Archive | Gay and lesbian rights RSS feed for this section

Here are 10 things you should know about socialism!

31 Jan


What do we mean when we talk about “socialism”? Here are ten things about its theory, practice, and potential that you need to know.

Over the last 200 years, socialism has spread across the world. In every country, it carries the lessons and scars of its particular history there. Conversely, each country’s socialism is shaped by the global history, rich tradition, and diverse interpretations of a movement that has been the world’s major critical response to capitalism as a system.




1. Socialism is a yearning for something better than capitalism

Socialism represents the awareness of employees that their sufferings and limitations come less from their employers than from the capitalist system. That system prescribes incentives and options for both sides, and rewards and punishments for their behavioral “choices.” It generates their endless struggles and the employees’ realization that system change is the way out.

In Capital, Volume 1, Karl Marx defined a fundamental injustice—exploitation—located in capitalism’s core relationship between employer and employee. Exploitation, in Marx’s terms, describes the situation in which employees produce more value for employers than the value of wages paid to them. Capitalist exploitation shapes everything in capitalist societies. Yearning for a better society, socialists increasingly demand the end of exploitation and an alternative in which employees function as their own employer. Socialists want to be able to explore and develop their full potentials as individuals and members of society while contributing to its welfare and growth.

Karl Marx, date unknown. Photo from Bettmann/Getty Images.

Socialism is an economic system very different from capitalism, feudalism, and slavery. Each of the latter divided society into a dominant minority class (masters, lords, and employers) and a dominated majority (slaves, serfs, employees). When the majority recognized slavery and feudal systems as injustices, they eventually fell.

The majorities of the past fought hard to build a better system. Capitalism replaced slaves and serfs with employees, masters and lords with employers. It is no historical surprise that employees would end up yearning and fighting for something better. That something better is socialism, a system that doesn’t divide people, but rather makes work a democratic process where all employees have an equal say and together are their own employer.




2. Socialism is not a single, unified theory

People spread socialism across the world, interpreting and implementing it in many different ways based on context. Socialists found capitalism to be a system that produced ever-deepening inequalities, recurring cycles of unemployment and depression, and the undermining of human efforts to build democratic politics and inclusive cultures. Socialists developed and debated solutions that varied from government regulations of capitalist economies to government itself owning and operating enterprises, to a transformation of enterprises (both private and government) from top-down hierarchies to democratic cooperatives.

Sometimes those debates produced splits among socialists. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, socialists supporting the post-revolutionary Soviet Union underscored their commitment to socialism that entailed the government owning and operating industries by adopting the new name “communist.” Those skeptical of Soviet-style socialism tended increasingly to favor state regulation of private capitalists. They kept the name “socialist” and often called themselves social democrats or democratic socialists. For the last century, the two groups debated the merits and flaws of the two alternative notions of socialism as embodied in examples of each (e.g. Soviet versus Scandinavian socialisms).

Early in the 21st century, an old strain of socialism resurfaced and surged. It focuses on transforming the inside of enterprises: from top-down hierarchies, where a capitalist or a state board of directors makes all the key enterprise decisions, to a worker cooperative, where all employees have equal, democratic rights to make those decisions, thereby becoming—collectively—their own employer.


3. The Soviet Union and China achieved state capitalism, not socialism

As leader of the Soviet Union, Lenin once said that socialism was a goal, not yet an achieved reality. The Soviet had, instead, achieved “state capitalism.” A socialist party had state power, and the state had become the industrial capitalist displacing the former private capitalists. The Soviet revolution had changed who the employer was; it had not ended the employer/employee relationship. Thus, it was—to a certain extent—capitalist.

Lenin’s successor, Stalin, declared that the Soviet Union had achieved socialism. In effect, he offered Soviet state capitalism as if it were the model for socialism worldwide. Socialism’s enemies have used this identification ever since to equate socialism with political dictatorship. Of course, this required obscuring or denying that (1) dictatorships have often existed in capitalist societies and (2) socialisms have often existed without dictatorships.

After initially copying the Soviet model, China changed its development strategy to embrace instead a state-supervised mix of state and private capitalism focused on exports. China’s powerful government would organize a basic deal with global capitalists, providing cheap labor, government support, and a growing domestic market. In exchange, foreign capitalists would partner with Chinese state or private capitalists, share technology, and integrate Chinese output into global wholesale and retail trade systems. China’s brand of socialism—a hybrid state capitalism that included both communist and social-democratic streams—proved it could grow faster over more years than any capitalist economy had ever done.


Featured Image -- 8415


4. The U.S., Soviet Union, and China have more in common than you think 

As capitalism emerged from feudalism in Europe in the 19th century, it advocated liberty, equality, fraternity, and democracy. When those promises failed to materialize, many became anti-capitalist and found their way to socialism.

Experiments in constructing post-capitalist, socialist systems in the 20th century (especially in the Soviet Union and China) eventually incurred similar criticisms. Those systems, critics held, had more in common with capitalism than partisans of either system understood.

Self-critical socialists produced a different narrative based on the failures common to both systems. The U.S. and Soviet Union, such socialists argue, represented private and state capitalisms. Their Cold War enmity was misconstrued on both sides as part of the century’s great struggle between capitalism and socialism. Thus, what collapsed in 1989 was Soviet State capitalism, not socialism. Moreover, what soared after 1989 was another kind of state capitalism in China.


5. Thank American socialists, communists, and unionists for the 1930s New Deal

FDR’s government raised the revenue necessary for Washington to fund massive, expensive increases in public services during the Depression of the 1930s. These included the Social Security system, the first federal unemployment compensation system, the first federal minimum wage, and a mass federal jobs program. FDR’s revenues came from taxing corporations and the rich more than ever before.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, center, and his New Deal administration team on September 12, 1935. Photo by Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone/Getty Images.

In response to this radical program, FDR was reelected three times. His radical programs were conceived and pushed politically from below by a coalition of communists, socialists, and labor unionists. He had not been a radical Democrat before his election.

Socialists obtained a new degree of social acceptance, stature, and support from FDR’s government. The wartime alliance of the U.S. with the Soviet Union strengthened that social acceptance and socialist influences.




