件發展。它不像我們所設想的一樣是革命性的，恰恰相反，我們的意識往往是保守的。大多數人不喜歡改變，更不用說改變現有制度的劇烈動盪。他們傾向於堅持現有的社會秩序、熟悉的思想、知名的機構、傳統的道德、宗教和價值觀。但辯證地說，物極必反，早晚，意識會以激進的方式與現實相適應。
這正是一場革命。
馬克思主義解釋道，一切社會發展的關鍵是生產力的發展。於是，在大多數人看來，只要社會在前進，工業、農業和科技在發展，人們一般不會質疑現有的社會、道德和法律。相反的是，它們被看作是一種就像太陽的升起和落下一樣自然而不可避免的事物。要使群眾擺脫傳統、習慣和常規的沉重負擔，迎接新的思想，需要非常多的努力，這就是馬克思在「社會決定意識」這個著名的詞語中所出色地表達了唯物史觀改採取的立場，它揭示了舊秩序的不健全性和說服了群眾的需要，與推翻舊制度的必要性。但這個過程不是自動的，它需要時間。
曾經，我們以為歐洲的階級鬥爭似乎已經過去了，但是現在所有積累起來的矛盾正在浮出水面，為各地階級鬥爭的爆發做好準備。包括美國在內的各個地方正在醞釀著暴風雨般的事件，在社會中隱含著急劇且突然的變化。
當馬克思和恩格斯在寫作《共產黨宣言》的時候，他們分別是兩個29歲和27歲的年輕人。他們正在經歷一個黑色的年代，工人階級似乎對壓迫無動於衷。 《共產黨宣言》在布魯塞爾寫成，其作者則被迫逃離成為政治難民。然而，1848年2月，《共產黨宣言》第一次看到的光明的那一刻，革命已經爆發到巴黎街頭，在接下來的幾個月裡，革命在幾乎整個歐洲像野火般蔓延。
我們正在進入一個類似於1930年到1937年的西班牙的，持續多年的激動人心的時期。這段歷史中將會有失敗和挫折，但在這種情況下，人民群眾將會瞭解得很快。當然，我們絕不能誇大現實，我們現在還僅僅處於激進化進程的初期。但是很清楚的是，我們已經目睹了群眾意識轉變的開始，越來越多的人質疑資本主義。他們將會以前所未有的方式接受馬克思主義思想，在即將到來的未來，只有革命派的思想會被數百萬人所接受。
因此，我們可以回答福山先生：歷史尚未結束，甚至我們可以說，事實上，它幾乎沒有開始。當後代回顧我們現在的「文明」時，他們將會像以我們看待食人族一般驚愕地看待我們。實現更高層次的人類發展的先決條件，是資本主義無計畫生產狀態的結束，和人類可以把自己的生命和命運掌握在自己手中的理性和民主的生產計畫。當然，會有自稱的」現實主義者「告訴我們，這是不存在的烏托邦。但妄想這個創造我們現在面對的這些燃眉之急的制度可以解決這些問題，則是更不可能的。在通過利用科學技術的巨大潛力，和擺脫私產制和民族國家的惡劣束縛的前提下，我們才有可能解決這些摧殘我們世界，並即將比我們走向毀滅的問題。」人類無法找到更好的替代叢林法則的制度「，這樣的說法是對人類的巨大侮辱。而真正的人類歷史只有在我們結束資本主義奴役，並邁向自由王國的第一步時，才會開始。
更新於2017年6月16日，倫敦
We present the International Marxist Tendency's world perspectives for 2018: constituting our analysis of the current situation in world politics, and predictions about where we are headed. This draft document will be discussed and finalised at the IMT's 2018 World Congress in Turin. It was written in the first few months of this year, and although some of the events described have developed since, these developments only further confirm our overarching analysis of the world situation.
Ten years after the crash
Ten years have passed since the financial crash of 2008. This was one of those defining moments in world history that mark a fundamental change in the situation, like 1914, 1917, 1929 and 1939-45. It is therefore an appropriate moment to draw a balance sheet of the past decade.
Wall Street collapse Image Paul SparkesImage: Paul Sparkes
This crisis was qualitatively different from any other in the past. It was not a normal cyclical crisis, but a reflection of the organic crisis of capitalism. A decade after the collapse of 2008, the bourgeoisie is still struggling to extricate itself from the crisis that destroyed the equilibrium of the capitalist system. To the very limited degree that one can speak of a recovery, it is a very partial one. In fact, it is the weakest economic recovery in history. Even in the 1930s there was a bigger recovery. And certain things flow from this.
Ten years ago, we predicted that all of the attempts of the bourgeoisie to restore the economic equilibrium would destroy the political and social equilibrium. That has now been confirmed by events on a world scale. In one country after another the attempts of governments to impose austerity in a desperate effort to get the economy moving (which they have failed to do) have prepared social explosions of an absolutely unprecedented character.
「Concentrated economics」
Lenin said politics is concentrated economics. In the last analysis, all these crises are an expression of the impasse of capitalism which is no longer capable of developing the productive forces as it did in the past. This does not mean, of course, that there can no longer be any development of the productive forces.
Neither Marx nor Lenin or Trotsky have ever said that there was an absolute ceiling on the development of the productive forces under capitalism. It is a relative, not an absolute phenomenon. There can always be some development, as there has been in China in the last period. But on a world scale there is nothing compared to the development of the productive forces in the second half of the 20th century after the Second World War.
Marxism explains that the secret to the viability of any economic system is the achievement of the maximum economy of labour time. One of the most important elements in the development of capitalism was precisely the growth in the productivity of labour. For 200 years, capitalism raised the productivity of human labour power to a level undreamt of in the past. But this progress is now reaching its limits.
A study on productivity by the Center for Economic and Policy Research in September 2015 found that, between 2007 and 2012, global productivity grew at annual rate of 0.5%; half what it had been in the period 1996-2006. However, in the more recent period of 2012-14 it had ground to a complete halt at zero percent. In countries like Brazil and Mexico it was actually negative. As the report states, 「This is one of the most disturbing and, no doubt, important phenomena affecting the world economy.」
These figures are a sure indication that capitalism now finds itself in a systemic crisis. The sluggish growth of the productivity of labour – and in some cases its fall – is a striking symptom of the impasse of capitalism, which is no longer able to achieve the big successes of the past.
American Stock Exchange building Image Wally GobetzImage: Wally Gobetz
The source of the problem lies in historically low levels of investment: gross capital formation in the European Union and the United States has fallen below 20% of GDP for the first time since the 1960s, while capital consumption and depreciation is rising. In the former colonial world, the boom in raw material prices sparked a brief increase in investment, but it has fallen again over the past few years.
This failure to invest in production is not the result of the lack of money. On the contrary, the giant corporations are swimming in cash. Adam Davidson, writing in The New York Times in January 2016, stated that, 「American businesses currently have $1.9 trillion in cash, just sitting around」… this 「state of affairs [is] unparalleled in economic history…」 The author of the article considers this a 「mystery」 but what it shows is that the capitalists do not have profitable fields of investment in the present state of the world economy. (Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions? New York Times, January 20, 2016)
More recent data by the US Federal Reserve puts the amount of 「non-financial companies' liquid assets, which include hard currency, foreign deposits, money-market and mutual-fund shares」 at a 「record $2.4 trillion in the third quarter」 of 2017.
The system is literally drowning in a surfeit of wealth. It is like the sorcerer's apprentice who has conjured up forces that he cannot control. The productive forces have the potential to produce a mass of commodities that cannot be absorbed by the markets.
This inability to make productive use of the colossal amounts of surplus value extracted from the sweat and blood of the workers is the final condemnation of capitalism. Overproduction is reflected in a general crisis of the world economy, which is in a very fragile state. Cheap credit no longer serves to stimulate investment. What is the point in investing to create new productive forces when there are no markets for the existing production?
A new recovery?
Every day the press proclaims a recovery. In the best case, there is a slight upturn in GDP within a generalised context of long term stagnation. For Marxists there is no surprise in this; even in periods of decline the system continues to move in cycles and after a long period of decline or stagnation a small recovery is to be expected. However, it is of such a weak nature that it amounts to no substantial recovery and will not last.
The limited growth comes against a background of ultra-loose monetary policy. The Federal Reserve kept the base rate at just above zero from the autumn of 2008 until the beginning of 2017. The European Central Bank also lowered their rate to just above zero.
Real estate bubbles exist in housing markets in Britain, Canada, China and Scandinavia. The stock markets have not merely recovered but have exceeded their 2007 valuations. The Dow Jones has managed to not only exceed, but increase its valuation by 36%. The price over earnings ratio (that is, the price an investor is paying for $1 of a company's earnings or profit) has reached its third highest peak in history (the previous two being 1929 and 2000). All this is indicative, not of a healthy recovery, but of another crisis in the making. It also has the effect of transferring huge amounts of money to the capitalist class whose assets have increased in value with the influx of new credit.
The limits of credit
The reason for the present impasse is that, in the decades prior to 2008, capitalism not only reached its limits but went far beyond its 「natural」 limits. The unprecedented expansion of credit and debt is partly what enabled capitalism to overcome the constraints of the market and overproduction. On the other hand, there was the enormous expansion of world trade and an intensification of the international division of labour.
Marx explained that one of the ways capitalism gets around the limits of the market and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall is through the massive expansion of credit and of increasing world trade (「globalisation」), which partially, and for a limited period of a few decades, enabled it to get around the other key contradiction: the limitations of the nation state. But both of these solutions have limited effects and have now turned into their opposite.
Historically, the US has had a total debt (government and private) of around 100-180% of GDP. However, in the late 1980s total debt reached 200%, and it continued to grow until 2009, reaching a peak of around 300%. Japan, Britain, Spain, France, Italy and South Korea all have debt levels in excess of 300%. World debt now stands at $217tn or 327% of GDP, the highest in history.
anti austerity protest in London image wikimedia commonsImage: public domain
Marx pointed out in The Communist Manifesto that the bourgeoisie solves crises today only by paving the way for bigger crises in the future. What have they achieved over the past decade with all the pain, austerity and suffering? Their aim was to reduce the deficit and the huge unprecedented mountain of debt that had been built up as a result of the previous period.
All they have done is to convert what was a gigantic black hole in the private banks into a huge black hole in the public finances. The banks were standing on the brink of an abyss and they were only saved by the intervention of the state, which saved them by giving them trillions from the public purse. The problem is that the state does not have any money except what it can squeeze from the taxpayers.
The question is therefore: who pays? It is well known that the rich do not pay much in taxes. They have a thousand ways of avoiding that painful necessity. The working class must pay, the middle class must pay, the unemployed must pay, the sick must pay, the schools must pay. Everyone must pay except for the rich, who have become richer and richer even in this period of 「austerity」.
Has all this solved anything? Seven out of the ten biggest economies in the world run annual government deficits in excess of 3% of GDP, and only Germany has less than a 2% deficit. Debt is rising everywhere. There is no way to get out of the crisis unless and until these debts have been wiped out one way or another. And how does one eliminate the public debt? Naturally you place the entire burden on the shoulders of the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society.
The scenario that we are witnessing internationally is really unprecedented. And we are speaking here only of the advanced capitalist countries. The situation in the so-called Third World is another matter. Here the picture is one of unrelieved misery, unimaginable suffering, starvation and degradation for billions of men, women and children.
The threat of protectionism
For decades, world trade grew much faster than production, providing the motor force for the growth of the world economy. However, in the recent period, the growth of world trade has slowed to a level lower than that of GDP. Global trade as a percentage of GDP peaked at 61% twice, in 2008 and 2011, but now it has fallen to 58%.
The World Trade Organisation has expressed concern that national governments may be tempted to defend their own markets with protectionist measures and that these would in turn impact negatively on trade growth. As if to confirm these fears, Donald Trump blunders onto the scene like an elephant in a china shop. His policy of 「America first」 is itself a reflection of the global crisis. He wishes to 「make America great again」 at the expense of the rest of the world. That is to say, he wishes to use America's muscle to grab an increased share of world markets.
In the last few years the US capitalists have been struggling to put together a number of trade deals with Europe, America and Asia. The first thing Trump did was to tear up the TPP and the TTIP. He also threatens to destroy NAFTA if he cannot get a deal whereby Mexico and Canada sacrifice their interests for the benefit of the USA and he is threatening to paralyse the WTO by blocking the replacements of judges to its tribunals.
Trump China 1 Image The White HouseImage: The White House
China has a huge trade surplus with the USA, a record-high $275.81 billion for 2017, and this is one of the main reasons that Trump complains that China is harming the US economy. During the election campaign Trump accused China of 「raping America」, stealing US jobs, etc. Since then he was obliged to moderate his language in the hope of getting China to put pressure on North Korea. But that aim was not achieved and the contradictions between America and China remain unresolved. Here already is the outline of a future trade war between America and China.
He is not the only one pursuing this policy. Since the beginning of the crisis the advanced capitalist countries have been taking measures to increase their trade surpluses. This has partly been done by a number of protectionist moves. The US (under Obama) became the world leader in protectionism, but also the UK, Spain, Germany and France are more protectionist than China.