6. If 5 was news to you, that’s due to the massive U.S.-led global purge of socialists and communists after WWII

After its 1929 economic crash, capitalism was badly discredited. The unprecedented political power of a surging U.S. left enabled government intervention to redistribute wealth from corporations and the rich to average citizens. Private capitalists and the Republican Party responded with a commitment to undo the New Deal. The end of World War II and FDR’s death in 1945 provided the opportunity to destroy the New Deal coalition.

The strategy hinged on demonizing the coalition’s component groups, above all the communists and socialists. Anti-communism quickly became the strategic battering ram. Overnight, the Soviet Union went from wartime ally to an enemy whose agents aimed “to control the world.” That threat had to be contained, repelled, and eliminated.

U.S. domestic policy focused on anti-communism, reaching hysterical dimensions and the public campaigns of U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Communist Party leaders were arrested, imprisoned, and deported in a wave of anti-communism that quickly spread to socialist parties and to socialism in general. Hollywood actors, directors, screenwriters, musicians, and more were blacklisted and barred from working in the industry. McCarthy’s witch hunt ruined thousands of careers while ensuring that mass media, politicians, and academics would be unsympathetic, at least publicly, to socialism.

U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy led a campaign to put prominent government officials and others on trial for alleged “subversive activities” and Communist Party membership during the height of the Cold War. Photo by Corbis/Getty Images.

In other countries revolts from peasants and/or workers against oligarchs in business and/or politics often led the latter to seek U.S. assistance by labeling their challengers as “socialists” or “communists.” Examples include U.S. actions in Guatemala and Iran (1954), Cuba (1959-1961), Vietnam (1954-1975), South Africa (1945-1994), and Venezuela (since 1999). Sometimes the global anti-communism project took the form of regime change. In 1965-6 the mass killings of Indonesian communists cost the lives of between 500,000 to 3 million people.

Once the U.S.—as the world’s largest economy, most dominant political power, and most powerful military—committed itself to total anti-communism, its allies and most of the rest of the world followed suit.


7. Since socialism was capitalism’s critical shadow, it spread to those subjected by and opposed to capitalist colonialism 

In the first half of the 20th century, socialism spread through the rise of local movements against European colonialism in Asia and Africa, and the United States’ informal colonialism in Latin America. Colonized people seeking independence were inspired by and saw the possibility of alliances with workers fighting exploitation in the colonizing countries. These latter workers glimpsed similar possibilities from their side.

This helped create a global socialist tradition. The multiple interpretations of socialism that had evolved in capitalism’s centers thus spawned yet more and further-differentiated interpretations. Diverse streams within the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist tradition interacted with and enriched socialism.




8. Fascism is a capitalist response to socialism

A fascist economic system is capitalist, but with a mixture of very heavy government influence. In fascism, the government reinforces, supports, and sustains private capitalist workplaces. It rigidly enforces the employer/employee dichotomy central to capitalist enterprises. Private capitalists support fascism when they fear losing their position as capitalist employers, especially during social upheavals.

Under fascism, there is a kind of mutually supportive merging of government and private workplaces. Fascist governments tend to “deregulate,” gutting worker protections won earlier by unions or socialist governments. They help private capitalists by destroying trade unions or replacing them with their own organizations which support, rather than challenge, private capitalists.

Frequently, fascism embraces nationalism to rally people to fascist economic objectives, often by using enhanced military expenditures and hostility toward immigrants or foreigners. Fascist governments influence foreign trade to help domestic capitalists sell goods abroad and block imports to help them sell their goods inside national boundaries.

Blackshirts, supporters of Benito Mussolini who founded the National Fascist Party, are about to set fire to portraits of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin in Italy in May 1921. Photo by Mondadori/Getty Images.

Usually, fascists repress socialism. In Europe’s major fascist systems—Spain under Franco, Germany under Hitler, and Italy under Mussolini—socialists and communists were arrested, imprisoned, and often tortured and killed.

A similarity between fascism and socialism seems to arise because both seek to strengthen government and its interventions in society. However, they do so in different ways and toward very different ends. Fascism seeks to use government to secure capitalism and national unity, defined often in terms of ethnic or religious purity. Socialism seeks to use government to end capitalism and substitute an alternative socialist economic system, defined traditionally in terms of state-owned and -operated workplaces, state economic planning, employment of dispossessed capitalists, workers’ political control, and internationalism.


9. Socialism has been, and still is, evolving

During the second half of the 20th century, socialism’s diversity of interpretations and proposals for change shrank to two alternative notions: 1.) moving from private to state-owned-and -operated workplaces and from market to centrally planned distributions of resources and products like the Soviet Union, or 2.) “welfare-state” governments regulating markets still comprised mostly of private capitalist firms, as in Scandinavia, and providing tax-funded socialized health care, higher education, and so on. As socialism returns to public discussion in the wake of capitalism’s crash in 2008, the first kind of socialism to gain mass attention has been that defined in terms of government-led social programs and wealth redistributions benefitting middle and lower income social groups.

The evolution and diversity of socialism were obscured. Socialists themselves struggled with the mixed results of the experiments in constructing socialist societies (in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.). To be sure, these socialist experiments achieved extraordinary economic growth. In the Global South, socialism arose virtually everywhere as the alternative development model to a capitalism weighed down by its colonialist history and its contemporary inequality, instability, relatively slower economic growth, and injustice.

Socialists also struggled with the emergence of central governments that used excessively concentrated economic power to achieve political dominance in undemocratic ways. They were affected by criticisms from other, emerging left-wing social movements, such as anti-racism, feminism, and environmentalism, and began to rethink how a socialist position should integrate the demands of such movements and make alliances.




10. Worker co-ops are a key to socialism’s future

The focus of the capitalism-versus-socialism debate is now challenged by the changes within socialism. Who the employers are (private citizens or state officials) now matters less than what kind of relationship exists between employers and employees in the workplace. The role of the state is no longer the central issue in dispute.

A growing number of socialists stress that previous socialist experiments inadequately recognized and institutionalized democracy. These self-critical socialists focus on worker cooperatives as a means to institutionalize economic democracy within workplaces as the basis for political democracy. They reject master/slave, lord/serf, and employer/employee relationships because these all preclude real democracy and equality.