It must be remembered that it was protectionism that turned the crash of 1929 into the great Depression of the 1930s. If protectionism takes hold, it can cause the whole fragile structure of world trade to come crashing down, with the most serious consequences.
The USA – an unprecedented crisis
The relative weakening of the US since the Second World War is shown in the fact that in 1945 more than 50% of world GDP was produced in the United States, whereas now this figure is around 20%. When we refer to the relative weakening of US imperialism, we should not, however, exaggerate the process. By relative decline, we mean that it has been weakened and cannot play the same role it did in the past, as can be seen in the Syrian crisis. The US, nonetheless, remains by far the dominant superpower on a world scale and no other power is in a position to replace it, as the US replaced Britain in the past, for example.
This relative decline has had an effect on both its ability to dominate the world economically, politically and diplomatically and on its ability to provide the workers of America with the standard of living that was behind the relative internal stability of the past. This reality has now seeped into the consciousness of the US masses.
Trump 2018 Foto Socialist AppealImage: Socialist Appeal
The American dream is dead. It has been replaced by the American nightmare. The dream is finished and there is no way they can recover it. The change in consciousness in America was revealed in a peculiar way during the presidential elections of November 2016. For a hundred years, the stability of American capitalism was based on two parties: the Democrats and Republicans. These two parties alternated in office for all that time.
There is huge discontent and a burning desire for change. We already saw that in the vote for Obama, who demagogically promised a change. Millions of people who did not normally vote were queuing up to vote for a Black American President. They did so twice, but in the end there was no change. Thus a mood of anger, bitterness and frustration grew, particularly amongst the poorest sections.
This mood was clearly expressed in the campaign of Bernie Sanders. At first hardly anybody knew Bernie Sanders, whereas everybody knew Hillary Clinton. Yet when he talked about a political revolution against the billionaire class it struck a chord with many people, especially (but not only) the youth. There were mass meetings of tens of thousands to support Bernie Sanders. At least one study said that if Sanders had stood against Trump, he could have won. But inevitably he was manoeuvred out by the Democratic Party machine. Worse still, he accepted it, which caused a certain element of demoralisation among his supporters.
The ruling class likes to have people they can control, people like Hillary Clinton. They did not and do not want Trump because he is a maverick who suffers from an extreme case of egomania and is therefore difficult to control. Hillary Clinton is an agent of big business. Trump represents the same class but he has his own ideas as to how this should be done. During the election campaign he demagogically appealed to the workers. For the first time in recent memory, a presidential candidate referred to the working class (as did Bernie Sanders). That was unheard of. Even most of the left-wing liberals and trade union leaders always referred to the 「middle class」.
The establishment was desperate to stop Trump. But they failed. The ruling class was against this demagogic interloper; the Democrats were against him of course, and the majority of the Republicans were also against him. All the media were against him. He even succeeded in alienating Fox News for a time. The media is without doubt a powerful instrument in the hands of the ruling class. And yet he won.
This was a political earthquake. But how does one explain it? Trump is a reactionary, but he is also a skilful demagogue who directed his appeals to the poor, alienated unemployed and workers in the rustbelt: offering them jobs, denouncing the existing state of affairs and the privileged Washington establishment. In this way he connected with the general mood of anger and discontent.
Bernie Sanders connected with the same mood. But he was predictably sabotaged by the Democratic Party machine. And when Sanders finally capitulated and called for support for Hillary Clinton, many saw Trump as the 「lesser evil,」 and he went on to win the election. Many people who would have voted for Sanders sat out the election or thought, 「If we can't vote for Sanders, we'll vote for Trump」.
Trump's campaign was marked by the galvanisation and mobilisation of a section of the electorate which was previously inert and achieved more absolute votes than any Republican candidate in history, though he won a lower overall percentage than Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012. However, his victory also exposed the opacity and undemocratic nature of the US Electoral College system, which worked to his advantage in spite of Trump winning almost three million votes fewer than Hillary Clinton.
The vast majority of the bourgeoisie was not happy about this unexpected turn in events. But neither, at first, were they unduly concerned. They have a thousand ways of controlling a difficult politician. Initially they tried to comfort themselves with the idea that what Trump said during the election campaign was just propaganda, and that he would behave rationally once he entered the White House (that is to say, he would take his orders from the ruling class). But they were mistaken. The man in the White House proved difficult to control.
Donald Trump 1 Image Flickr Michael VadonImage: Flickr, Michael Vadon
The Democrats had a very simple explanation for Trump's victory: they blamed the Russians, while Hillary Clinton also blamed Sanders. All that proves is that to this day the Democratic Party has not understood why Trump won the elections. They whipped up a campaign claiming that the Russians were responsible for hacking, which, they claim, decided the result of the election.
The allegation of Russian involvement in the hacking of documents may or may not be true. But many countries, and not least the USA, are constantly hacking, phone tapping and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations – including their 「allies」, as Angela Merkel found out. But to argue that the Kremlin determined the votes of millions of US citizens is childish in the extreme.
What is unprecedented is that an American president should find himself in an open public confrontation with the FBI and the whole of the American intelligence agencies. The secret services are precisely supposed to be secret, and they are at the heart of the bourgeois state. For those agencies to be clashing publicly with the president, openly trying to undermine him and drive him from office – such a thing is absolutely unheard of. And amidst all the thunder and lightning, everyone has now forgotten what was in the hacked emails. And nobody bothers to ask if their contents were in fact true.
In reality, the damning accusations contained in the material published by WikiLeaks were perfectly true. Among other things it proved that the Democratic apparatus used dirty tricks to block Bernie Sanders and hand victory to Hillary Clinton. That was certainly the most blatant interference in the US elections. But amidst all the hullabaloo about 「Russian interference」, all this has been conveniently forgotten.
Revolutions do not start at the bottom; they start at the top with a split in the ruling class. Here we have an open split in the state. This is not a normal political crisis. It is a crisis of the regime. The intelligence services – the praetorian guard of the ruling class – do not like to be seen to intervene in politics, although they do so secretly all the time. It is an incredible state of affairs when the machinations and intrigues of the FBI are paraded publicly before the eyes of ordinary Americans.
The present political situation in America has no precedent in history. An elected President is in direct confrontation with the majority of the state, with the media, the FBI, the CIA and all the other secret services, which the ruling class is using to try to get rid of Trump or force him to obey them.
Changing consciousness
Many on the left in Europe had swallowed the idea that the American people were reactionary, right-wing and would never support socialism. That is completely untrue. There was a poll taken even before the Sanders campaign had got going asking young people under 30 years of age, 「Would you vote for a socialist President?」 69% said yes (see this Gallup Poll).
The same poll asked Americans above 65 years of age the same question and 「only」 34% said yes. That result is even more incredible. After 100 years of vicious propaganda against socialism and communism, it represents a striking change in consciousness.
The change in consciousness is not confined to the lower reaches of society. In a peculiar, reactionary and distorted way Donald Trump reflected the anger of millions of working class people and others against the existing conditions and system, against what he calls the Establishment. Of course, the masses can only learn through experience. And experience will show – indeed is already showing – that this is nonsense. The scene will be prepared for big movements in the next period.
USA revolting Image Flickr thisisbossiImage: Flickr, thisisbossi
In fact these have already begun. Immediately after the election of Trump there were mass demonstrations in every city. The Women's March was the largest single-day protest in American history. That was on the weekend he was inaugurated. And that was only the beginning of what is yet to come.
The reason why the ruling class hates Trump is because he has delivered a crippling blow to the already worn-out consensus that existed between Democrats and Republicans. Undermining that consensus could lead to very dangerous consequences, as seen in the recent government shutdown. The collapse of the so-called political centre reflects the widening abyss and sharp polarisation between the classes in US society. That has the most serious implications for the future.
Obama and the Democrats are responsible for the victory of Donald Trump. But Trump is himself deepening the process of social and political radicalization, preparing an even bigger swing to the left. In a serious condemnation of the two-party system, the latest polls show that a record 61% of Americans are opposed to both the Democrats and Republicans and believe a new major party is needed. Among the youth, the figure is 71%. This polarisation in the US – to both the left and the right – has produced the phenomenon of the sudden growth of the DSA, Democratic Socialists of America, a left group historically on the fringes of the Democratic Party.
Before the Sanders campaign this group had about 6,000 members: mainly old timers, imbued with a thoroughly reformist outlook. But since the election of Trump, DSA has ballooned to over 30,000 members, mostly youth looking for a socialist organisation. They have broken into many new areas where previously they had nothing and are developing a base on many campuses across the United States. There is now an internal debate on whether to break entirely with the Democrats. Some layers are developing very radical ideas and are wide open to the ideas of revolutionary Marxism. The future of this organisation has yet to be determined, but if it breaks with the Democrats and adopts a class-independent position, it has the potential to play an important role in the eventual creation of a mass socialist party in the US.
Canada and Quebec
Canada was not as hard hit by the 2008 crisis, as it had less of a housing bubble and the economy was propped up by resource exports to a booming China. Consequently, Canada has not felt the same degree of austerity as other OECD countries. However, the factors leading to stability are turning into their opposite. Cheap credit has fuelled debt and an explosion in the cost of housing. Household debt is at an unprecedented 171% of annual income and climbing. China is no longer pushing up oil and mineral prices to the same degree, while Trump's protectionist threat to pull out of NAFTA threatens Canadian exports. A new global economic downturn would precipitate all these contradictions.
Quebec, however, has seen a period of intense class struggle, starting with the 2012 Quebec student strike. Unfortunately, due to a combination of ultra-leftism from a section of the student leadership, and opportunist capitulation by the union bureaucracy, the movement has subsided, but the active layers are searching for answers.
Quebec nationalism is in crisis. The Parti Quebecois has moved to the right and adopted a racist nationalism. The PQ has been in government and enacted austerity many times in the last 40 years, which explains why the youth see it as part of the establishment. The left nationalist Quebec Solidaire could act as a conduit for the discontent, but its petit bourgeois leadership is confused and makes many mistakes. Typically, when they focus on class issues they gain support, but when they focus on independence they become identified with the PQ.
There is no enthusiasm for new independence referenda amongst class conscious workers and youth. While we should not discount the possibility of the class anger of the masses expressing itself through a national independence movement, this seems to be an unlikely perspective for Quebec in the near-term.
China
The Chinese economy has experienced a huge development of the productive forces in the last 40 years. That was one of the main things that kept the world economy from falling into a deep slump, keeping it afloat for 20 to 30 years. But now that has reached its limits. Growth in China has sharply decreased and is now less than 7%. That is very low by Chinese standards.
There are many unsolved contradictions in the Chinese economy. China's manufacturing is heavily dependent on exports. In order to maintain the rate of growth China must export. If Europe and America are not consuming as they have in the past, China cannot produce as it did in the past because they need foreign markets to absorb their surplus product. And if China is not producing, then other countries like Brazil, Argentina and Australia cannot export their raw materials. Thus globalisation manifests itself as a global crisis of the capitalist system.
Xi Jinping Image kremlin.ruImage: kremlin.ru
In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, China's rulers were alarmed. They estimated they needed to sustain a minimum annual growth rate of 8% to prevent an accumulation of unrest that could threaten their rule. They resorted to Keynesian policies and launched an unprecedented plan of new public investment in infrastructure. They used the state-owned banking system to launch the greatest example of monetary easing in history, offering easy loans. But this creates new contradictions that threaten the future stability of China and the entire world.
As a result, Chinese government debt to GDP has doubled since 2008, at 46.2%, although it is still relatively low compared to that of the USA. However, total debt (the combined state, bank, business and household debt) has grown exponentially and threatens to spiral out of control. In absolute terms, China's total debt ballooned from about $6 trillion at the time of the 2008 financial crisis to nearly $28 trillion by the end of 2016. As a percentage of GDP, total debt has risen from 140% to almost 260% over the same period. And the official figures undoubtedly understate the real situation.
It is likely that China's total debt is nearer to 300% of GDP – and this estimate does not include the unregulated sector of shadow banking (estimated to be worth between 30 and 80% of GDP), which the World Bank in its October 2017 report on the East Asian and Pacific economies specifically warns is one of the greatest threats to regional prosperity.
Xi Jinping 1 Image Flickr theglobalpanoramaImage: Flickr, theglobalpanorama
The Chinese economy was undoubtedly saved in the short term by the government's decision to open the credit floodgates, but that has resulted in an economy dependent on borrowing and afflicted with huge asset bubbles. The real test will come when Beijing eventually attempts to reduce this debt dependence. This can trigger a financial collapse, which the serious bourgeois economists fear would have a devastating effect on the world economy. Last year, the International Monetary Fund issued a warning about Beijing's reluctance to rein in dangerous levels of debt.
At this moment in time a collapse of the Chinese finance system does not appear imminent. But neither did the crash of 2008 appear imminent…before it happened. It is true that because of the specific weight of the state sector, the Chinese government can exercise more control over both borrowers and lenders than would be possible in a normal market economy. It can order state-owned banks to keep lending to loss making companies or to smaller lenders that rely on short-term credit to stay liquid. As of the end of December 2017, China holds $3.14 trillion in foreign currency reserves, which can be used for 「emergencies」 – but even this will not save them forever.