Homesteaders, relocated by the U.S. Resettlement Administration, a federal agency under the New Deal, working at a cooperative garment factory in Hightstown, New Jersey, in 1936. The U.S. Resettlement Administration relocated struggling families to provide work relief. Photo by Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group/Getty Images.

For the most part, 19th and 20th century socialisms downplayed democratized workplaces. But an emerging, 21st century socialism advocates for a change in the internal structure and organization of workplaces. The microeconomic transformation from the employer/employee organization to worker co-ops can ground a bottom-up economic democracy.

The new socialism’s difference from capitalism becomes less a matter of state versus private workplaces, or state planning versus private markets, and more a matter of democratic versus autocratic workplace organization. A new economy based on worker co-ops will find its own democratic way of structuring relationships among co-ops and society as a whole.

Worker co-ops are key to a new socialism’s goals. They criticize socialisms inherited from the past and add a concrete vision of what a more just and humane society would look like. With the new focus on workplace democratization, socialists are in a good position to contest the 21st century’s struggle of economic systems.




Richard D. Wolff is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University, NYC. He taught economics at Yale University, the City University of New York, and the University of Paris. Over the last 25 years, in collaboration with Stephen Resnick, he has developed a new approach to political economy that appears in several books co-authored by Resnick and Wolff and numerous articles by them separately and together. Professor Wolff’s weekly show, “Economic Update,” is syndicated on over 90 radio stations and goes to 55 million TV receivers via Free Speech TV and other networks.




A Corrupted Capitalist System holds no future for the Working Masses – a Political Revolution Does! New & Used Revolutionary & Progressive Books, Memorabilia; an Opposition Bookstore –










70 years after the Chinese Revolution: How the struggle for socialism was betrayed by Peter Symonds (ICFI)

27 Oct

The following lecture was delivered by Peter Symonds at eight campuses in Australia, including Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Newcastle, and in Wellington, New Zealand to meetings organised by the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) between September 26 and October 17. Symonds is a member of the World Socialist Web Site International Editorial Board and the national WSWS editor for the Socialist Equality Party (Australia).

1. Seventy years ago on October 1 1949, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao Zedong stood in Tiananmen Square and proclaimed the establishment of the People’s Republic of China—the outcome of a momentous revolutionary upheaval in the most populous country in the world. It was a monumental event in world history. The Chinese Revolution ended a century of imperialist subjugation and unified a country that had been divided for decades. On the international plane, it dealt a major blow to imperialism, which was desperately seeking to stabilize capitalism after the Second World War had devastated Europe and Asia. The United States, which emerged as the dominant power, had fought Japan for control over China and its vast investment opportunities, markets, cheap labour and resources. The revolution, however, abruptly ended that prospect.

The 1949 revolution overturned the domination of the landlord class and money lenders over the countryside and eliminated much that was socially and culturally backward and oppressive. An Agrarian Law in 1950 confiscated and redistributed the land of landlords. The 1950 Marriage Law allowed women to choose their own partners for the first time, ended polygamy, child betrothal, foot binding and concubinage. Prior to 1949, the illiteracy rate was 80 percent and life expectancy was just 35 years. Thirty years later, illiteracy had been largely abolished and life expectancy was 65 years.

Mao proclaiming the People’s Republic in 1949

2. The Chinese revolution expressed the aspirations of hundreds of millions of workers, peasants, young people and intellectuals for security and basic democratic and social rights, after decades of war and social upheaval. The Chinese masses had already been through two revolutions, had suffered under the rule of ruthless warlords and the brutal dictatorship of the Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai-shek, and the Japanese military occupation, first of Manchuria, then much of China. Many workers, youth and peasants had sacrificed, including with their lives, in the struggle against imperialism and its lackeys. In the working class, socialist traditions, stemming from the foundation of the Communist Party in 1921 and the subsequent revolutionary upheavals, were still strong. In the minds of many, the Chinese Communist Party was linked to the Stalinist regime in Moscow which claimed, falsely, to be the continuity of the Russian Revolution of 1917—just three decades earlier.

3. Yet today, no-one can seriously believe that China is socialist or communist. What the regime terms “socialism with Chinese characteristics”—with its huge private corporations, stock markets, flood of foreign investment and market pricing of all commodities including wage labour—is capitalism pure and simple. The Chinese Communist Party has presided over the transformation of the country into a massive cheap labour platform. Astonishing levels of economic growth over the past three decades have been accompanied by equally staggering levels of social inequality—the concentration of vast wealth in the hands of a tiny handful of multi-billionaires at the expense of hundreds of millions of workers who struggle to survive. The so-called iron rice-bowl of social guarantees established after the revolution has been dismantled leaving working people to fund their own health care, education for their children, child-care and other services. With free rein given to the capitalist market, the social evils that were largely abolished by the revolution—drug abuse, prostitution and slave labour, to name but a few—have returned.

4. To understand how and why this happened, it is necessary to examine the historic roots of contemporary China in the revolution 70 years ago. We study history not as an academic exercise, although that has its own legitimacy, but in order to draw the necessary political and theoretical lessons for the struggles today. Anyone wanting to fight for socialism must necessarily be able to explain why Stalinism and Maoism, that claimed to represent socialism, resulted in capitalist restoration. To understand that, it is necessary to examine in some detail the complex political and theoretical issues raised by the Chinese Revolution 70 years ago.

5. The Chinese Revolution was itself the product of the defining event of the 20th century—the Russian Revolution that had created the first workers’state just 32 years earlier. In the midst of the ravages of World War 1, the revolutionary events in Russia and the seizure of power by the Bolshevik Party led by Lenin and Trotsky stood out like a beacon to the working class around the world. It generated revolutionary movements against capitalism and colonial oppression, and a commitment to socialism and socialist revolution in layers of the working class internationally that was expressed in the founding of Communist Parties and of the Third International in 1919.

The theoretical underpinning of the Russian Revolution in 1917 was the outcome of intense debate in the decade after the 1905 Russian Revolution. Three conceptions emerged.