This has allowed Beijing to delay problems much longer. But to delay a problem does not mean that it is solved. On the contrary, the longer the present unsound position is allowed to continue, the more violent and convulsive the crisis will be when it comes – and sooner or later, come it must. The slowing of the economy has led to a big increase in unemployment which is concealed by official figures, which do not include the millions of migrants who come from the countryside because they cannot find work. This will affect the political and social situation.
It is hard to know with precision what is happening in China. In a totalitarian state the news is strictly controlled. But there have been widespread strikes and demonstrations: the number of such 「incidents」 doubled every year between 2011 and 2015, and this was only the tip of the iceberg. The regime managed to halt the wave of strikes by putting pressure on companies not paying wages on time and by prosecuting enough cases of corruption to appear to some to be 「on the side of the workers.」.
Under the apparent calm on the surface there is huge anger building up. The indignation of the masses is being stoked by injustice: the arbitrary actions of the bureaucracy with peasants having their lands stolen by corrupt officials, the destruction of the environment, with Beijing and other cities shrouded in toxic clouds, and above all the scandalous inequality that openly mocks the claim that China is a socialist country.
The Chinese workers could put up with these things as long as they felt that somehow things were advancing and the situation was getting better. But they are finding that this is no longer the case. The destiny of China depends on the future of the world market. China benefited from its participation in the world market, but now all the contradictions are coming back to hit them. An explosive situation is building up that can burst onto the surface without any warning.
World relations
The conflict with North Korea glaringly exposed the limits of the power of American imperialism. Trump threatened it with total destruction, but all his threats had no effect in Pyongyang, other than to increase the bellicose noises and add to the growing number of nuclear tests and rockets flying over Japan, which Kim Jong-un claims can now reach any part of the United States.
The US was considering installing a missile base in South Korea, which the Chinese adamantly oppose. Trump was compelled to eat his words and seek the support of Beijing to put pressure on Pyongyang. China has, in fact, been applying gentle pressure of its own on the North Korean regime to push it in the direction it desires, to rein it in in order to avoid a more open and dangerous conflict with the US. This is far from what Trump wants. But China's bottom line on North Korea is that it is not going to allow a chaotic collapse of the regime.
Xi Jinping Kim Jong Un hold talks in Beijing Image
All this has also exposed the inability of the US to do anything to protect its allies. Duterte, the Philippine 「strongman」 said that the US talks a lot but won't do anything. He has drawn the necessary conclusion and dragged the Philippines towards China's orbit. South Korea is now closer to China diplomatically, especially because of its historic tensions with Japan.
Thailand used to be one of the closest allies of the US, but it announced that it would buy submarines from China, which also implies cooperation with China. The plan was put on hold because of American pressure, but it seems it will go ahead. The 2014 coup in Thailand was condemned by the US, but praised by China. Vietnam and Malaysia have also forged closer economic ties to China, although relations between China and Vietnam are complicated by territorial conflicts, especially over China's claims in the South China Sea.
China and America are engaged in a struggle for markets and influence. Many countries have China as their number one trading partner. It has stakes in two thirds of the 50 most important ports in the world. Its One Belt One Road project is the biggest diplomatic and financial project since the Marshall Plan.
The tensions between the two powers are at their sharpest in the region of the South China Sea, where the Chinese ruling class has developed its own version of the Monroe doctrine, meaning that it must have control over its own backyard. China's provocative 「island-building」 projects are opposed by Washington, which has sent warships to assert what it calls the 「freedom of the seas」.
Before the Second World War the tensions between the US and China would have already led to war. But nuclear-armed China is no longer the weak semi-colonial country of the past and there can be absolutely no question of America invading and enslaving China today.
The Middle East
In the Middle East the contradictions of world capitalism are exposed in concentrated form. The crisis of world capitalism is also the crisis of US imperialism. When the ignorant and incompetent American imperialists stormed into Iraq and wrecked the whole country, they not only destroyed the lives of millions, but by destroying the Iraqi army they also disrupted the fragile equilibrium between the powers in the Middle East. All the subsequent crimes and monstrosities are ultimately due to this monstrous crime of imperialism.
With the elimination of the Iraqi army, Iran's influence grew rapidly to the detriment of the US and its traditional allies, in particular Saudi Arabia. The bloody conflict in Syria, which was really a proxy war between several foreign powers, was an attempt to claw back lost ground. It aimed at isolating Lebanon and taking Syria out of the Iranian sphere of influence. But today, Iran's influence is stronger than ever in Syria or Lebanon.
Yemen Foto dominio publicoImage: public domain
In Syria the limits of the power of US imperialism are glaringly clear. The most powerful nation on earth is unable to intervene militarily in a decisive manner. This left a vacuum into which stepped Iran and Russia. The Russian intervention decisively tipped the balance in Assad's favour. The fall of Aleppo marked a decisive turning point and a devastating and humiliating defeat – not just for the USA, but also for its allies, especially Saudi Arabia.
Now ISIS has been defeated in both Syria and Iraq. But the root problem has not been solved. What will happen now? The Turks are watching Raqqa, Mosul and even Kirkuk like hawks, waiting to grab what they can. The Iranians have increased their influence throughout the whole area, to the alarm of the Americans, Saudis and Israel. Meanwhile Iraq and Syria have fragmented and will remain unstable through the next period.
One section of the US ruling class wanted to continue the war, but this attempt was doomed to failure. Putin outmanoeuvred them at every step. When the Russians called a peace conference in Astana, Kazakhstan (a client state of Russia) the Americans and Europeans were not even invited. In the end, despite all the public rhetoric, the Americans were reluctantly obliged to accept the fait accompli dictated by Moscow.
The plain fact is that the US has been defeated in Syria. It reflects a shift in the balance of forces in the region. This will have far reaching consequences, in particular amongst Washington's allies who have lost confidence in the US and have increasingly been following their own paths and interests. Turkey is supposed to be an ally of the United States and is a key member of NATO but increasingly, the Turks and the US have found themselves backing opposing forces in Syria.
Initially, the US placed its bets on the Turkish and Saudi backed Jihadi rebels, but these proved inefficient and – as became clear with the rise of ISIS – unreliable defenders of US interests. The Pentagon was therefore obliged to throw its weight behind the Kurdish YPG forces in the fight against ISIS in Northern Syria.
But there is a problem. Erdogan has big ambitions in the region. He wants an Ottoman-style empire and the Kurds form a physical and political obstacle for him. His main interest now is to crush the Kurds, both in Turkey and Syria. Defeated in Syria, Erdogan decided to change course, leaning on Iran and Russia in order to gain leverage to manoeuvre with the West.
Afrin Image fair useImage: fair use
In effect, by ditching the rebels in Aleppo and elsewhere, who are backed by the US, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, Russia and Iran allowed Turkey to take a slice of Northern Syria to stop the Kurdish forces from expanding their territory there. This cooperation of Turkey, Russia and Iran has dealt a shattering blow to the Americans and Saudis, whose Jihadi stooges have been crushed or forced to conform to the Astana deal.
Trump's plan to undermine the Iran nuclear deal is a desperate attempt to turn the clock back. But whereas the US is under constant pressure to pull its forces out of the Middle East, Iran commands hundreds of thousands of battle hardened militiamen entrenched in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. In the final analysis, that will be the decisive factor. The Europeans have disassociated themselves from Trump's policy over Iran, which turns out to be more to the detriment of Washington than Teheran, which is enjoying the spectacle of disarray in the West.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia threw billions of dollars into the most reactionary groups in Syria. But it has lost. The Saudi war on Yemen is also failing. After almost three years of brutal fighting, which has wrecked the whole country and left millions facing starvation, the Iranian backed Houthis have a strong position in their areas. Meanwhile the Saudi coalition has all but fallen apart. The Jihadi, South-Yemen nationalist and Emirati troops composing the Saudi backed forces are all following their own agenda. This is yet another defeat which will further undermine foundations of the rotten Saudi regime.
The Saudis tried to assert themselves in Qatar, by demanding that it cut its ties with Iran and Turkey and fall in line with Saudi foreign policy. But Qatar merely strengthened its trade and military ties with Iran and Turkey. Turkey has expanded its military base on the peninsula – a serious warning to the Al-Sauds not to go too far. Trump originally threw his weight behind the Saudis until he was quietly informed by his advisors that the US has a very important military base in Qatar.
The old king Abdullah was a hardened reactionary, but he was cunning and cautious. The new regime, led by upstart crown prince Muhammad Bin Salman, is anything but cautious. Like a losing gambler he is frantically indulging in risky bets to counter Iran's expanding power and influence. But these efforts, far from halting the process of Saudi decline, are accelerating it and giving it an even more convulsive character.
Mohammad Bin Salman Al Saud Image Mazen AlDarrabImage: Mazen AlDarrab
For decades the life of this reactionary regime was artificially extended by imperialism due to the particular role it played as a main supplier of oil for the US and as the main base of counter-revolution in the Muslim world. Coupled with the high oil prices, the regime could maintain itself by buying off the reactionary tribal and religious layers that form its base.
But today these factors are disappearing. The US has become close to self-sufficient in oil and the world economic crisis has led to low oil prices. The role of the Kingdom in world relations has declined and thus the interests of Saudi Arabia and the US ruling class have begun to diverge. The crisis is also eating into Saudi reserves, forcing them to implement austerity for the first time ever. They can no longer buy social stability by bribing the local population with lavish subsidies and guaranteed jobs in the public sector.
In the medium term all these factors will combine to undermine the stability of the regime, which can fall like a rotten apple when least expected. Whatever replaces it will not be to the liking of Washington. Under the impact of the crisis of US imperialism, the old order in the region that was set up by British and US imperialism is unravelling.
As if all this were not more than sufficient, the brazen stupidity of Trump in recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and approving the moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv was aimed at a US audience, but it has added a new element of explosive instability for the Middle East. It has also caused further divisions between the European and American imperialists. The former fear the consequences for the so-called peace talks, which in any case nobody took seriously, if they ever did. The latter, as usual, understood nothing and foresaw nothing.
However, it seems unthinkable that Trump could have taken that decision without the knowledge and tacit consent of the Saudi leaders. They are now firmly aligned with Trump and the Israelis and are mainly concerned with confronting Iran. They will have agreed to stab the Palestinians in the back while making a few obligatory noises in order to play to the Arab gallery. That will eventually prove to be one more nail in the coffin of the corrupt and despicable Saudi regime.
Revolution in the Middle East and North Africa
The revolution, which swept through the region in 2011-2013, failed because it lacked a revolutionary leadership. Today the general movement, tired and confused, has retreated and left room for reaction to manoeuvre. The rise of reaction and Islamist counter-revolution throughout the region is connected to the ebb in the revolutionary movement.
However, the events of 2017 in Morocco show that the revolution is not dead. The uprising in the Rif was the most spectacular movement in Morocco since the 2011 Revolution in the Middle East and North Africa. The immediate incident that launched the uprising was the killing by the police of a young fishmonger in a rubbish truck. Once it began, this movement unfolded with incredible speed and intensity. A nationwide solidarity movement of the working class and the oppressed layers sprang into life with its own demands, which were neither nationalist nor sectarian.
This movement anticipates developments in the rest of the region, where not a single stable regime exists. All of the regimes in the region are weak and fighting for their survival. They cannot solve any of the problems of the masses who in turn are under enormous pressure. Sooner or later the movement will revive on an even higher level.
World war?
The crisis over North Korea's nuclear programme caused a lot of talk of a world war. But this is premature to say the least. Under modern conditions world war is practically ruled out by the class balance of forces on a world scale. The imperialists do not make war for arbitrary reasons. The bourgeoisie resorts to war in order to conquer markets and spheres of influence. But war is a very costly and risky business. And with nuclear weapons the risks are multiplied a thousand fold. That is why the USA, the most formidable military power that has ever existed, has been unable to declare war on tiny North Korea.
Russia is not militarily as strong as America, but it is a very powerful military state. And it is far stronger militarily than British, French or German imperialism, both in conventional and nuclear terms. The West could do nothing to prevent it taking over Crimea (where the majority are Russians anyway). Nor could it do anything to prevent Russia from intervening to save the Assad regime in Syria. These two cases reveal the limitations of US imperialism's power.
WW3 Image fair useImage: fair use
Last year NATO sent a few thousand troops to Poland as a warning to Russia. That was just a joke. The Russians replied by holding the biggest ever military manoeuvres together with Belarus on the very border of Poland. That was a little warning to NATO. From a military point of view, compared with Russia, Britain nowadays is almost insignificant, France is not much more, Germany is nothing at all.
Above all, the international class balance of forces is a serious barrier to the launching of a major war. It should be remembered that before the Second World War could take place, the working class had to first suffer a whole series of crushing defeats in Hungary, Italy, Germany, Spain… But now the forces of the working class are intact. The working class has not suffered any serious defeats in the advanced capitalist countries.
In the USA the people are tired of military adventures. US imperialism burned its fingers badly in Iraq and Afghanistan. It cost them an enormous amount of blood and treasure without achieving anything. As a result, Obama was not even able to order a military intervention in Syria. He tried but he saw that it would have provoked a massive popular revolt. He had to back down. The same was true of Cameron's Conservative government in Britain.