The Mensheviks (one of the two major factions of Russian Social Democrats) were the proponents of a two-stage theory: the working class first had to support the liberal elements of the capitalist class to overthrow the Czar, establish a democratic republic and carry out land reform, and only at a much later stage fight for socialism. But as the 1905 revolution demonstrated, the Russian liberals known as the Cadets, when faced with an upsurge of the working class, swung behind the Czarist regime.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks (the second major faction) rejected the subordination of the working class to the liberals and called for a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. But this implied that the working class would be compelled to confine itself to the limitations of a bourgeois, that is, capitalist republic. Moreover, the exact relationship between the workers and peasants, who comprised two distinct social classes, was left open.


Leon Trotsky

In his Theory of Permanent Revolution, Leon Trotsky, like Lenin, opposed any subordination of workers to the capitalist class. He insisted that the working class had to fight directly for power, drawing behind it the peasantry, which, he pointed out, could play no independent political role. Against those who ridiculed the idea that a workers’ state could survive in a backward country with a huge peasantry, Trotsky explained that in the backward countries, that is, those with a belated capitalist development, such as Russia and China, the bourgeoisie was incapable of carrying through the democratic revolution. That task fell to the working class which would be compelled to begin to implement socialist measures. He insisted that the Russian revolution was an integral part of the world socialist revolution and that the problems thrown up by the revolution in Russia could only be resolved through the struggle for socialism internationally.

Lenin embraced Trotsky’s perspective in April 1917, issuing the call for “all power to the Soviets,” that is, to the democratically-established workers’ councils that developed in 1917. He and Trotsky characterized the Bolshevik seizure of power in October as the opening shot of the world socialist revolution in the new epoch of imperialism that had been opened up by World War I. However, under conditions of the defeats of revolutionary movements in Europe and the consequent isolation of the Soviet Union, Stalin was to emerge as the representative of a privileged, conservative bureaucracy which usurped power from the working class. Its outlook was summed up in the nationalist conception of “Socialism in One Country” that rejected the internationalist perspective on which the Bolshevik revolution had been based, and was to have profound consequences for the working class internationally, not least in China.

6. Our movement—the international Trotskyist movement—was established in 1923 to fight against the Stalinist degeneration of the Soviet Union and uphold the struggle for socialist internationalism. A brief review of these theoretical issues is essential to an understanding of the revolution in China, or, I should say, the three revolutions in China.

The first Chinese Revolution overthrew the decrepit Manchu dynasty in 1911, but the capitalist Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang, that emerged proved utterly incapable of implementing basic democratic tasks or freeing China from imperialist subjugation.

Armed workers in Shanghai during the 1925-27 revolution

The second Chinese revolution, between 1925 and 1927, erupted as a working-class struggle against the depredations of imperialism after the shooting of protestors in Shanghai by British municipal police on May 30 1925. It rapidly transformed into a mass movement throughout the country, but the role of the Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union was to have fatal consequences. Stalin subordinated the Chinese Communist Party, which had only been established in 1921, to the party of the Chinese capitalist class—the Kuomintang. Reverting to the Menshevik two-stage theory, Stalin insisted that the bourgeoisie could be compelled to fight against imperialist oppression and play a progressive role—as part of a “bloc of four classes” that would end China’s semi-colonial subjugation.

In 1927, Trotsky warned of the dangers of such a perspective, explaining:

It is a gross mistake to think that imperialism mechanically welds together all the classes of China from without…The revolutionary struggle against imperialism does not weaken, but rather strengthens the political differentiation of the classes. Imperialism is a highly powerful force in the internal relationships of China… The struggle against imperialism, precisely because of its economic and military power, demands a powerful exertion of forces from the very depths of the Chinese people. To really arouse the workers and peasants against imperialism is possible only by connecting their basic and most profound life interests with the cause of the country’s liberation…. But everything that brings the oppressed and exploited masses of the toilers to their feet inevitably pushes the national bourgeoisie into an open bloc with the imperialists. The class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the masses of workers and peasants is not weakened, but, on the contrary, is sharpened by imperialist oppression, to the point of bloody civil war at every serious conflict. (1)

Stalin, however, continued to promote the fatal illusion that Chiang Kai-shek represented a revolutionary wing of the Chinese bourgeoisie. In doing so, he became the gravedigger of the revolution, facilitating the massacre of the Shanghai working class in April 1927 by Chiang Kai-shek and his armies and the subsequent slaughter of workers and peasants by the so-called left Kuomintang in May 1927. Stalin then did an abrupt about face and, amid the waning revolutionary tide, flung the battered Chinese Communist Party into a series of disastrous adventures.

One of Chiang’s thugs executing a communist worker

The consequences of these defeats were to lead to the deformation of the Third Chinese Revolution two decades later, in 1949. Those leaders and members of the Chinese Communist Party committed to the principles of socialist internationalism, such as the party’s chairman Chen Duxiu and Central Committee member Peng Shuzhi, who had opposed Stalin’s policies and were convinced by Trotsky’s critique, were expelled from the party. Those who remained, such as Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai and others, whatever their tactical disagreements with Stalin, followed the Menshevik line dictated from Moscow.

Chen Duxiu

Despite the disasters of 1927, Stalin and the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party insisted that no mistakes had been made and continued to adhere to the policies of nationalism and class collaboration—Socialism in One Country, the two-stage theory and the bloc of four classes. Moreover, after the crushing blows delivered by the KMT, the Communist Party retreated to the countryside, thus shifting its class axis from the working class to the peasantry. This was to undermine, weaken and endanger the post-World War II revolutionary movement.

7. Following the end of World War II and the defeat of Germany and Japan in 1945, US imperialism, now the dominant global power, relied on the betrayals of Stalinism to contain and suppress the post-war upheavals of the working class and colonial masses around the world. Having subordinated the working class to the so-called democratic allies—above all the US—during the war, Stalin continued the same policy after the war. In countries like France and Italy, the communist parties formed coalition governments with the discredited capitalist parties, disarmed the working class, and suppressed major strike movements of workers. Having stabilized capitalist rule in Europe, the US went on the counter-offensive against the Soviet Union in 1947-48, which marked the onset of the Cold War.

Chiang and Mao alongside a representative of the US government

8. Mao and the Chinese Communist Party followed the policy dictated by Stalin. In 1937, the CCP had entered an alliance with the Kuomintang to fight the Japanese invasion. This was a repeat of the politically bankrupt policy that had led to the disasters just a decade earlier. Mao politically subordinated the party to Chiang Kai-Shek, the ‘butcher of Shanghai,’ dropped its land reform so as not to upset the landowners represented by the KMT, and put its armies under the KMT’s command. Following the defeat of Japan, under pressure from Moscow and Washington, the CCP sought to form a coalition government with Chiang Kai-shek. Mao Zedong even flew to Chongqing in 1945 to meet personally with Chiang and hold seven weeks of discussions that resulted in a joint communique.

9. While Mao later dismissed the agreement as “a mere scrap of paper,” he did everything possible to conciliate with the Chinese bourgeoisie. His program of “New Democracy” was a version of the two-stage theory, which he used to justify alliances with the capitalists. To facilitate these, the Communist Party limited its land reform to areas under its control and opposed any mobilization of the working class. In doing so, it acted as a dangerous brake on the revolutionary movement of the masses that followed the end of the war in China.

10. The Chinese Revolution involved far more than just the victory of Mao’s armies over Chiang Kai-shek. After the end of World War II, the whole of Chinese society was in revolt, including in the cities. In a striking confirmation of Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution, the KMT, which took over from the defeated Japanese troops, proved utterly incapable of carrying out elementary democratic reforms or ending the social disaster facing the population. The regime presided over the looting of businesses and public property, triggered hyper-inflation, imposed military conscription and responded to strikes and protests with savage repression.

In his report to the Fourth International in 1951, Chinese Trotskyist Peng Shuzhi explained:

The first period immediately after the war from September 1945 to the end of 1946, marked a considerable revival and growth of the mass movement in China. In this period the working masses in all the great cities, with Shanghai in the forefront, first brought forward their demands for a sliding scale increase in wages, for the right to organize trade unions, against freezing wages, etc. They universally and continuously engaged in strikes… Undoubtedly this was an expression of a new awakening of the Chinese workers’ movement…(2)

Peng Shuzhi

In Shanghai alone, China’s main industrial centre, there were 1,716 strikes and labour disputes in 1946 as compared to only 278 in 1936, just prior to the Japanese invasion. The following year, that figure was 50 percent higher again. At the same time, student strikes and protests were taking place in major cities against the Kuomintang dictatorship, and demanding democracy and peace. There was rising unrest among the peasants directed against the KMT.

Yet the Communist Party made no attempt to mobilise the working class and continued to seek a coalition with the corrupt and despised KMT. Chiang Kai-shek exploited the hiatus to transport his army, with US assistance, to the cities, consolidate his position and start offensive military operations against the CCP. But Mao continued to remain on the defensive. He issued no call for Chiang’s overthrow, even after KMT troops occupied the Communist stronghold of Yenan in April 1947 and issued a warrant for Mao’s arrest in June 1947. It was only on October 10, 1947, two years after the end of the war, that the Communist Party finally issued a manifesto to oust the KMT and to build a “New China.”

The CCP’s victorious peasant army in 1949

11. The fact that Mao’s armies seized most of China within just two years testifies to the inner rot of the Chiang Kai-shek regime, which literally fell apart, despite the modern arms and assistance that it received from the United States. With the assistance of Japanese arms provided to its forces in Manchuria by the Soviet Union, the People’s Liberation Army swept south. In many cases, the KMT armies surrendered or fled and cities were taken without any fighting. As the regime disintegrated, the US deserted the KMT because the only alternative was a full-scale American military intervention that risked a far wider war.

The speed of its collapse demonstrated that the KMT could have been toppled far earlier if Mao had not held back the revolutionary movement, particularly of the working class in the cities. Summing up these processes, the American Trotskyists of the Socialist Workers Party wrote in a 1955 resolution on the Chinese Revolution:

The Stalinist deformation of the revolution rendered its development more costly, convulsive and protracted. The armies and regime of Chiang could have been knocked down like rotten pieces of wood had the CCP, at any time, summoned the masses in the cities to rise. The Chinese Stalinists were able to ride to power because the Chinese working class had been demoralised by the continuous defeats it suffered during and after the Second Chinese Revolution, and the deliberate policy of the CCP, which subordinated the cities, above all, the proletariat, to the military struggle in the countryside, and thereby blocked the emergence of the workers as an independent political force. (3)

12. Mao’s New Democracy program not only retarded and endangered the revolution but deformed the new regime. In line with the two-stage theory, the Communist Party sought alliances with bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties, and, with the exception of property left behind by the fleeing KMT forces, did not take over private enterprises, even foreign-owned ones. Eleven of the original 24 government ministries and three of the six vice-chairmen were headed by the CCP’s bourgeois allies. In an effort to reach out to imperialism, Mao made no move to take over the colonial enclaves of Hong Kong and Macau.

Mao had to rein in his own members who were being pressured by workers to improve their conditions. An editorial in Xinhua in February 1948, announced an “anti-leftist” campaign that required workers, but not the private owners, to subordinate themselves to the war effort. It complained that party cadres, including in high-level positions, did not understand the Party’s industrial policy and “only know about the one-sided, narrow, near-sighted so-called ‘benefits for the workers,’ and cannot see anything beyond that.” The Communist Party recruited workers as members, and established trade unions, not to give the working class a political voice, but as a means of policing and suppressing it. When strikes and protests broke out, it resorted to violent repression.

13. The Russian Revolution of 1917 remains to date the only genuine socialist revolution in which the working class, guided by Lenin and Trotsky and the Bolshevik Party, seized power and established a workers’ state based on Soviets, that is, the democratically-elected organs of the working class. In China, there were no such workers’ organisations, because the CCP had instructed workers to passively await their “liberation” by its armies.

In opposition to everything written on the necessity of abolishing the capitalist state by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, the Communist Party based itself on the existing state apparatus. As it took over the cities, the Stalinists kept the civilian bureaucracy in place and incorporated the defeated Kuomintang armies, including officers, into its own military.

14. Mao’s projection was that the revolution’s so-called “democratic” stage, in alliance with sections of the bourgeoisie, would last many years. But, in less than a year it faced the threat of military attack by US imperialism, which launched the Korean War in 1950. As the war proceeded and China was compelled to intervene, it faced internal sabotage from layers of the capitalist class that regarded the US-led armies in Korea as their potential liberators. Confronting a possible US invasion, the Maoist regime was compelled to rapidly make inroads into private enterprise and to institute bureaucratic Soviet-style economic planning. Mao’s government took over foreign enterprises such as the American-owned Asia Oil Company in China and nationalized major sections of the economy.