There cannot be a world war at least for the foreseeable future, unless a totalitarian regime came to power in the US on the basis of a crushing defeat of the American working class. That would be a qualitatively different balance of forces. But that is not the position in the immediate future. On the contrary, for a whole period the pendulum will swing to the left.
Trump is a reactionary bourgeois politician, but contrary to the demagogic assertions of some on the Left, he is not a fascist and does not stand at the head of a totalitarian state like that of Hitler. On the contrary, he does not control the state at all: it is at war with him. He does not even have total control of Congress, although it is dominated by the Republican Party. In fact, his hold on power is extremely tenuous. The Strong Man in the White House has feet of clay.
Although a war on the lines of 1914-18 and 1939-45 is ruled out under present conditions, there will be constant small wars all the time which under modern conditions are frightful enough. Iraq was a small war. Syria was a small war. The civil war in the Congo cost the lives of at least five million people and did not even make the front pages of the newspapers. This kind of thing will occur again an again. Meanwhile, the spread of terrorism means that this barbarism is beginning to affect 「civilised」 Europe. This is what Lenin meant when he said that capitalism is horror without end.
America and Europe
The people who really control the EU are the bankers, bureaucrats and capitalists, and particularly German capitalism. Originally the EU was dominated by France and Germany. The French bourgeoisie had big ideas that they could dominate it politically and militarily and Germany could dominate it economically. That didn't last very long. Nobody now doubts that it is the German ruling class that dominates it completely.
As a result it has immediately come into conflict with the new man in the White House. Donald Trump and Angela Merkel are not on good terms. The reason is not to be found in their personal attributes – although these are very different. It is rather to be found in Mr. Trump's electoral slogan 「Make America Great Again.」
For the moment the German capitalists are doing rather well, with a huge trade surplus. In 2016, it was in the region of $270bn: an all-time record high. It is not necessary to be a Nobel Prize winner in economics to know that one country's surplus is another's deficit. Trump can at least add up and is not at all happy with this figure. And since diplomacy is not really his strong point, he has said so publicly to Merkel.
Trump and Merkel Image Socialist AppealImage: Socialist Appeal
Trump says: 「If the Germans don't do something, I will cut the import of German cars into the U.S.」 Now, this is very dangerous talk. If he continues down that road, that is a recipe for a trade war. The Germans would immediately retaliate, blocking certain American goods. Protectionism is the export of unemployment. Trump says he wants more jobs in America for Americans, which means fewer jobs for Germans, Chinese and others. That is the root cause of the antagonism between Washington and Berlin.
Trump went to Poland, where he met with an enthusiastic response. The choice of this visit was not at all accidental. Relations between Poland and Germany have been strained for a number of reasons, particularly over the question of imposing quotas for refugees. In fact, the fault lines in Europe are deepening all the time. The problem with Europe is that that the European countries don't agree on anything very much these days. That is why Mr. Trump went to Poland: to deepen the cracks between Germany and its eastern neighbour.
His next stop was Paris, and that was also not accidental. Trump wants to drive a wedge between France and Germany. For his part, Macron was pleased to receive him to encourage the Americans to put pressure on the Germans, who already have enough on their plate with the negotiations over Brexit. That explains why Trump is so keen to express his solidarity with London, holding out the tempting prospect of a trade deal, sometime in the future – which may, or (very likely) may not, materialise.
Europe
The bourgeois economists are empirical and impressionistic. They detect a very slight growth in Europe – just over one percent (rather more in Germany) and they joyfully proclaim that the euro crisis is resolved. But the euro crisis is not resolved. In reality the crisis of European capitalism continues to deepen. In spite of the small upturn, the underlying fundamental problems remain. Nothing has been solved.
The economic experts of the IMF are publishing alarming reports about the state of the banks in Europe. The ECB has ploughed in billions, but as a result, when the next crisis comes, as it will as night follows day, it may lead to the collapse of the euro and possibly even threaten the unity of the EU itself. On 3 June 2017 The Economist stated: 「The currency changed from an instrument for convergence between countries to a wedge driving them apart.」 These few words show how the intelligent bourgeois are grasping what the Marxists said long ago.
Added to the already unstable situation within the EU is the refugee crisis. The imperialist meddling in the Middle East and North Africa has opened the gates to a flood of humanity desperate to escape the living hell it has been plunged into. This is putting enormous pressure on the EU member states, especially those most exposed to the daily arrival of new refugees and migrants.
War on migrants Image public domainImage: public domain
Europe is thoroughly divided on this issue. Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic are refusing to take any refugees. The problem is further exacerbated by the internal migration from the poorer EU countries to the richer ones, which in turn is provoking tensions even in a country like Germany, where the right wing is riding on the refugee question to win a section of the electorate.
This is in complete contrast to the situation after 1945, when Germany absorbed a far bigger influx of refugees from Eastern Europe. That was in a situation of world capitalist upswing. But in a situation of deep economic crisis and the stagnation of the productive forces, the influx of refugees only serves to create new contradictions that cannot be solved on the basis of capitalism. This is yet another factor of instability, increasing the centrifugal tendencies within the EU.
Brexit
The tendencies towards the breakup of the EU also expressed themselves dramatically in Brexit. The vote in the referendum was yet another example of the mood of anger and bitterness that exists everywhere beneath the surface. The result was a political earthquake.
The bourgeois commentators were stunned when the 「Leave」 vote won. And those who were most shocked were the advocates of Brexit themselves. They never imagined they could win, and therefore had no plan and no strategy. Even now they do not appear to have the slightest idea what they are doing. The decisive sections of the British bourgeoisie did not want to leave the EU, but were forced to accept the result of the referendum, which will be disastrous for British capitalism and will also cause serious problems for the EU itself.
Brexit paralysis 1 Image Socialist AppealImage: Socialist Appeal
Brexit has created very serious problems in Ireland. The border between the independent south and the north, which is part of the UK, was made practically irrelevant in recent years. If the border is reintroduced when Britain leaves the EU it would have a devastating economic impact on both the south and the north. As a result the whole Irish national question could be revived with the most serious implications. The politicians are struggling to reach some kind of a deal over this complicated question. Whether the end result will be sufficient to square the circle remains to be seen.
The British imagined they would have an easy ride. But that was never going to be the case. Even if Merkel wanted to be nice to the Brits (which is not at all clear), she cannot do London any favours because that would encourage others to follow its example and leave. To complicate things further, Merkel suffered a defeat in the elections and has the nationalist and anti-EU Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) breathing down her neck. All the fine talk about 「European solidarity」 is instantly forgotten, as the national antagonisms come to the surface. The outcome will create big problems both for Britain and the EU.
Greece
In Capital Marx explains that during a boom, credit is easy but when there is a crisis all that changes into its opposite. The modern day Shylocks are demanding their pound of flesh from the Greeks. But there is no way that Greece can ever pay what Berlin and Brussels are demanding. All this has consequences. They are whipping up immense class hatred and polarisation in Greece and in all countries of Southern Europe.
After a decade of indescribable suffering, austerity, poverty and misery, what has been solved in Greece? The nation has been plunged into a desperate crisis. The young people have no work and are driven to emigrate, while the old are deprived of their pensions and driven to commit suicide.
Alexis Tsipras Image Пресс служба Президента РоссииImage: Пресс служба Президента России
Revolution is not a straight line, there will inevitably be ups and downs that we must be prepared for. After so many years of strikes, protests and demonstrations the Greek workers are exhausted and disappointed. They will say: 「Everyone betrays us. We trusted Pasok, but Pasok betrayed us. We trusted Tsipras, and he also betrayed us – What more can we do?」 In the next general election SYRIZA will do badly according to opinion polls, falling to around 20% or even less. The Communist Party may make some small gains, but will not be able to fill the vacuum left by SYRIZA due to its sectarian stance. By default the New Democracy stands to gain, not in terms of any significant swing towards it, but simply in percentage terms. This would mean a right-wing coalition centred on ND would come to power. This would be a weak unstable government, but it would be forced to continue and deepen the attacks on the working class without having any authority with the working class. In these conditions there would be a renewed radicalisation to the left.
The present moods will not last forever; they are of a transitory character. The depth of the crisis is such that the workers and the youth have no alternative but to return to the struggle. New and even more violent explosions are being prepared for the future.
France, the bankruptcy of Macron's 「Centre」
French capitalism was in crisis long before 2008. But last year's elections in France provided the European bourgeois with an apparent respite. They were terrified that Marine Le Pen would come to power, as Trump had done in the USA. Like Trump, Le Pen is a reactionary chauvinist. She is also hostile to the European Union, and that, especially following the Brexit debacle, provoked serious concern in Brussels and Berlin. What really terrified the French bourgeois was the sudden surge of Mélenchon in the polls, at the very end of the campaign, because he would have certainly won against Le Pen or even Fillon in the second round – and had some chances to win against Macron.
The rise of Mélenchon shows that there is a growing polarisation between left and right. Jean-Luc Mélenchon came close to beating Le Pen, and he could have done so except for the criminal stupidity of the so-called Trotskyists in France. If you add up the votes of these two small parties, they made the difference between Mélenchon or Le Pen standing in the second round.
A direct clash between Mélenchon versus Macron in the second round would have changed everything. But that was prevented by the splitting antics of the sects. It would have been entirely possible for them to begin a campaign with a revolutionary programme, and then withdraw in favour of a vote for Mélenchon. They didn't do that because they are typical sectarians who place the interests of their own petty sects before the general interests of the French working class.
Emmanuel Macron Image WEFImage: WEF
In the end Macron won, and the bourgeois breathed a sigh of relief. The extremes were defeated and Moderation had triumphed at last! The good news sped from Paris to Berlin, to Rome, even in London they were opening bottles of champagne in the City. The Centre had won, but what do these people mean by Centre? They mean the Right that disguises its true nature by posing as something that it is not.
Macron has risen to power on the basis of the disintegration of the two parties that traditionally had the majority of voters (the Socialists and Republicans). In these elections the Socialists were crushed and the Republicans also lost heavily and did not reach the second round of the Presidential election. The PS may end up like the Pasok in Greece. The right-wing Republicans are also in very bad shape: prominent leaders have left the party to join Macron's government (or party); the others are split in different fractions.
The Communist Party has been compromised by its links to the discredited Socialists and is now a marginal element in French politics. On the other hand, the Front National, despite its electoral defeat, won 1.3 million more votes than in 2012. But La France Insoumise, the party of Mélenchon, won 3 million votes and is now, together with the unions, the main opposition to Macron's policies. In an opinion poll in October, 35% put La France Insoumise as the main opposition party, 13% pointed to the Front National and only 2% to the PS and the CP! Mélenchon's party is now the main opposition both in parliament and on the streets.
france insoumise 23 sept lead MathieuMD wikicommonsImage: wikicommons
It is not true that Macron won by an absolute majority. The absolute majority – including those who cast blank votes or abstained – did not vote for Macron! And this 「silent majority」 will not be silent for long. In fact, it did not take long for Macron to expose himself, since he immediately confirmed his intention to change the labour law to make it easier to sack workers.
Marx said that France was the country where the class struggle is always fought to the finish. The truth of that statement will soon be clear to everybody. We will see big demonstrations, strikes and general strikes. A repetition of 1968 is not at all ruled out: in fact, it is implicit in the situation.
Italy
Greece was the weakest link of European capitalism. Spain is only one step behind Greece. Italy is only one step behind Spain. And France is one step behind Italy. The Italian economy has been stagnating since the hard economic blow of 2008. Consequently scores of small and medium businesses have gone insolvent leaving them unable to pay back their debts.
The European banking system is in a disastrous state. It is weighed down with debt, and is only being propped up by the European Central Bank (ECB). That cannot continue indefinitely, since the ECB is being underwritten by the Germans. And they are not prepared to finance the deficits of the countries of southern Europe through their contributions to the ECB.
In Italy, there has been a major banking crisis. The fact is that the Italian banks are mainly bankrupt. According to EU rules governments are not allowed to bail out banks, but Italy was an exception. If the Italian banking system collapses it could bring down the whole European financial system. But the illegal bailouts solved nothing fundamental. Italy is in a deep crisis – not just economically and financially but politically.
Italian elections 1 Image Socialist AppealImage: Socialist Appeal
There is a collapse of confidence in political parties. This was revealed clearly in the December 2016 referendum on constitutional reform where Renzi was massively defeated. The problem of the Italian bourgeois is that they do not have a strong government. But how can they get a strong government when they don't even have a strong party? They used to have the Christian Democracy, but that is finished. Berlusconi's Forza Italia is also weakened. And the Democratic Party, a bourgeois party formed from fusing a section of the old Communist Party with what was left of the Christian Democracy and other small bourgeois organisations, is in decline.
There is a process of complete fragmentation of the so-called Left which, put together don't even reach seven percent in the opinion polls. In the past the Italian ruling class could rely on the PCI leaders to hold back the working class. But as a result of decades of Stalinist degeneration and numerous betrayals of the working class, the once all-powerful Communist Party has been totally liquidated.