Chinese troops crossing frozen Yalu River into Korea

In 1953, it implemented the first five-year plan, closely modeled on Soviet bureaucratic planning and with the assistance of Soviet aid and advisers. The Chinese economy was closely tied to that of the Soviet bloc. Nonetheless, neither Stalin nor Mao ever proposed the unification of their two states into a common Soviet Union of Socialist Republics. Neither proceeded on the basis of the internationalist interests of the proletariat, but rather on the narrow national interests of the privileged bureaucracies that they represented.

In its 1955 resolution, the Socialist Workers Party characterized China as a deformed workers’ state. The nationalization of industry and the banks, along with bureaucratic economic planning, had laid the foundations for a workers’ state, but it was deformed from birth by Stalin-ism. The Fourth International unconditionally defended the nationalized property relations established in China. At the same time, however, it recognized the bureaucratically deformed origins of the Maoist regime as its dominant feature, making its overthrow through political revolution the only way forward for the construction of socialism in China as an integral part of the struggle for socialism internationally.

15. It is not possible in the space of a relatively brief lecture to review in detail the evolution of the Chinese regime from a deformed workers’ state to the second largest capitalist economy in the world, but a few points need to be made.

Leon Trotsky warned in the 1930s that without a political revolution of the working class, capitalist restoration was inevitable in the Soviet Union. That prognosis applied just as accurately to China, as well as to the Stalinist states in Eastern Europe. While the economic steps taken by Mao initially led to a revival of the war-ravaged economy, its autarkic perspective of “socialism in one country” inevitably led to worsening economic and social turmoil, and crises for which Beijing had no solution. The result was bitter internal factional warfare and abrupt twists and turns.

Mao’s Utopian scheme for a self-sufficient socialist society underpinned his “Great Leap Forward” in 1958, which ended in economic catastrophe and mass starvation. His factional opponents, led by Liu Shaoqi, followed the Soviet model of bureaucratic planning, but this provided no alternative. The economic crisis was greatly worsened by the 1961–63 split with the Soviet Union and the withdrawal of Soviet aid and advisers, leaving China completely isolated.

16. Various neo-Maoist tendencies in China today falsely seek to portray Mao as a genuine socialist and Marxist revolutionary, whose ideas were betrayed by others. Their claims rely heavily on Mao’s so-called Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, which was neither great, proletarian nor revolutionary. In reality, Mao’s Cultural Revolution was a last desperate bid to oust his rivals, whom he branded as “capitalist roaders.” Mao sought to mobilize support outside the party among student youth, and then among the lumpen proletariat and poor peasants organised in the so-called Red Guards. The reactionary character of this movement was expressed in its encouragement of peasant individualism, the denunciation of all culture and science as “bourgeois” and its elevation of the political doggerel in Mao’s Little Red Book to the status of official state religion.

This initiative rapidly spun out of control, leading to confused and convulsive social struggles that threatened the very existence of the regime. When workers in Shanghai took Mao’s edict “Bombard the Headquarters” literally and engaged in mass strikes, forming the independent Shanghai People’s Commune in 1967, Mao brought in the military to bring the turmoil under control. The hostility of the regime to the working class was expressed in its warning to Shanghai workers: “As workers, their main job is to work. Joining the Revolution is only secondary. They must therefore go back to work.”


President Richard Nixon sits between Chinese Premier Chou En-Lai and Chiang Ching, wife of Chairman Mao Tse-tung, at a cultural show in the Great Hall of the People in Peking, Feb. 22, 1972 as an interlude in the talks between the two countries leaders. (AP Photo)

In reality, it was Mao, himself, who opened the road to capitalist restoration. Facing mounting economic and social problems and the threat of war with the Soviet Union, Beijing forged an alliance with US imperialism that laid the basis for China’s integration into global capitalism. While Deng Xiaoping is credited with initiating market reforms, Mao’s rapprochement with US President Richard Nixon in 1972 was the essential pre-condition for foreign investment and increased trade with the West. In foreign policy, the Maoist regime lined up with some of the most reactionary US-based dictatorships, including those of General Augusto Pinochet in Chile and the Shah in Iran.

At home, Mao rehabilitated Deng Xiaoping, who had been ostracized during the Cultural Revolution as the “No 2 capitalist roader.” After Mao’s death, Deng emerged as the dominant figure in the Stalinist bureaucracy and in 1978 initiated his sweeping “reform and opening” agenda of special economic zones for foreign investors, private enterprise instead of communes in the countryside, and the replacement of economic planning with the market. The result was a vast expansion of private enterprise, especially in the countryside, the rapid rise of social inequality, looting and corruption by party bureaucrats, growing joblessness and soaring inflation.

It was this social powder keg that exploded in 1989, triggered by student protests in Tiananmen Square over democratic rights. This was not simply a movement of students in Beijing, but developed into a revolt by the working class throughout the country, against the impact of Deng’s pro-market policies. Its violent suppression paved the way for wholesale capitalist restoration—similar to the processes that were underway in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

Mass protest in Tienanmen Square in May 1989 (AP Photo – Sadayuki Mikami)

The International Committee of the Fourth International was alone in explaining that the collapse or transformation of these regimes was not due to the failure of socialism, but was the product of Stalin-ism and its bankrupt nationalist perspective of Socialism in One Country. Moreover, we demonstrated that the globalization of production, which had greatly accelerated these processes, was also undermining all parties and institutions based on national economic regulation, including the Labor Party and trade unions here in Australia.

17. I will conclude with several points about China today.

Firstly, the emergence of China as the industrial giant that it is today—the world’s second largest economy—does not represent a new flourishing of capitalism. Nor is it the product of any inherent strength of the Chinese economy. Rather, the staggering rates of growth in China are the result of the plundering of its vast reserves of cheap labour by global capital, as it sought to overcome falling rates of profit. The foreign investment that flooded into China after the Tienanmen Square massacre was facilitated by what remained of the achievements of the 1949 Revolution—the establishment of infrastructure, basic industry and particularly, an educated workforce. The brutal suppression of the protests offered a guarantee to foreign investors that the regime would not hesitate to use police state repression against future working-class unrest.

The economic rise of China, however, has brought it face to face with the global order dominated by US imperialism. The US and other imperialist powers are eager to benefit from the super-profits generated by cheap Chinese labor, as long as China’s economic expansion does not challenge their domination. Nevertheless, China’s need for huge supplies of energy, raw materials and markets, as well as its moves into hi-tech areas, is cutting across the economic and geo-political interests of US imperialism.

In a bid to maintain its weakening global dominance, the US, first under Obama’s “pivot to Asia” and now under Trump, has aggressively sought to undermine and confront China across the board—diplomatically, economically and also militarily. Washington has recklessly inflamed flash points, such as the South China Sea, built up its military forces across the Asia Pacific and strengthened alliances, including with Australia, in preparation for war.

This aggressive build-up has been accompanied by an escalating propaganda campaign, including in Australia, denouncing Chinese “expansionism” and Chinese political interference, in order to condition public opinion, and as a pretext for anti-democratic measures such as the “foreign interference” legislation passed here last year. An atmosphere of anti-Chinese xenophobia is being whipped up that casts suspicion over Chinese students and the Chinese community as a whole. Taken together, this is the ideological preparation for war.

Pseudo-left organisations such as Socialist Alternative have become mouthpieces for this campaign, by branding China as an imperialist power—a characterization that ignores the historical origins of the People’s Republic of China and is used to justify their tacit backing for US imperialism. While the Chinese ruling elites have ambitions for China to become a major world power, it is not part of the global imperialist order established over the past century, and dominated today by the United States.

The IYSSE and the Socialist Equality Party oppose the US-led war-drive. But we extend no political support whatsoever to the Stalinist regime in Beijing, which has no progressive answer to Washington’s provocations and military build-up. The Communist Party is organically incapable of making any appeal to the only social force capable of preventing war—the working class in China and around the world. The Stalinist bureaucracy is far more terrified of a mass movement of workers than it is of the threat of imperialism. And that is why it spends more on its internal police state apparatus than on the military. It seeks to create a social base for itself, particularly among middle class layers, by whipping up Chinese nationalism, whose only purpose is to divide both the Chinese and the international working class.

China’s rapid economic growth has lifted the living standards of significant sections of the population. According to the World Bank, the percentage of the population living under the current austere poverty line of $US1.90 a day has fallen from 88 percent in 1981 to 0.7 percent in 2015. However, social inequality has reached staggering levels. From one of the most socially equal countries in the world, it has become one of the most unequal. The Communist Party does not represent the interests of workers or the peasant masses, but the cliques of ultra-rich oligarchs who built their fortunes through the looting of state-owned property and the gross exploitation of the working class. The combined net worth of the five richest individuals in China topped $38 billion this year while workers struggle to survive on a minimum wage of $370 a month.

Amid a resurgence of the class struggle internationally, as witnessed by the current 48,000 strong autoworkers strike in the US and the many thousands engaged in the Yellow Vest movement in France, there is every reason to expect explosive struggles of the Chinese working class, which has expanded massively to an estimated 400 million workers. Official statistics are no longer released of so-called mass incidents, but there are indications of rising levels of strikes, many over the non-payment of wages and benefits, such as the 2014 strike of footwear workers.

Protesters in Hong Kong, Credit: Denise Ho (Twitter)

The protracted mass protests in Hong Kong involving millions over basic democratic rights are a symptom of far deeper social tensions, not only in that territory but throughout China. However, the confused and heterogeneous character of the Hong Kong protests underscores the fundamental problem confronting the working class—the lack of revolutionary leadership. That is what has to be built throughout China. In the absence of a revolutionary party, the upheaval in Hong Kong can take very right-wing directions, such as the appeals being made to US and British imperialism. Only in a turn to the Chinese and international working class on the basis of a socialist perspective can democratic rights be achieved.

Our political perspective is based on the principles of revolutionary socialist internationalism that animated the Russian Revolution in 1917, and the formation of Communist Parties around the world, including in China, and which were betrayed by Stalin-ism. The historic lessons of the protracted struggles waged by the Trotsky-ist movement must form the basis for the expansion of the sections of the International Committee of the Fourth International and the establishment of new sections, including, especially, in China.

The conclusion from this lecture is that everyone here must seriously consider playing your part in this historic task. If you are not currently reading the World Socialist Web Site, I encourage you to begin. And if you are not a member of the IYSSE or Socialist Equality Party I urge you to apply to join and help build the necessary revolutionary socialist leadership for the struggles that lie ahead.

1. “The Chinese Revolution and the Theses of Comrade Stalin” by Leon Trotsky published in Problems of the Chinese Revolution, New Park Publications 1969, p. 5

2. “The Causes of the Victory of the Chinese Communist Party over Chiang Kai-Shek, and the CCP’s Perspectives” by Peng Shuzhi, posted on the WSWS on October 3, 2019

3. “The Third Chinese Revolution and its Aftermath,” resolution adopted by the American Socialist Workers Party in 1955, posted on the WSWS on October 9, 2019



Revolutionary & Progressive Books 60s 70s Memorabilia – –


“Strike” From Chile to Lebanon: Working class offensive sweeps the globe! by WSWS.Org

26 Oct

Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)


The past week has seen a new stage in the eruption of the global class struggle, with mass protests bringing two seemingly disparate countries to a halt over what are undeniably similar grievances that are rooted in the historic and systemic crisis of the global capitalist system.

In Chile, the announcement by the right-wing government of President Sebastián Piñera of a 4 percent rise in mass transit fares ignited an uncontrollable wave of mass protests that have created a crisis of capitalist rule. The government’s response, reflecting the fears of the Chilean bourgeoisie, has been to impose a state of emergency and curfew, deploying 20,000 troops in the streets of Santiago and thousands more across the country. According to official figures, 18 people have been killed since the protests began, hundreds wounded and at least 5,000 arrested. The criminal methods of the US-backed Pinochet dictatorship have been resurrected, with reports of disappearances, torture of prisoners and sexual assaults against women detained in the protests.

This naked repression has only succeeded in swelling the protests. According to figures from the Chilean Interior Ministry, 424,000 people participated in 68 separate marches and demonstrations across the country Wednesday. Undoubtedly, the real figure is far higher. A general strike continued into its second day on Thursday, with hundreds of thousands more taking to the streets.