In this vacuum we have seen the rise of Beppe Grillo and his Five Stars Movement. This is a protest movement, mainly petit-bourgeois in composition, with a confused mishmash of policies – some of them reactionary in character. In fact, it is not a party at all, and doesn't have a structure. And its main programme is rejection of the euro. But given the absence of any alternative on the Left, it is attracting working class votes on the basis of their anti-establishment line, which can be summed up in the slogan: 「Kick them all out!」
Grillo's movement is an unstable and contradictory phenomenon, which is not likely to last. Its internal contradictions will soon come to the surface and it will rapidly enter into crisis. It is impossible to say at present how precisely the situation will unfold, but it is not a favourable situation for the Italian bourgeoisie.
The Italian working class, on the other hand, has extraordinary revolutionary traditions. The crisis of Italian capitalism will inevitably produce new and unprecedented explosions on the lines of May 1968 in France or the Hot Autumn in Italy in 1969. Once the big battalions begin to move, the entire situation will be rapidly transformed, with the emergence of new political formations of a very left-wing and radical character, as occurred in the years before and after 1969.
Spain
Despite a partial economic recovery, the crisis of the regime that started in 2008 is by no means resolved. The years of economic crisis, mass unemployment and attacks on living standards, combined with corruption scandals, have created a severe crisis of legitimacy of the whole of the Spanish bourgeois democratic regime. The long cycle of mass mobilisations in 2011-2015 eventually found a political expression with the emergence and rise of Podemos, which in the 2016 general elections won 21% of the vote.
The right-wing PP government is extremely fragile and must rely on the Basque nationalists for a majority in Congress. It has been undermined by corruption scandals. If the Left had united to overthrow it, it would have been finished. But the leaders of both Podemos and the United Left (Izquierda Unida) have revealed a complete inability to offer a serious alternative, while Pedro Sánchez the 「left」 leader of the PSOE has openly gone over to the side of reactionary Spanish nationalism. Now, after the result of the 21 December Catalan elections, where Ciudadanos emerged as the first party, the Spanish ruling class is increasingly promoting and supporting this new right wing party, which is as reactionary as the PP, but which appears with new leaders and without the dead weight of corruption and the anti social programs which the PP has accumulated.
Rajoy Image fair useImage: fair use
The Catalan question has served as a catalyst that has revealed deep fault lines in Spanish politics. All the parties of the Left are now divided and in crisis. The right wing is stoking the fires of reactionary anti-Catalan feelings and Spanish nationalism to mobilise the most backward layers of the population and the Left has no answer. As a result, despite everything, it cannot be ruled out that Ciudadanos and the PP may win the next elections.
This is the price the Spanish Left has to pay for the betrayals of the leaders of the PCE and PSOE four decades ago when they agreed to the reactionary 1978 Constitution that signified the retention of the old Franco state, together with the Monarchy, the domination of the Roman Catholic Church and the maintenance of the old repressive state apparatus, which they varnished with a thin layer of 「democracy」.
The brutal nature of the Spanish state was revealed by the vicious repression of people in Catalonia whose only 「crime」 was their desire to vote for their own future. Now all the old demons are reappearing. Spanish society is as deeply divided as it was 40 years ago. The youth and the most advanced layers of the working class understand the reactionary nature of the 1978 Constitution and are prepared to fight against it.
Today the masses have shown their combative spirit on the streets of Barcelona. Tomorrow it will be the turn of the workers and youth of Euskadi, Asturias, Seville and Madrid. There will inevitably be defeats and setbacks as a consequence of the short-sightedness, stupidity and cowardice of the leadership. But the workers and youth of Spain, who have repeatedly displayed their willingness to fight in recent years, will learn new lessons.
There were many defeats in the past also, like the two black years that followed the defeat of the 1934 Asturian Commune. But the defeats we are talking about today are not at all comparable to that defeat. Today the forces of the working class remain intact, while the mass basis of reaction is infinitely weaker than it was then: there is no Moorish Legion, no reactionary Carlist peasantry, and the students who joined the Falange in droves then are now solidly behind the working class and the Left.
Finally, in a revolutionary period, such defeats can only be the prelude to new upheavals. In action, on the streets, in the factories and on the campuses, they will rediscover the revolutionary traditions of 1931-37 and of the marvellous struggle against the Franco dictatorship. Spain in the next period will once again find itself in the forefront of the revolutionary struggles in Europe.
Catalonia
The attempt of Catalonia to exercise the right of self-determination has been the most serious challenge ever to the 1978 regime. There are different elements to the equation. First of all, the backward and reactionary Spanish ruling class and its state, inherited wholesale from the Franco era. They consider any attempt to question the unity of Spain as a challenge to their whole regime which would then pose other questions (the Monarchy, austerity, etc). Therefore they were prepared to use all means at their disposal to smash the attempt to hold a referendum: police repression, seizing of ballot boxes, sealing off of polling stations, the sacking of the Catalan government and the arrest of its members, etc.
On the other hand, the Catalan government, made up by bourgeois and petty bourgeois nationalists, had lost the support of the Catalan bourgeoisie (the bankers and capitalists), which is opposed to independence. These nationalist politicians considered the independence referendum at worst as a way to exert pressure and extract concessions from the government in Madrid or at best, as a way to exert pressure on and force the EU to intervene and push the Spanish government to organise a mutually agreed referendum. In the case of the bourgeois nationalist PDeCAT (formerly CDC), which was completely discredited by its right-wing austerity policies, repression and corruption scandals, there was also a cynical calculation of using independence as a way to reinvent itself and stay in power. These parties were not prepared to use the revolutionary means that are required in Spain to exercise the right of self-determination.
Catalan independence demo 1 Image Jordi Joan FabregaImage: Jordi Joan Fabrega
They were forced to go further than they intended by the irruption of the masses in the movement, a third factor that they had not taken into account. On September 20 (when 40,000 rallied against Civil Guard searches in Catalan government buildings), October 1 (when hundreds of thousands organised to ensure the referendum took place and 2 million voted) and October 3 (when millions participated in a protest general strike against brutal police repression) the masses entered the scene in a forceful way and started to become aware of their own power. That put the Catalan government in an impossible situation: they were forced to declare the Republic, but they were not prepared to use the necessary methods to defend it: mass mobilisations in the streets, the occupation of official buildings, a general strike, resistance against the Spanish police. In other words, what was needed was a revolutionary uprising. That is what explains their vacillations, wavering and indecisiveness after the referendum, the "suspended" proclamation of the republic on October 10, the constant appeals for negotiation, the near betrayal of the movement on October 25 and the meek proclamation of the Catalan Republic on October 27, after which they fled the scene.
Meanwhile, the masses which participated in the movement (a section of the working class, the youth above all, and the middle-class and petty-bourgeois layers which are the backbone of this democratic movement) have become increasingly critical of their own leaders. The emergence of the Committees for the Defence of the Republic and the role they played in the November 8 general strike show the way forward. A Catalan Republic is a basic democratic demand that challenges the whole edifice of the Spanish regime. Marxists support the struggle for a Catalan Republic but we have the duty to explain that it can only be achieved by revolutionary means. That requires the current leadership to be replaced by one which is firmly based on the working class. Furthermore, the Spanish-speaking workers in Catalonia need to be won over, which can only happen if the struggle for a Republic is linked to the struggle for jobs, housing, against austerity, and is also seen as part of a wider struggle across Spain against the 1978 regime. The slogan which sums these ideas up is "For a Catalan Socialist Republic as a spark of the Iberian revolution".
Catalan protest Image CUP Sant MartíImage: CUP Sant Martí
The December 21 Catalan elections did not solve anything. In fact, they represent a defeat for the Spanish monarchist regime, as supporters of independence have renewed their majority in the regional parliament and are likely will take control of the Catalan government. In parliamentary terms we are back to a situation similar to that which existed on the eve of the 1 October referendum. With ebbs and flows, the democratic national movement will continue. The task of the Marxists is to intervene energetically and reach the most advanced layers of the youth already drawing revolutionary conclusions.
Britain: the Corbyn phenomenon
Not long ago Britain was one of the most stable countries in Europe. Now it is one of the most unstable countries, experiencing one shock after another. In Scotland the national question has receded somewhat as a result of Corbyn's surge, but it has not been resolved and can resurface with renewed force in the event of a new economic crisis. Beneath the surface of apparent tranquillity there was a seething anger, indignation and above all frustration, a burning desire to change the situation that lacked a clear point of reference.
The change in consciousness was eventually expressed in the extraordinary rise of Jeremy Corbyn. In 2015 Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party by an accident, but was immediately met with massive opposition from the Blairite wing of the party.
Corbyn Revolution Image Sophie J. BrownImage: Sophie J. Brown
Theresa May saw this and drew the logical conclusion. She called a snap election in June 2017, firmly convinced that she would get a big majority and crush the Labour Party. Labour's Blairite right wing were secretly hoping that Labour would suffer a humiliating defeat, which they saw as the only way to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, and they attempted to sabotage the campaign.
Everyone was predicting a conservative landslide. But instead it was a crushing defeat for the Conservatives, the media and Labour's treacherous right wing.
Once the campaign started, Jeremy Corbyn held enthusiastic mass meetings, mainly of the youth. Corbyn came out with the most left-wing programme Labour has had for decades and he immediately connected with the mood of discontent in society. No one expected this political earthquake.
Hundreds of thousands of people, mainly youth, joined the Labour Party. The membership was 180,000 before Corbyn became leader. Now it is 570,000, making Labour the biggest party in Europe. Everybody could see that the real victor in those elections was Jeremy Corbyn. He enjoys colossal support at grassroots level.
Corbyn Glastonbury Image Raph PHImage: Raph PH
The right wing was decisively defeated at the September 2017 Labour Party conference, which showed that the left has won the majority in the party branches. Despite this, the MPs, the councillors and in particular the full-time apparatus remain under the control of the right wing. The ruling class and its agents will not easily surrender control of the Labour Party, but for the present they are compelled to abandon the attempt to get rid of Corbyn and adopt a waiting tactic.
This subterranean mood of revolt is looking for an expression. In Britain it found one in Corbyn, and it is necessary for the British Marxists to orient their forces to this movement. But while supporting Corbyn against the right wing it is necessary, in a positive and friendly manner, to patiently explain the limitations of Corbyn's programme and the need for a thoroughgoing revolutionary programme for the socialist transformation of society.
It is likely that Labour will win the next election and Corbyn will form a government. Any attempt to implement the reforms included in his program will be met with fierce resistance from the ruling class and the active sabotage of the Blairite fifth column, as well as attempts to tame the more radical parts of his program. A section of the ruling class is playing with the idea of a realignment in British politics, in which a new centre formation or coalition would be created with the participation of the 「left」 of the Conservative party and the right wing of the Labour Party. This is not an immediate perspective, but it could be implemented as a way of bringing down a Corbyn-led Labour government. In a period of political polarisation and economic crisis, however, a centre party or coalition would have very little basis. The experience in government and a possible split in the party would prepare the grounds for a further radicalisation of the ranks of the LP.
Russia
The upheavals in Ukraine and the annexation of the Crimea had a significant impact on the whole political spectrum in Russia. But the nationalist euphoria in 2014, when Putin's index of popularity exceeded 84%, has gradually dissipated. The fall in oil prices and (to a lesser extent) Western sanctions led to a fall in the ruble exchange rate and a 13% rate of inflation in 2015.
The high refinancing rate of the Central Bank (the interest rate paid by banks when borrowing money from the Central Bank), together with the economic sanctions imposed by the West has had its most serious impact in the financial sector, which led to the bankruptcy of dozens of banks. Faced with this situation the government used financial reserves to support the biggest financial and industrial groups with close links to the state, leading to a further concentration of capital.
On the other hand, the government used administrative measures to combat unemployment, in fact, forbidding mass layoffs. To reduce the budget deficit, a number of very effective measures were introduced, aimed at reducing corruption and tax evasion. This blow was aimed mainly at the middle and petty bourgeoisie, in particular small family businesses such as the owners of lorries and delivery vans.
In addition to purely economic reasons, Putin reacted in this way to moods of protest in the middle strata in the big cities where he is least popular. Here, Putin acts on the principle 「to my friends everything is permitted – to my enemies, the full force of the law.」
At the same time, a reform of the higher education system was implemented, which worsened the position of the mass of teachers and lecturers, whom Putin deemed disloyal. In this way, Putin was able to maintain a high level of support both in his own layer and among pensioners and low-paid workers at the expense of the middle layers of the big cities. The discontent of the latter found its political expression through a bourgeois demagogue, Alexei Navalny.
Putin Image Russian Presidential Press and Information OfficeImage: Russian Presidential Press and Information Office
After 2014, all parliamentary parties, including the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), adopted a position of complete support for Putin and his government, voting in the Duma for every bill proposed by the government. Of course this does nothing to increase their popularity. For almost ten years, the CPRF has been in constant crisis. There has been a permanent witch hunt in which people were expelled from the party on trumped-up charges of "Trotskyism" – although all of them were loyal supporters of Zyuganov.
The membership of the Communist Party in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other large cities fell by two-thirds. This left a vacuum in the opposition to Putin which was successfully occupied by Navalny. He is a typical demagogue, presenting himself as 「a man of the people」, slavishly copying the American tradition. But he stands out sharply in contrast to other oppositionists. The basis of his campaigning is the use of social networks and especially YouTube, where he puts out his videos about corruption in the higher echelons of power.
Navalny himself has been deprived of the right to take part in the presidential election because of two convictions on charges of corruption. Periodically Navalny calls his supporters onto the streets. The scale of these mobilisations across the country is approximately 100,000 people dispersed across major cities. Most of them are young people, who are attracted by Navalny's apparent determination and his skillful use of social media.
Over the past year, Putin has managed to curb inflation and, in general, overcome the crisis – at least temporarily. However, with the current level of oil prices, Russia's budget deficit remains high and in 2-5 years the reserve funds will inevitably run out, while Russia's opportunities for external borrowing are now minimal. If the price of oil stays low for three or four more years, the whole situation will change into its opposite.
When that moment comes, Putin (who will obviously be re-elected president) will face a serious problem. The government will no longer be able to solve the budget deficit without making deep cuts in public spending. At that point his popularity will evaporate completely. That is why Putin is using every opportunity to tighten his control over the internet, and impose restrictions on freedom of speech and other democratic rights.
But for the time being Putin still has room for manoeuvre. He can avoid slashing public spending or making drastic attacks on living standards. That is the main reason why the opposition has not met with any great success in mobilizing proletarian elements.
At this stage, those who participate openly on the streets are mainly middle class and petty bourgeois. Although Navalny has advocated an increase in the minimum wage, he has not had any success in establishing a link with social problems. There is a limit to how far the opposition to Putin can succeed on the basis of democratic demands and denunciation of corruption.
Nevertheless, many young people have rallied to the opposition, especially school and university students. They have taken to the streets in significant numbers. This is an important symptomatic development. The history of Russia shows that the awakening of the student youth is a sure anticipation of a big future movement of the working class. 「The wind always blows through the tops of the trees first.」
Eastern Europe and the Balkans
The rise in Eastern Europe of right-wing nationalism and anti-immigration rhetoric is an attempt on the part of the governments of the region to divert the growing malaise caused by the low standards of living and the toll imposed by the capitalist crisis on the mass of the population, in a situation where the working class has not yet decisively entered the scene.
Higher rates of GDP growth (relative to those of Western European countries) mask the reality of extreme capitalist exploitation of a skilled working class under a regime of low wages, imposed to maximise capitalist profits and foreign investment. A recent study of the European Trade Union Institute (「Why central and eastern Europe needs a pay rise」) shows that wage differentials between Western and Eastern Europe, which up until 2008 were slowly decreasing, have increased over the past decade.
IWWD in Poland Image own workImage: own work
As a consequence, there have been important signs of radicalisation of the youth, the first symptoms of which are the mobilisations against corruption in several countries, which reflect a growing rejection of the whole establishment. Key sections of the working class have also begun to go on the offensive on the industrial field – in many cases for the first time since the collapse of the Stalinist regimes – carrying out important strikes aimed at substantial wage increases and better working conditions.
In Slovakia, thousands of students demonstrated in April 2017 demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Robert Fico on corruption charges. This was followed in June by a massive strike of the 12,000 workers at the three VW plants in Bratislava, which won a 14% rise in wages. A 7% wage rise was also granted by KIA and Peugeot to avoid strikes, inspiring worries that the movement could spread.
Important movements have also taken place in opposition to reactionary measures. In Poland, the attacks by the right-wing government against what remains of abortion rights provoked the Black Protest movement of tens of thousands of women in October 2016, which forced the government to retreat.
In the former Yugoslavia the process of radicalisation is more advanced. A growing mood of rejection of the corrupt, reactionary bourgeois regimes on part of the youth and the working class was clearly expressed in the insurrectionary movement of February 2014 in Bosnia. Over the past year there have been significant strikes. The all-out strike of 2,400 workers of the FIAT plant in Kragujevac in July 2017 is just the most significant of a number of radical strikes in smaller factories and workplaces. Repeated strikes and protests were also carried out by the railway workers in Bosnia.
The youth protests against Vucic's victory in the Serbian presidential election of April 2017, while broadly dominated by petty-bourgeois illusions, have revealed a growing layer of youth open to revolutionary ideas. The potential for the Yugoslav Marxists was shown by the fact that they had leading roles in the protests in Novi Sad.
Latin America
The electoral debacle of Kirchner in Argentina, the defeat of the PSUV in the National Assembly elections in Venezuela, the defeat of Evo Morales in the referendum in Bolivia and the removal of Dilma in Brazil have plunged the reformists and 「progressive」 intellectuals on the continent into despair. They talk of a 「conservative wave」 and the advance of counter-revolution, without understanding any of the real processes involved.
For a period of 10 or 15 years, most of South America experienced a revolutionary wave, which affected different countries with different degrees of intensity. There was the election of Chavez in Venezuela in 1998 and the revolutionary events in the defeat of the coup in April 2002 and the struggle against the bosses' lockout in December 2002-January 2003, the Argentinazo in 2001, the uprising in Ecuador in 2000 which overthrew Mahuad, then the overthrow of Lucio Gutierrez in 2005, which led to the election of Correa in 2006. In Bolivia there was the Cochabamba 「water war」 in 1999-2000 and then the Gas War uprisings of October 2003 and June 2005, which led to the election of Evo Morales. In Peru there was the Arequipazo uprising in the south in 2002.
One might add to these the massive movement against election fraud in Mexico in 2006 and the Oaxaca commune of the same year, the huge and sustained movement of the Chilean students, the mass mobilisations in Honduras against the coup in 2009, even the election of Lula in Brazil in 2002, although of course not a revolutionary event in itself, all reflecting the yearning of the masses for fundamental change.
As a by-product of these huge movements of the workers (and in some countries the peasant masses) a number of governments came to power that were generally described as 「progressive」 or 「revolutionary」. Clearly they were different one from the other. While for instance Chavez, in a confused way, groped for and was pushed towards revolutionary change, Evo Morales, Correa and the Kirchners in Argentina were striving to reestablishing order after the entry of the masses into the scene, while Lula and Dilma were reformists in power carrying out a programme of counter-reforms. The Left in El Salvador has had almost no room for manoeuvre and is starting to roll back some of its modest reforms, generating disillusionment amongst the masses towards the FMLN. This mood is being capitalised, in the first instance, by the mayor of San Salvador, Nayib Bukele, who has been expelled from the party and has widespread sympathy amongst the youth.
However, all of these governments enjoyed a certain degree of stability for a prolonged period of time. This in part was the result of the strength of the movement of the masses, which the ruling class could not defeat in a direct confrontation (the coups in Venezuela 2002, Bolivia 2008 and Ecuador 2010 were defeated). Above all, they benefited from a period of high prices of raw materials and oil which allowed them to carry out some social programmes while avoiding a direct clash with the masses.
Driven by economic growth in China, prices of raw materials went up steadily between 2003 and 2010. Oil prices increased from $40 a barrel to over $100. Natural gas had been around $3/MMBtu and increased to between $8 and $18. Soybeans jumped from $4 to a peak of $17/bu. Zinc went from a low point of under $750/mt to a record high of $4,600, copper from under $0.60 per pound to $4.50 and tin from $3,700/mt to a peak of $33,000/mt.
This boom in the prices of commodities and sources of energy which gave these governments certain room for manoeuvre came to an end and brought the whole region into recession in 2014-15. This is the root economic cause for the electoral and other defeats of these governments which had always remained within the limits of capitalism.
Crowd celebrating anniversary of Cuban Revolution Image stttijnImage: stttijn
With the rise of the Venezuelan Revolution, Cuba had a certain economic respite. This has now come to an end. The Cuban economy is still based on the planned economy, but the reforms which have been introduced have opened a bigger space for capitalist economy, allowing small businesses as well as attempting to attract large scale private investment. The aim is to increase productivity by using capitalist methods without introducing any measures of workers' control. Even today many of the social conquests remain, but their scope is increasingly limited and its quality worsened. There is a growing social differentiation. This is very dangerous. This year there will be elections in which for the first time the president will not be one of the Castros nor anyone from the historic leadership of the revolution. We will see clashes and pressures by the capitalist right wing, internal and foreign, but also a reaction in the opposite direction on the part of those who have not benefited from these reforms and those who want to defend the socialist revolution.
Despite the pathetic moaning of the Latin American 「Left」, the removal of Kirchner in Argentina and Dilma in Brazil cannot be attributed to a 「shift to the right」. The coming to power of Temer and Macri has seen massive protest movements of the working class against the open policy of attacks carried out by the right wing. What is opening up in Latin America is not a period of social peace and capitalist stabilisation, but rather one of sharpening contradictions and increased class struggle. This has been proven with the insurrectionary movement in Honduras, after the 2017 election. Before, in Guatemala, in 2015, an inter-bourgeois conflict opened the way for a mass mobilisation of the youth, the peasant organisations and the working class. That process has not finished yet. In 2017 we saw a general strike demanding the resignation of president Jimmy Morales and 107 members of parliament. Other countries will follow the same road, like Mexico which will hold presidential elections this year, an event which the masses will use to express that they are sick and tired of capitalist barbarism.
Venezuela
The attempt of the Venezuelan oligarchy, with the backing of imperialism, to overthrow the Maduro government seems to have been defeated for now. The mistakes and vacillations of the opposition leadership, as well as the reaction of the masses, who came out in force during the Constituent Assembly elections in July 2017, put a temporary end to the opposition's offensive in the first half of the year. But that does not change anything fundamental in terms of the economic crisis, or the policies of the government.
Angel Prado a Bolivarian candidate who ran against the PSUV in the municipal elections Image Green LeftImage: Green Left
Venezuela remains mired in a deep recession, with hyperinflation and rapidly diminishing foreign currency reserves, and this is having a very negative impact on the living standards of the masses. Imperialism continues to tighten the noose with financial sanctions. The government continues a policy of making concessions to the capitalists and negotiating with the political representatives of the opposition. Their only aim is to remain in power. The temporary defeat of the opposition's offensive has opened up the window for a sharpening of the internal differentiation within the Bolivarian movement. There have been workers' demonstrations and the emergence of left-wing candidates to rival the official ones in the municipal elections.
Our position is clear: we oppose the overthrow of the Maduro government by the opposition as that would be a disaster for the masses. At the same time we cannot support the policies of the government, which lead directly to disaster and defeat for the Bolivarian revolution.
There is a growing mood of criticism towards the Bolivarian leadership, which cannot have the same authority as Hugo Chavez. The decision of Eduardo Saman, a former minister who stood out as a champion of workers' control and an opponent of big business and capitalist multinationals, to stand as a candidate in the municipal elections of December 2017 was a clear indication of this changed mood.
Although it was always clear that the bureaucracy was determined to sabotage Saman's campaign, it was nevertheless a turning point that opens up new possibilities for the Marxist tendency in Venezuela.
India and Pakistan
Narendra Modi came to power in 2014 on the basis of a widespread disillusionment with the Congress party, both by the working masses and by a layer of the bourgeoisie itself. But he has not been able to satisfy any of the forces that brought him to power. His demonetisation drive and the Goods and Services Tax reform were meant to facilitate business, but instead they have added to the weakening of the economy, which fell from above 9% growth rates to less than 7% in 2017.
The brief period of high growth between 2014-2016 has now given way to a sharp slowdown. Even during the period of faster growth unemployment actually increased and Modi launched a whole series of attacks on the workers' movement. The result has been a rise in class struggle. Students, peasants and workers have all taken to the streets. In September 2016 more than 180 million workers came out on strike that is around 50% more than during a similar general strike called a year earlier.
In Kashmir too, the masses took to the streets in a movement that shook the government, which only managed to temporarily subdue the movement by using heavy repression. Nevertheless, the movement had a certain influence in the rest of the country, in particular amongst the student youth.
Modi 2018 Image WEFImage: WEF
Modi has been trying to divert attention away from these developments by whipping up Hindu sectarianism, but this can only work for a limited period. At a certain point it will be cut across by the rising working class.
The events in Pakistan and India are closely linked. The Indian and Pakistani ruling classes have a common interest in maintaining a state of conflict between the two countries in order to divert the attention of the masses. But the position of the Pakistani ruling class is increasingly weak.
As the US is withdrawing its aid to the regime, China is stepping in. The Chinese have a special interest in Pakistan as an ally and buffer against India, as well as a hub for Chinese naval and maritime operations in the Indian Ocean. However, Chinese investments are not creating jobs or solving the contradictions in society.
The national question is becoming increasingly poisonous and in places such as Baluchistan, the Chinese presence is exacerbating sectarianism, which is merely a cover for a bloody proxy war between antagonistic external powers (America, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran...). Every day the reactionary policies of the ruling class are being exposed in the eyes of the masses, who have nothing but contempt left for the rotten elite that rules and plunders the country.
In the past the PPP leaders played a role in channelling the anger of the masses, leaning on the tradition of struggle in the late 1960s under Ali Bhutto. But after long periods in government carrying out austerity, the PPP is mired in corruption and largely discredited. This allowed Sharif's Muslim League to make a comeback. Now Sharif is also exposed in the eyes of the masses as a corrupt bourgeois politician who has nothing to offer them.
There has been a growing mood of rejection of all the politicians, who are seen as self-serving anti-working class and anti-poor gangsters. In the past the army would have taken power by now, but the army itself is split and demoralised. The generals are reluctant to accept responsibility for clearing up the mess. It is in this context that we see the beginnings of struggles of the workers and youth.
Africa
In South Africa, many years of rising class struggle have shattered the tripartite alliance (ANC-CPSA-COSATU). The strike movements and the movement of the youth in the universities led to the rise of the Economic Freedom Fighters and the new trade union federation led by NUMSA. Although the movement has temporarily subsided, the regime has been seriously affected by all these upheavals.
Economic crisis, mass anger, the open looting of state resources by the upstart black elite around Zuma and the Gupta family, is destabilising the situation and undermining the authority of the ANC. The big bourgeoisie, which collaborated with Mandela to stabilise the situation after the revolutionary events of the 1980s and 1990s, has come into conflict with the nouveau riche layer and the ruling clique around Zuma.
Zuma 2018 Image WEFAImage: WEFA
On the other hand, the ruling class cannot afford to discard the ANC because it does not have an alternative party to stabilise the situation. Aware of this, the Zuma wing has been recklessly raising the stakes in a dangerous game. This open split between the two camps and the potential split within the ANC could have revolutionary consequences for Africa's most advanced economy.
In Nigeria, after the tremendous upsurge in class struggle in January 2012, the main pillar of bourgeois rule, the PDP, stood discredited in the eyes of the masses. That is why they hurriedly cobbled together a new party, the APC – in reality a fusion of smaller parties – and put at its head Buhari, whom they considered a good candidate to garner support among the mass of the population and cut across the growing radicalisation.
This manoeuvre was possible because the leaders of the NLC, the main trade union federation, instead of building on the 2012 movement, spent all their authority in reining in that movement, while at the same time refusing to promote an independent party of the working class. It is in this vacuum left by the labour leaders that Buhari could step in. But in spite of all this, none of the burning problems facing the Nigerian masses have been solved. This was recently expressed in the agitation for a Biafran Republic in the south east. Although crushed by the military, it reveals the underlying tensions in Nigerian society. And once the last remnants of illusions in Buhari finally dissipate, we will see a resurgence of the class struggle on an even bigger scale than in 2012.
In West and Central Africa, mass movements against the corrupt and exploitative local bourgeoisies in several countries have increased sharply over the past period. These were enormous movements that stretched over long periods of time and mobilised millions of peoples. The masses closely followed the heroic uprising in Burkina Faso, while the fragile economies of these countries are being hit particularly hard by the global economic crisis. The attacks by the weakening regimes on democratic rights, more recently in Togo and the DRC, served as the straw that broke the camel's back. In particular, the mass of young people equate their general oppression with the decades old governments. The widespread misery in the region, as well as the treacherous role of the bourgeois opposition leaders – whose sole interest is to replace the regime heads – confirm both the correctness of the theory of the permanent revolution and the need to build an international revolutionary organization. Because of lack of a fighting leadership, after a huge upsurge of mass mobilisations, the movements receded. The only conclusion that the masses can draw from all this is that they can have no trust in the old leadership. Marxist theory and revolutionary organization is what is required to break the logjam.
Pessimism of the bourgeois
The hundredth anniversary of the October Revolution provided the strategists of Capital with an opportunity to reflect on history – and worry about the future. On August 15th, 2017 Martin Sandbu wrote in the Financial Times:
「Two anniversaries we mark this year – the centenary of the Russian Revolution and the decade since the start of the global financial crisis – have more in common than is apparent at first sight.
「The global financial crisis […] shook to its foundations the model that had emerged victorious from the cold war.
「The stultifying communism that the Soviet bloc had evolved to by the 1980s collapsed under the weight of its own economic and political contradictions. The political turmoil of the last year demonstrates that we are now watching to see whether open market economies will suffer the same fate.」 (Our emphasis)
He continues:
「Friedrich von Hayek's insight that flexible market prices contain more information than any planning mechanism can hope to gather centrally; and that dispersed decision-making therefore acts more efficiently than state authorities can do. […]
「Yet it had a rude awakening in the global financial crisis, which undermined any claim of western financial capitalism to being the best way to organise an economy.」
And he concludes:
「What happened 10 years ago this month was the horrifying realisation that financial claims accumulated over the previous boom years did not add up, that the future economic production which they were claims on was insufficient for them all to be honoured in full.
「[…] market liberalism, in its turn, betrayed the dream it had promised. Western economies are today far poorer than the trend before the crash predicted. The crisis and its aftermath have left the young, in particular, with little reason to hope for the same opportunities to prosper as their parents and grandparents.
「[…] a social system can survive disillusion for a long time. […] But when people can no longer count on their livelihoods, support snaps.」
Some of the more serious capitalist experts are beginning to understand that their recipes of the last 30 years are no longer working. In an article that appeared in the German paper Die Zeit under the title 「Neoliberalism is dead」 we are informed that even the IMF has admitted that their policies do not have the desired effect. But of course, they never draw all the necessary conclusions. [Source: Neoliberalism is dead, by Mark Schieritz, Die Zeit, June 2016)
Wolfgang Streek of the Max Planck Institute listed all the problems of capitalism in a long article published in New Left Review entitled, 「How will capitalism end?」 (May/June 2014), which in 2016 he expanded into a book. He says that there is a crisis of legitimacy of the capitalist system because it is no longer providing what it did in the past and people are therefore beginning to question the system. This explains the electoral volatility that can be observed in many countries. He also poses the question as to whether a 「democratic system」 can provide the policies that capitalism needs. What he means is whether they can impose on the working class what the bourgeois need.
In his article Streek states that capitalism 「will for the foreseeable future hang in limbo, dead or about to die in an overdose of itself, but still very much around, as nobody has the power to move its decaying body out of the way」. This is not a bad description of the state of present-day capitalism.
It is significant that Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator of the Financial Times, felt the need to answer Streek in an article with the interesting title 「The case against the collapse of capitalism.」 (FT 2 November 2016). How well the strategists of capital understand the sickness of their own system!
Lenin relevant 2018 Image public domainImage: public domain
Lenin explained that if it is not overthrown, the capitalist system will always recover from even the deepest crisis. Even in the 1930s there were periods of recovery. The bourgeois press has been talking about a recovery for the last seven years. In reality this is the weakest recovery in history and certain things flow from this.
Of course, the capitalist system still has important reserves and if the capitalists and bankers feel themselves threatened with losing everything, they will introduce Keynesian measures. But these reserves are not unlimited and they have been used up at an alarming rate in the last ten years. As a result, when the next crisis comes, as it inevitably will come, they will be in a far weaker position to mitigate its consequences than they were previously.
They constantly repeat that they have learned the lessons of 2008. But they also said they had learned the lessons of 1929. And as Hegel pointed out, anybody who studies history will have to conclude that nobody has ever learned anything from it.
In the final analysis, no matter what the bourgeois do, whether they adopt Keynesianism, monetarism, protections or anything else, they will be wrong. In the Middle Ages the priests used to say: all roads lead to Rome. Now we can use a slightly different variant: under capitalism, all roads lead to ruin.
Conclusion
Not so long ago it seemed that nothing much was happening in the world. A discussion of world perspectives would have to concentrate on one or two countries. But now the same revolutionary process is taking place to a greater or lesser intensity in every single country of the world without exception. What we are therefore discussing is a general process of worldwide revolution.
For Marxists, a discussion of economic perspectives is not an academic or abstract intellectual exercise. What is important is its effect for the class struggle and consciousness. But since consciousness always lags behind events, there was an inevitable delay between the beginning of the crisis and the intensification of the class struggle.
The bourgeoisie, always blindly empirical, were unable to see the explosive accumulation of subterranean discontent that was quietly gathering force. They were congratulating themselves that no revolution had taken place. Once they had recovered from the initial shock, for the bankers and capitalists it was 「business as usual」 Like a drunken man dancing on the edge of a precipice, they carried on with the merry carnival of money-making, which acquired an even more feverish pace while the conditions of the masses went from bad to worse.
Trotsky explained what he called the molecular process of revolution. In the History of the Russian Revolution he points out that, what determines the consciousness of the masses is not just the economic crisis, but rather the accumulation of discontent built up over the whole previous period. The discontent of the masses accumulates unnoticed until it finally reaches that critical point when quantity is transformed into quality.
Trotsky relevant 2018 Image public domainImage: public domain
Now, suddenly, the sense of relief of the ruling class has been replaced with pessimism and foreboding. There are social and political convulsions everywhere, accompanied by extreme instability on a world scale and violent alterations in world relations.
Even if the economy improves, it does not automatically register in the consciousness of the masses, which has been shaped by the memories of decades of stagnant or falling living standards. The very weak recovery in the USA signifies only a very relative improvement, confined to certain sectors. It does not affect the unemployed workers in the rustbelt. And everywhere else, it does not feel like a real recovery, and it has not restored any sense of confidence in the system or optimism in the future, but quite the opposite.
We see the same story reflected in the British referendum on EU membership. There are many reasons why the vote went in favour of Brexit. But a very important reason was revealed in the sharp regional differences between north and south. The bankers and speculators of the City of London did very well out of membership of the EU, which gave them privileged access to the lucrative financial markets of Europe. But membership has done nothing whatsoever for the poor areas of the north-east or Wales, which have suffered decades of deindustrialization, and the closure of the coal mines, steel plants and shipyards.
The growth of inequality
Everywhere there is a burning anger against grotesque levels of inequality, with obscene wealth of a tiny parasitic minority standing in sharp contrast to the growing poverty and despair at the bottom. The serious bourgeois are increasingly worried about this tendency because it is endangering the stability of the entire system. Everywhere there's a burning hatred of the rich. Many people ask: if the economy is doing so well, why are our living standards not improving? Why are they still cutting welfare, health and education? Why do the rich not pay taxes? And to these questions they find no answers.
The bourgeois are getting increasingly alarmed about the political consequences of the crisis. Far from feeling the benefits of the so called recovery, most working class people are worse off than they were before the crash. The McKinsey Global Institute found that 65-70% of 「income segments」 in advanced economies experienced either stagnation or a fall in their income between 2005 and 2014. Countries like Italy saw all income segments affected. (Poorer Than Their Parents, McKinsey Global Institute)
In the wealthiest and most powerful capitalist country that has ever existed there has been no real increase in living standards for nearly forty years. Indeed, for most Americans living standards have been falling. And this is no exception. In all countries, the present young generation is the first since 1945 that cannot expect a better standard of living than their parents.
Polarisation of wealth in the US continues unabated. From 2000-2010 profits went up by 80% and wages by 8%, while average family incomes actually went down by 5%. These figures show that the massive increases in profit were achieved at the cost of the working class. (The Economist, What about the workers? May 25th 2011)
The figures for pre-tax and disposable income understate the case. They do not take into consideration other factors such as increasing working hours and increasing casualization, whether due to zero hour contracts or temporary employment, and cuts to welfare services. These all add to the total pressure on working class families.
The crisis has its most painful and direct effects on young people. For the first time in many decades the new generation will not have the same living standards as their parents. This has serious political consequences. In all countries, the intolerable pressure on the youth finds its expression in a sharp increase in political radicalisation. On all questions the youth stands much further to the left than the rest of society. They are far more open to revolutionary ideas than other layers and are therefore our natural constituency.
Lessons of the collapse of Stalinism
In 1991 the collapse of the Soviet Union changed the course of history. At that time, the bourgeoisie and its echoes in the Labour movement, the reformists, were euphoric. They talked about the end of socialism, the end of communism, and even the end of history.
What Francis Fukuyama meant by his notorious aphorism was not that history as such had ended, but that the collapse of the Soviet Union meant that socialism was finished. It would therefore logically follow that the only system which could possibly exist was capitalism (the free market economy) and in that sense history had ended.
Fall of Berlin Wall Image public domainImage: public domain
What was astonishing about the fall of Stalinism was the speed with which the apparently powerful and monolithic regimes collapsed once they were challenged by mass movements in Eastern Europe. That was a reflection of the internal rottenness and decay of the regime. But the decay of senile capitalism is increasingly becoming clear to millions of people.
When the Berlin Wall fell Ted Grant predicted that seen in retrospect the fall of Stalinism would only be the first act of a worldwide drama which would be followed by an even more dramatic second act – the global crisis of capitalism. We now see the truth of this statement. Instead of universal prosperity there is poverty, unemployment, hunger and misery. Instead of peace there is war after war after war.
The same processes that suddenly caused the downfall of Stalinism can occur in capitalism. In one country after another we are witnessing sudden shocks that are testing the resilience of the system and exposing its weaknesses.
The institutions of bourgeois democracy, which were previously trusted blindly, are beginning to be discredited everywhere. People do not trust the politicians, the government, the judges, the police, the security services, even the Church: the whole system is coming under intense scrutiny and criticism.
A representative of WikiLeaks was asked on British TV: 「are you seriously suggesting that the intelligence services of the US are telling lies?」 He replied, 「why not? They always tell lies!」 This is what many people are now beginning to believe.
The mass organizations: the crisis of reformism
The crisis of capitalism is also the crisis of reformism. Everywhere the traditional parties of both the right and the left are in crises. Organizations that seemed to be solidly based and immutable are entering into crises, declining and even collapsing altogether. The reformist parties that have collaborated in governments that carried out deep cuts have been rejected by their traditional electorate.
To one degree or another, and at one pace or another, the same processes can be seen in practically every country in Europe. As in France, so too in the Netherlands, where the right-wing party of Geert Wilders was defeated in the elections. The bourgeois breathed a sigh of relief. But far more significant than the defeat of Wilders was the crushing debacle of the Dutch Labour Party, which was practically wiped out. The party lost 75% of its support.
The rise of the Workers' Party of Belgium is also a significant development. This ex-Maoist sect is now a left-reformist party, although it claims to be Marxist and Communist. In Wallonia, the French-speaking region, they are only just behind the Socialists. The same is true in Brussels. In the red belts they can get around 25% of the votes. But they are also beginning to grow in Flanders.
The masses are looking for and demanding a change. They need to find an organized political expression for this anger. Over the last period, the Greek masses have done everything in their power to fight to change society. There have been many mass strikes, general strikes and mass demonstrations. But here we come to the most important question: the subjective factor.
In their attempt to find a way out of the crisis, the masses turn first to one political option, they put it to the test, and then discard it and look for another. This explains the violent swings of public opinion to the left and the right. But they do not find what they are looking for. The people who ought to lead – the labour politicians, the social democrats, the so-called ex-communists, above all the trade union leaders – don't want to fight against austerity and for a serious change in society.
Trotsky explained that betrayal is implicit in reformism. By this he did not mean that all reformists betray the working class deliberately. There can be honest reformists as well as the corrupt careerists and bureaucrats who are the agents of the bourgeoisie within the workers' organizations. However, even honest left reformists have no perspective for a socialist transformation of society. They believe that it is possible to carry out the reforms that the workers require within the limits of capitalism. They regard themselves as supreme realists, but under conditions of capitalist crisis this 「realism」 stands exposed as the worst kind of utopianism.
The Pasok, which for decades was the mass party of the Greek working class, collapsed because of its betrayals and participation in governments of cuts. The workers turned to Syriza, which was previously a very small party. Alexis Tsipras became the most popular political leader in Greece. He held a referendum, asking 「Should we accept the cuts of Frau Merkel?」, and there was a massive response.
The people of Greece voted overwhelmingly to reject austerity: not just the workers but also the middle classes, the taxi drivers and small businessmen. At that moment Tsipras could have said, 「We are not going to pay one euro to these gangsters! Enough! We'll take the power into our own hands and appeal to the workers of Spain, Italy, Germany and Britain to follow our example. We must fight against the dictatorship of the bankers and capitalists: for a genuinely democratic socialist Europe.」
Had he done that, he would have received overwhelming support. People would have been dancing in the streets. And the Greek people would have been prepared to make sacrifices, big sacrifices if necessary, to back their leaders – on one condition: that they were convinced that they were fighting for a just cause and the sacrifices would be the same for all. Tsipras could lifted his finger and it would have been the end of capitalism in Greece. He could have expropriated the bankers, the shipping magnates and industrialists.
But Tsipras is not a Marxist. He is a reformist and therefore it did not enter into his head to base himself on the power of the masses. He surrendered to the blackmail of Berlin and Brussels and he signed a far worse deal than the one originally proposed, leading to a colossal demoralization and big drop in support for Syriza, although he is still there because there is no alternative.
The process also affected Spain, which is passing through a profound political crisis. Like the rise of Syriza in Greece, the rapid rise of PODEMOS was a clear reflection of massive discontent with the old parties and a burning desire for change. But the confused and vacillating policies of the leadership caused disappointment among its followers even before they had come to power. Pablo Iglesias' flirtation with Social Democracy led to a slump in the votes for Podemos and a sharp division among its leaders.
Pablo Iglesias Foto Flickr Parlamento EuropeoImage: Flickr, Parlamento Europeo
Now the leaders of Podemos are looking to their right – towards the PSOE, in the hope that some sort of deal can be struck to remove the hated Rajoy government. This has led them to a moderation of their language and they are under enormous pressure to appear more respectable and 「statesman-like」. This will further confuse and disorient their supporters.
The new leader of the Socialists, Pedro Sanchez, is the palest of pale reflections of Jeremy Corbyn and Mélenchon. Nevertheless, for having dared to pose the question of a coalition government with Podemos and the Catalan nationalists, the Spanish ruling class attempted to remove him. This was rejected by the ranks in the internal elections, which returned Pedro Sanchez as general secretary.
The above-mentioned cases are different variants of the same process. Everywhere the reformist and ex-Stalinist parties are in crisis. Some have experienced splits, while others have disappeared altogether (Italy is an extreme example of this, where both the old socialist and communist parties have vanished). We have also seen the emergence of new political formations, such as Syriza and Podemos.
Like the foam on the waves of the sea, these new formations are a reflection of deep and powerful currents beneath the surface. However, these new formations lack a stable base in the working class and the trade unions. As a result of this, and also their mainly petty bourgeois composition, they are inherently unstable and may collapse as quickly as they arose.
The example of Corbyn in Britain is so far an exception to the rule. As we have explained, this development was the result of an accident, but as Hegel explained, an accident that revealed a necessity. The strong side of the Corbyn movement is that it has provided the necessary focal point for the accumulated discontent of the masses, especially the youth. Its weak side will be revealed when the limited nature of the left reformist programme is put to the test in a Left Labour government.
This means that our tactics have to be flexible at all times, attuned to the concrete conditions and the level of consciousness of the working class and above all its most active and advanced layers. In all of these cases our approach must always be the same: critical support.
We will support the left reformists in the fight against the right wing, always pushing them to go further. But at the same time we must patiently explain to the advanced workers and youth the limitations of a programme that does not aim to overthrow capitalism but seeks only to reform it from within – a utopian policy which, irrespective of the good intentions of its advocates, under the conditions of capitalist crisis, can only lead to defeat and prepare the way for a swing to the right.
Radicalization of the youth
Political and social instability are sweeping like a hot wind from one European country to another. The changing consciousness was reflected in an opinion poll for the youth published in Quartz, April 28, 2017. It was part of a European Union-sponsored survey, titled "Generation what?" Around 580,000 respondents in 35 countries were asked the question: 「Would you actively participate in large-scale uprising against the generation in power if it happened in the next days or months?」 More than half of 18- to 34-year-olds said yes. The article concludes: 「Young Europeans are sick of the status quo in Europe. And they're ready to take to the streets to bring about change.」
Youth revolting Image own workImage: own work
The report went on to focus on respondents from 13 countries to better understand what young people are optimistic and frustrated about in Europe. Among these countries, young people in Greece were 「particularly interested in joining a large-scale uprising against their government, with 67% answering yes to the question.」 Respondents in Greece were also more likely to believe politicians were corrupt and to have negative perceptions of the country's financial sector.
Young people in Italy and Spain were next, with 65% and 63% willing to join a large-scale uprising, respectively. In France, a country that has revolution written into its DNA, 61% of the youth answered yes. But even in in the Netherlands, which has so far escaped the worst of the crisis, a third of young people agreed with the statement, rising to 37% in Germany and almost 40% in Austria.
During the election campaign, French teenagers held rallies in Rennes and other cities to protest against both presidential candidates. Some protesters blockaded schools, while others marched towards the city centre with placards that read 「Expel Marine Le Pen, not immigrants」 and 「We don't want Macron or Le Pen.」 The report notes that respondents from France complained of a number of negative developments—too much corruption, too many taxes, too many rich people—compared to the rest in the EU.
These figures indicate that a profound change is taking place. The report concludes: 「Voter apathy among the young has long been described as a worrying trend. In the UK, for example, youth turnout rates at general elections fell by 28 percentage points, from 66% in 1992 to 38% in 2005. But this declining electoral participation is not necessarily evidence of political apathy.」
The problem of leadership
Some superficial people have asked: 「if things are so bad, why has there not been a revolution?」 The ruling class was congratulating itself that this has not happened, since they initially feared the worst. And since the worst did not immediately materialise they breathed a sigh of relief and returned to the merry carnival of money-making, while everybody else has seen their living standards and future prospects crushed. In other words they behave like a man who is sawing off the branch he is sitting on.
In reality there is nothing surprising about the delay in the process of revolution. Over many decades the bankers and capitalists have built powerful defences for their system. They control the press, radio and television. They enjoy virtually limitless financial resources, which they use to buy the services of political parties – not only of the right but of the 「Left」, and also of many 「responsible」 trade union leaders. They can count on the support of university professors, lawyers, economists, bishops and the most privileged upper layers of the intelligentsia. And if all this fails, they can always resort to the policeman's truncheon, the judges and the prison system.
But there is another, far more powerful barrier to revolution. Human consciousness, contrary to what the idealists think, is not progressive and certainly not revolutionary. It is innately and profoundly conservative. Most people are scared of change. Under normal conditions they will cling to the familiar, to what they know: familiar ideas, parties, leaders, religions. This is quite natural and reflects an instinct for self-preservation. It goes back into the days when we lived in caves and feared the dark recesses where dangerous animals lurked.
There is something comforting in routine, habit and tradition, in treading the old, well-known paths. As a rule, people will only accept the idea of change on the basis of great events that shake society to its foundations, transforming consciousness and forcing people to see things as they really are. This does not occur gradually, but in an explosive way. And that is precisely what we see now taking place everywhere. Consciousness is beginning to catch up with a bang.
The most important question is the question of leadership. In 1914 the German army officers described the British army in France with the following phrase: 「Lions led by donkeys.」 And that's a very good description of the working class everywhere. The reformist leaders play a most pernicious role, clinging to the 「free market」 even when it is collapsing all around them.
The right-wing reformist leaders are completely corrupt. They abandoned all pretence to stand for socialism decades ago and become the most faithful servants of the bankers and capitalists. They willingly take upon their shoulders the responsibility for cuts in welfare spending and attacks on living standards in order to defend capitalism. But in so doing they discredit themselves in the eyes of the masses who earlier supported them.
There was a clear logic in this. In a period of capitalist upswing it was possible to make concessions to the working class, especially in the advanced capitalist countries of North America, Europe and Japan. But in a period of deep crisis the bourgeois say they can no longer afford reforms. On the contrary, they demand the liquidation of those reforms that were won since 1945. For the masses, reformism with reforms makes sense. But reformism without reforms, or rather, reformism with counter-reforms, makes no sense at all.
The long period of capitalist upswing that followed the end of the Second World War set the final seal on the degeneration of the Social Democracy. This degeneration has penetrated deep into its ranks. Most of the older activists in the Social Democratic parties and the trade unions have been demoralised by the previous period. They are disillusioned, disoriented and profoundly sceptical. They are completely out of touch with the real mood and they do not reflect the class.
This layer of activists never understood anything. They do not represent the present or the future but are only a reflection of the demoralization of past defeats. The situation is even worse with the ex-Stalinists, who have completely abandoned any socialist perspective or revolutionary class instinct they may once have possessed. Some of them may come back into activity when the class struggle rises. But mostly these and left-reformists and ex-Stalinists are so deeply impregnated with the spirit of scepticism that they are an obstacle in the path of the militant workers and the youth who are seeking the road of socialist revolution.
Our position as a revolutionary organization cannot be determined or influenced in any way by the prejudices of this layer. Our tactics are based on the real situation: the organic crisis of capitalism, which in turn is producing a new generation of class fighters, which will be far more revolutionary than the older generation ever was. We must base ourselves on the youth: both the students and school students and above all the working class youth who are cruelly exploited and are wide open to revolutionary ideas.
This is a period of sudden shocks and changes in the situation, which affect all countries without exception. The political centre is collapsing everywhere and this is a reflection of growing class polarization. Where there was previously political stability, there is growing instability. Elections lead to one shock after another: sharp swings to the right and left. Things that were not supposed to happen are now happening. Therefore, we must be prepared for big changes, which can happen quicker than we think. If the left disappoints the aspirations of the masses, there can be a move to the right, which in turn prepares bigger swings to the left.
IMT ideas Image FightbackImage: Fightback
We must follow the process as it unfolds. We must arm ourselves with revolutionary patience, since it is impossible to impose our own timetable upon events that must follow their own course according to their own speed. But we must also be prepared for sharp and sudden changes, which are implicit in the whole situation. Colossal events can come upon us far sooner than what we think. There is no room for complacency. We must build the forces of the IMT as quickly as possible. We must have a sense of urgency. We are on the right road. We must prove ourselves in action and in practice to be the true and worthy inheritors of the traditions of 1917, of Lenin and Trotsky, and the Bolshevik revolution.
We must have absolute confidence in our class, the working class, the only creative class, the class that creates all the wealth in society, and the only truly revolutionary class that holds the fate of humanity in its hands. We must have total confidence in the ideas of Marxism and, last but not least, we must have confidence in ourselves: absolute confidence that, armed with the ideas of Marxism, we will build the forces that are necessary to lead the struggle to change society, to put an end to this regime of cruelty, injustice, exploitation and slavery, and bring about the victory of socialism throughout the world.
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X