Meanwhile, Lebanon has also been rocked by mass protests over the past week, bringing an estimated one quarter of the country’s 6 million people into the streets. The immediate trigger was the government’s attempt to impose yet another gouging austerity measure aimed at making the country’s working class pay for its deep economic crisis—a $6-a-month tax on WhatsApp messages. As in Chile, attempts to use the army to break up protests have only inflamed popular anger.

Both Piñera in Chile and his Lebanese counterparts, Prime Minister Saad Hariri and President Michel Aoun, attempted to allay the popular upheavals with statements of contrition and offers of minimal economic relief measures. In both countries, the masses in the streets dismissed these cynical gestures as too little, too late, and are demanding the downfall of the regimes.

In both countries, the driving force behind the mass protests is the ceaseless and malignant growth of social inequality. The richest 1 percent monopolize 58 percent of the wealth, while the poorest 50 percent own less than 1 percent, in Lebanon, long-considered the region’s “free enterprise” haven for capitalist investment. In Chile, recently touted by Piñera as a regional “oasis” for finance capital, the richest 1 percent gobble up 33 percent of national income, according to World Bank data from 2017.

The New York Times, a principal voice of the US ruling elite, has taken note of the eruption of mass protests in Chile, Lebanon and other countries, commenting in a front-page article that “experts discern a pattern: a louder-than-usual howl against elites in countries where democracy is a source of disappointment, corruption is seen as brazen, and a tiny political class lives large while the younger generation struggles to get by.”



Strangely missing from this review of what the article’s headline describes as “popular fury across the globe” is what is happening in the United States itself. It quotes one of the “experts”, Vali Nasr, who recently left his post as dean of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, as commenting: “In countries where elections are decisive, like the United States and Britain, skepticism about the old political order has produced populist, nationalist and anti-immigrant results at the polls. In other countries, where people don’t have a voice, you have massive protests erupting.”

Are the Times editors genuinely oblivious to what is happening in the US, or are they just whistling past the graveyard? They publish this as 48,000 autoworkers have been on strike against General Motors for 40 days and 32,000 teachers and school workers in Chicago are entering the second week of a walkout that has shut down the country’s third-largest school district. The number of workers in the US on strike last year—over half a million—was the highest in more than three decades.

All the conditions that the Times describes in other countries—profound social inequality, corruption and a political system that is utterly indifferent to the interests of masses of working people—find stark expression in the US, the center of world capitalism, where the top 1 percent hoards roughly 40 percent of total wealth, and a social explosion is also on the agenda.

Thursday’s Times also carried an editorial titled “Chile Learns the Price of Economic Inequality”. Noting that Chile’s “protesters’ rage is born of the frustrations of everyday life,” it goes on to state: “Chileans live in a society of extraordinary economic disparities … Santiago’s prosperity is undeniable. Viewed from the top of the tallest building in South America, which stands in the middle of a financial district called ‘Sanhattan,’ neighborhoods with luxury apartments, private hospitals and private schools stretch as far as the eye can see.



“But Santiago’s poverty also is striking: crumbling public hospitals, overcrowded schools, shantytowns that sit on the outskirts of the metropolis.

“And farther from Santiago are cities untouched by the recent boom.”

Substitute United States for Chile, and Manhattan for “Sanhattan” and little of this depiction of a country dominated by social inequality would need to be changed.

The Gini coefficient, the most commonly used statistical measure of income inequality, places the United States, at 41.5 barely less unequal than Chile, at 47.7.

The Times editorial attributes Chile’s crisis to the government’s “unsustainably narrow conception of its obligations to its citizens,” which it in turn blames upon the Pinochet dictatorship, which ruled the country from 1973 to 1990, for dictating policies based upon “free-market competition”. What it neglects to mention is that these policies were drafted by the so-called “Chicago Boys”, bourgeois economists trained by the University of Chicago’s “free market” godfather, Milton Friedman.

The same essential policies have been introduced by successive US governments—Democratic and Republican alike—depriving millions of essential social services ranging from health care to food stamps and retirement income, while leaving 40 million people living below the absurdly low official poverty rate of $25,000 for a family of four.

A striking feature of the protests in both Chile and Lebanon are the statements by demonstrators in both countries that the latest austerity measures are merely the straw that broke the camel’s back, and that they are fighting against an unequal social order that has been built up over the past 30 years. In Chile, these three decades began with the end of the military dictatorship, and in Lebanon, with the end of the civil war.



This also is an expression of a global shift. The social relations created over the past 30 years, began with the Stalinist bureaucracy’s restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. They have been based upon the suppression of the class struggle, the uninterrupted growth of social inequality and financial parasitism and the vast transfer of wealth from masses of working people the world over to a tiny wealthy elite. Today, this social order is rapidly unraveling under the weight of a resurgence of struggle by the international working class.

Objective events are exposing the complete political bankruptcy of the pseudo-left organizations and so-called “left” academics who wrote off the working class and the struggle for socialism. Nothing in their perspective, based on nationalism and identity politics, foresaw the emerging global eruption of class struggle.

These events, however, were substantially anticipated by the World Socialist Web Site and the International Committee of the Fourth International in both their theoretical analysis and practice.

In its 1988 perspectives document “The World Capitalist Crisis and the Tasks of the Fourth International,” the ICFI explained why the class struggle would inevitably assume a global character, based upon the “massive development of transnational corporations and the resulting global integration of capitalist production have produced an unprecedented uniformity in the conditions confronting the workers of the world.”

The document stated: “It has long been an elementary proposition of Marxism that the class struggle is national only as to form, but that it is, in essence, an international struggle. However, given the new features of capitalist development, even the form of the class struggle must assume an international character. Even the most elemental struggles of the working class pose the necessity of coordinating its actions on an international scale.”

This now becomes the most urgent and concrete political question. The current mass social protests and strikes are the initial expression of a growing revolutionary struggle of the international working class to put an end to capitalism and reorganize the world economy to meet social needs, not private profit.

Bill Van Auken

Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)



21% Off – Revolutionary & Progressive Books 60s 70s Memorabilia,

Posters –



%d bloggers like this: