In Defence of Marxism

It is nearly seven years since George Bush, the then president of the US, made his famous "New World Order" speech. This was in 1991. In the build-up to the Gulf War the main imperialist power on earth promised a world without wars, without dictatorships and, of course, a world firmly under the control of a single all-powerful world policeman--the US. After the fall of Stalinism, US imperialism really thought that the world would be firmly under their command and they would be able to dictate the destiny of each and every country. All conflicts in the world were to be solved through dialogue in a kind of "Pax Americana." Now all these dreams have been reduced to rubble.

The crushing domination of imperialism in the world arena, which was strengthened after the fall of Stalinism, has meant an increased exploitation of the Third World as a whole. The domination of the metropolitan countries is, if anything, still greater than in the past. The only difference is that the old direct military-bureaucratic control by individual colonial masters has been substituted by the collective domination of the colonial world by a handful of wealthy exploiter states through the mechanism of the world market. Under the banner of "globalisation" and "opening up of the markets" imperialism has forced through a policy of lowering the tariff barriers and privatisation of the utilities throughout the Third World. These policies are a result of the crisis of capitalism in the West which forces it to constantly look for new markets and fields of investment. But they spell bankruptcy for the local industries of the countries affected which cannot compete unaided against the big multinationals. This situation has produced the most ruinous consequences, and has produced results not foreseen by President Bush.

Typically, the strategists of the US were very short-sighted. They failed to understand what Trotsky had explained even before the Second World War. He predicted that the United States would emerge victorious from the forthcoming war, but as a result would have dynamite built into its foundations. Now we see that this prediction is coming true. The collapse of the USSR has transformed the relations between the powers, establishing the USA as the only world superpower. Never in human history has a single country enjoyed such a crushing economic and military domination. Yet in one crisis after another it has become manifest that US imperialism is a colossus with feet of clay. Despite its military victory in the Gulf War, it was unable to remove Saddam Hussein. The attempt at a military intervention against the barefoot militias in Somalia ended in a humiliating defeat. Now the crisis in Asia and especially the events in Indonesia have placed revolution firmly on the agenda. To the South, the USA faces a general crisis in Central and Latin America, with social and political upheavals in Mexico, an implacable guerrilla war in Colombia and an explosive situation in Argentina and Brazil. Wherever it looks, US imperialism can see not one single stable bourgeois regime. The whole world has entered the most convulsive period for a hundred years.

The debt burden

The ruthless over-exploitation of the Third World, intensified after the collapse of Stalinism has meant an enormous transfer of wealth from these countries to the coffers of the big multinational companies and banks. This can be seen in the burden of the debt, which has reached such proportions that even before the G8 meeting in Birmingham (May 1998) there was some talk about debt relief initiatives for some of the poorest countries. In the end nothing was agreed. The World Bank has also started a Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) programme aimed at cutting the debt burden of 41 countries which spend more than 20 per cent of their export earning in debt service payments--never mind about actual repayment of the debt.

All these plans are not born out of the good will and charitable intentions of the World Bank and IMF executives. There are three main reasons for this. First of all it is very unlikely that these countries are ever going to be able to pay their debts at all. Therefore they have decided to recognise reality and make the Western governments pay back what is owed to the lending banks with taxpayers' money. In this way the banks never lose. The main aim of these debt relief initiatives is, on the one hand, to make sure the bankers get their money back and on the other to lift these highly indebted countries to a point were they are able to ask for more loans! Secondly, the amount of the debt that these highly indebted countries owe as a percentage of the total debt of former colonial countries is very small. And thirdly, these plans come with a lot of conditions attached. The countries involved have to put in practice the "recommendations" (that is, orders) of the IMF.

The IMF's infamous Structural Adjustment Plans (SAPs) have now been around for long enough to know what their consequences are. To give just one example, Zambia was a relatively developed country, with schools and hospitals, an education service and a modern infrastructure built mainly on the basis of the income from the copper mines. A decade of "Structural Adjustment" managed to push life expectancy down from 54.4 years in 1991 to 42.6 years in 1997. Literacy rates are declining, and, as a direct result of the increase in hospitals charges, there are now 203 infant deaths per 1,000 births compared to 125 in 1991. Access to clean water is declining and 98.1 per cent of the population live on $2 a day or less. Debt represents 225 per cent of the GDP. It is no surprise therefore that there have been recently food riots in Zambia --and in other African countries, like Zimbabwe and Tanzania.

The debt burden of the world's poorest countries represents 94 per cent of their annual economic input. For the countries in line for the HIPC programme this figure averages 125 per cent. The percentage of the debt in relation to export earnings has reached unheard-of levels: Somalia 3,671 per cent, Guinea-Bissau 3,509 per cent, Sudan 2,131 per cent, Mozambique 1,411 per cent, Ethiopia 1,377 per cent, Rwanda 1,374 per cent, Burundi 1,131 per cent. And the situation, far from improving, is actually worsening. In 1980 the total debt of underdeveloped countries was $600 billion. In 1990 it had gone up to $1.4 trillion and in 1997 the figure was a staggering $2.17 trillion. It is important to note that in the 1990-97 period, when the total debt increased by $770 billion, these countries had actually paid $1.83 trillion just on debt servicing! An even more scandalous picture emerges if we compare debt servicing payments with aid given to these countries: for every $1 they receive in aid, they pay back $11 dollars in debt servicing.

The effects of this situation are evident. The situation in the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa is a nightmare. According to The Economist (6/6/98), "Nearly half the continent's 760m people are 'profoundly poor', surviving, it is said by the ADB African Development Bank], on less than $1 a day. Despite encouraging signs in some parts of the continent, average real GDP growth fell in 1997 to 3.7 per cent from 5 per cent the previous year. Africa's recovery is still fragile and as vulnerable as ever to commodity prices and bad weather. Globalisation of world trade � could push the continent's economy further towards the margins. According to the World Bank, Africa attracted just 1.5 per cent of the world's foreign direct investment in 1996. The biggest recipient, getting 32 per cent of the total, was Nigeria, which, apart from having a lot of oil, is not reforming its economy in the way that the World Bank says is essential for attracting foreign investment."

Increased impoverishment of the population in most of the colonial world has given rise to an increase in criminality, black market and the "informal economy". In some cases the black market represents a bigger share of the economy than the official market and infiltrates all sections of the state apparatus. They try to protect their interests in the political arena through fundamentalist and "populist" forces. These are powerful economic forces which in many cases have interests which enter into conflict with those of imperialism. Thus, at all levels, the decay of capitalism undermines the very basis of civilised human existence for two-thirds of the planet. As Lenin warned, the prolonged existence of capitalism signifies "horror without end."

The role of the working class

Marx, Engels and Lenin always laid stress on the leading role of the proletariat in the revolution. They explained that only the working class can bring about the socialist revolution. No other class can fulfil this role. Why was this? It was not a caprice or an arbitrary assumption. It is based upon the role of the workers in production, and the fact that participation in collective ("social") production means that the working class alone develops a socialist (collectivist) consciousness. This is not the case with any other class. The peasantry is a class of small proprietors. Even the landless peasants, the rural proletarians, frequently aspire to the possession of land; hence the slogan "land to the tiller"--which, despite its tremendous revolutionary significance, has a bourgeois, not a socialist, content. The students and intellectuals have a strong tendency towards petty bourgeois individualism, which frequently manifests itself even when they try to adopt a revolutionary position.

Through his or her life's experience, the proletarian learns to understand collective organisation and discipline. This is the result of the hard school of capitalist production and exploitation, which prepares the worker for the class struggle. The normal weapons of the proletariat are the methods of mass struggle--the strike, the general strike, mass demonstrations, which act as a school that prepare it for the ultimate task of taking the running of society into its hands. The workers' movement everywhere is a school of democracy. Before the workers decide to strike, there is a democratic discussion in which opinions for and against are heard. But once the vote is taken, the workers act as one. Those who attempt to defy the democratic decision of the workers and break the strike are treated as scabs ought to be treated. The picket line is the concrete expression of the will of the majority. In the course of the strike, the workers participate, think and discuss. Every worker knows that you learn more during one day on strike than in years of "normal" activity. In effect, every strike contains elements of a revolution, and a revolution is like a strike on a vast scale. Many of the processes that occur in the class are analogous, although the two are qualitatively different of course. But in both cases the key element is the active and conscious participation of the working class, which begins to take its destiny into its own hands instead of leaving the important decisions in the hands of other people--trade union leaders, parliamentarians, councillors and bureaucrats. This is the essence of socialism, or, more correctly, of workers' power.

Socialism is democratic or it is nothing. From the very first day of the socialist revolution, there must be the most democratic regime, a regime that will mean that, for the first time, all the tasks of running industry, society and the state will be in the hands of the majority of society, the working class. Through their democratically-elected committees (the soviets), directly elected at the workplace and subject to recall at any moment, the workers will be the masters of society not just in name but in fact. This was the position in Russia after the October revolution. Let us recall that Lenin laid down four basic conditions for a workers' state--that is, for the transitional period between capitalism and socialism:

• 1) Free and democratic elections with right of recall of all officials.
• 2) No official must receive a higher wage than a skilled worker.
• 3) No standing army but the armed people.
• 4) Gradually, all the tasks of running the state should be carried out by the masses on a rotating basis. When everybody is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat. Or, as Lenin put it, "Any cook should be able to be prime minister."

Only on such a basis can society begin to move in the direction of socialism--the highest stage of human society which Engels described as humanity's leap from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. Clearly such a development requires a high development of the productive forces. That is why Marx and Engels thought that the socialist revolution would begin in France, be continued in Germany and be finished in England. At that time the working class only existed in these countries. Marx and Engels, and even Lenin until 1917, did not even consider the possibility of the working class coming to power in a backward country first. Socialism demands a certain level of development of industry, agriculture, science, and technique at the outset. Only on this basis could the workers have sufficient free time--on the basis of the reduction of the working day--to participate in the running of society, industry and the state.

However, the situation was radically altered after the death of Marx and Engels by the advent of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism analysed by Lenin in his famous book of that name. Lenin explained that one of the main features of imperialism is the export of capital from the advanced countries to the colonies and semi-colonies. On the basis of the law of combined and uneven development, a powerful working class grew up in backward countries like tsarist Russia, a fact which did not alter its character as a backward, semi-feudal and semi-colonial country. The main point of polemic between the different tendencies of the Russian labour movement before 1917 was precisely the character of the Russian revolution, and the relation between the classes in the revolution. Undoubtedly, the theory that anticipated and explained what actually took place in 1917 was worked out by Trotsky.

The permanent revolution

The theory of the permanent revolution was first developed by Trotsky as early as 1904. The permanent revolution, while accepting that the objective tasks facing the Russian workers were those of the bourgeois democratic revolution, nevertheless explained how in a backward country in the epoch of imperialism, the "national bourgeoisie" was inseparably linked to the remains of feudalism on the one hand and to imperialist capital on the other and was therefore completely unable to carry through any of its historical tasks. The rottenness of the bourgeois liberals, and their counterrevolutionary role in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, was already observed by Marx and Engels. In his article The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-revolution (1848), Marx writes:

"The German bourgeoisie has developed so slothfully, cravenly and slowly that at the moment when it menacingly faced feudalism and absolutism it saw itself menacingly faced by the proletariat and all factions of the burgers whose interests and ideas were akin to those of the proletariat. And it saw inimically arrayed not only a class behind it but all Europe before it. The Prussian bourgeoisie was not, as the French of 1789 had been, the class which represented the whole of modern society vis-a-vis the representatives of the old society, the monarchy and the nobility. It had sunk to the level of a kind of social estate, as distinctly opposed to the crown as to the people, eager to be in the opposition to both, irresolute against each of its opponents , taken severally, because it always saw both of them before or behind it; inclined to betray the people and compromise with the crowned representative of the old society because it itself already belonged to the old society; ". (K. Marx, The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-revolution, in MESW, vol. 1, p. 140-1.)

The bourgeoisie, Marx explains, did not come to power as a result of its own revolutionary exertions, but as a result of the movement of the masses in which it played no role: "The Prussian bourgeoisie was hurled to the height of state power, however not in the manner it had desired, by a peaceful bargain with the crown but by a revolution". (K. Marx, The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-revolution, MESW, vol. 1, p. 138.)

Even in the epoch of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Europe, Marx and Engels mercilessly unmasked the cowardly, counterrevolutionary role of the bourgeoisie, and emphasised the need for the workers to maintain a policy of complete class independence, not only from the bourgeois liberals, but also from the vacillating petty bourgeois democrats:

"The proletarian, or really revolutionary party," wrote Engels, "succeeded only very gradually in withdrawing the mass of the working people from the influence of the democrats whose tail they formed in the beginning of the revolution. But in due time the indecision weakness and cowardice of the democratic leaders did the rest, and it may now be said to be one of the principal results of the last years' convulsions, that wherever the working class is concentrated in anything like considerable masses, they are entirely freed from that democratic influence which led them into an endless series of blunders and misfortunes during 1848 and 1849." (F. Engels, Revolution and Counter-revolution in Germany, MESW, vol. 1, p. 332.)

The situation is clearer still today. The national bourgeoisie in the colonial countries entered into the scene of history too late, when the world had already been divided up between a few imperialist powers. It was not able to play any progressive role and was born completely subordinated to its former colonial masters. The weak and degenerate bourgeoisie in Asia, Latin America and Africa is too dependent on foreign capital and imperialism, to carry society forward. It is tied with a thousand threads, not only to foreign capital, but with the class of landowners, with which it forms a reactionary bloc that represents a bulwark against progress. Whatever differences may exist between these elements are insignificant in comparison with the fear that unites them against the masses. Only the proletariat, allied with the poor peasants and urban poor, can solve the problems of society by taking power into its own hands, expropriating the imperialists and the bourgeoisie, and beginning the task of transforming society on socialist lines.

By setting itself at the head of the nation, leading the oppressed layers of society (urban and rural petty-bourgeoisie), the proletariat could take power and then carry through the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution (mainly the land reform and the unification and liberation of the country from foreign domination). However, once having come to power, the proletariat would not stop there but would start to implement socialist measures of expropriation of the capitalists. And as these tasks cannot be solved in one country alone, especially not in a backward country, this would be the beginning of the world revolution. Thus the revolution is "permanent" in two senses: because it starts with the bourgeois tasks and continues with the socialist ones, and because it starts in one country and continues at an international level.

The theory of the permanent revolution was the most complete answer to the reformist and class collaborationist position of the right wing of the Russian workers' movement, the Mensheviks. The two stage theory was developed by the Mensheviks as their perspective for the Russian revolution. It basically states that, since the tasks of the revolution are those of the national democratic bourgeois revolution, the leadership of the revolution must be taken by the national democratic bourgeoisie. For his part, Lenin agreed with Trotsky that the Russian Liberals could not carry out the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and that this task could only be carried out by the proletariat in alliance with the poor peasantry. Following in the footsteps of Marx, who had described the bourgeois "democratic party" as "far more dangerous to the workers than the previous liberals", Lenin explained that the Russian bourgeoisie, far from being an ally of the workers, would inevitably side with the counter-revolution.

"The bourgeoisie in the mass" he wrote in 1905, "will inevitably turn towards the counter-revolution, and against the people as soon as its narrow, selfish interests are met, as soon as it 'recoils' from consistent democracy (and it is already recoiling from it!). (Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 9, p. 98.)

What class, in Lenin's view, could lead the bourgeois-democratic revolution? "There remains 'the people', that is, the proletariat and the peasantry. The proletariat alone can be relied on to march on to the end, for it goes far beyond the democratic revolution. That is why the proletariat fights in the forefront for a republic and contemptuously rejects stupid and unworthy advice to take into account the possibility of the bourgeoisie recoiling" (Ibid.)

In all of Lenin's speeches and writings, the counter-revolutionary role of the bourgeois-democratic Liberals is stressed time and time again. However, up until 1917, he did not believe that the Russian workers would come to power before the socialist revolution in the West--a perspective that only Trotsky defended before 1917, when it was fully adopted by Lenin in his April theses. The correctness of the permanent revolution was triumphantly demonstrated by the October Revolution itself. The Russian working class--as Trotsky had predicted in 1904--came to power before the workers of Western Europe. They carried out all the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and immediately set about nationalising industry and passing over to the tasks of the socialist revolution. The bourgeoisie played an openly counterrevolutionary role, but was defeated by the workers in alliance with the poor peasants. The Bolsheviks then made a revolutionary appeal to the workers of the world to follow their example. Lenin knew very well that without the victory of the revolution in the advanced capitalist countries, especially Germany, the revolution could not survive isolated, especially in a backward country like Russia. What happened subsequently showed that this was absolutely correct. The setting up of the Third (Communist) International, the world party of socialist revolution, was the concrete manifestation of this perspective.

Had the Communist International remained firm on the positions of Lenin and Trotsky, the victory of the world revolution would have been ensured. Unfortunately, the Comintern's formative years coincided with the Stalinist counter-revolution in Russia, which had a disastrous effect on the Communist Parties of the entire world. The Stalinist bureaucracy, having acquired control in the Soviet Union developed a very conservative outlook. The theory that socialism can be built in one country--an abomination from the standpoint of Marx and Lenin--really reflected the mentality of the bureaucracy which had had enough of the storm and stress of revolution and sought to get on with the task of "building socialism in Russia". That is to say, they wanted to protect and expand their privileges and not "waste" the resources of the country in pursuing world revolution. On the other hand they feared that revolution in other countries could develop on healthy lines and pose a threat to their own domination in Russia, and therefore, at a certain stage, sought actively to prevent revolution elsewhere.

Instead of pursuing a revolutionary policy based on class independence, as Lenin had always advocated, they proposed an alliance of the Communist Parties with the "national progressive bourgeoisie" (and if there was not one easily at hand, they were quite prepared to invent it) to carry through the democratic revolution, and afterwards, later on, in the far distant future, when the country had developed a fully fledged capitalist economy, fight for socialism. This policy represented a complete break with Leninism and a return to the old discredited position of Menshevism--the theory of the "two stages".

Role of the Communist Parties

This theory was to play a criminal role in the development of the revolution in the colonial world. In China the young Communist Party was forced into the ranks of the national bourgeois Kuomintang which then proceeded to liquidate physically the Communist Party, the trade unions and the peasant soviets during the 1925-27 Chinese revolution. The reason why the second Chinese revolution took the form of a peasant war in which the working class remained passive was to a large extent determined by the crushing of the Chinese proletariat as a result of Stalin's policies which Trotsky characterised as "a malicious caricature of Menshevism." Wherever it has been applied in the colonial world, the Stalinist theory of the "two stages" has led to one catastrophe after another.

In Sudan and Iraq in the 1950s and 1960s, the Communist Parties were mass forces able to call demonstrations of a million people in Baghdad and two million in Khartoum. Instead of pursuing a policy of class independence and leading the workers and peasants to the taking of power, they looked for alliances with the "progressive" bourgeoisie and the "progressive" sections of the army. The latter, having taken power on the backs of the Communist Parties, then proceeded to eliminate them by murdering and jailing their members and leaders. In Sudan, the same process happened not once but twice. Yet, even to this day, the leaders of the Sudanese Communist Party have a policy of a "Patriotic Alliance" with the guerrillas in the South (now backed by US imperialism) and the "progressive" bourgeoisie in the North against the fundamentalist regime. These so-called Communist leaders are like the Bourbons of old who "forget nothing and learn nothing." Their policies are a finished recipe for one bloody defeat after another.

The most tragic example of the disastrous consequences of the two stages theory is that of Indonesia. In the 1960s the Indonesian Communist Party was the main mass force in the country. It was the biggest Communist party in the world outside the Soviet Bloc, with 3 million members, as well as 10 million affiliated to its trade union and peasant organisations and even claimed the support of 40 per cent of the army (including sections of the officers). The Russian Bolsheviks did not have as much organised support at the time of the October revolution! The Indonesian CP could have easily taken power and started the socialist transformation of society which would have had a tremendous effect in the whole of the colonial world, setting off a chain of revolutions in Asia. Instead of that, the leaders of the CP (under the control of the Chinese Maoists) had an alliance with Sukarno, a bourgeois nationalist leader who at that time had adopted a "left" phraseology. Those policies left the Communist Party completely unprepared when the bourgeoisie (under direct instructions from the CIA) organised a massacre of Communist Party members and sympathisers in which at least 1.5 million people were slaughtered.

Despite all defeats and setbacks, the workers and peasants will inevitably take the road of struggle time after time. The recent events in Indonesia are a graphic indication of this fact. They are an anticipation of what will happen in one Asian country after another. And this is only the beginning of a revolutionary process that will unfold over a period of years. If a genuinely Leninist party existed, this could end in a proletarian revolution on classical lines. The question of guerrillaism or proletarian bonapartism would not arise. Here, as always, the subjective factor is decisive. Unfortunately the leaderships of the Communist parties in these countries are repeating all the same old mistakes which led to defeat and slaughter in the past. Although Japan is not a colonial country, it is worth noting the spectacular growth of the Japanese Communist Party as a result of the country's economic crisis. The JCP has became the first party in number of local councillors, is the second biggest party in the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly and its daily paper has a circulation of 2.3 million.

The wave of radicalisation that is sweeping through Asia has also affected the Japanese working class. This year's May Day celebrations in Japan were the biggest in years. No fewer than 2 million workers participated in rallies up and down the country. This is a clear example of how consciousness can change at lightning speed when conditions change. But unfortunately the policies of the JCP leadership are completely remote from the real tasks facing the Japanese working class. According to Kimitoshi Morihara, vice-head of the Japanese Communist Party's international department, "we work towards the establishment of a democratic government which seeks to resolve these problems, within the framework of capitalism, by early next century." (interview in Green Left Weekly issue 317). They have perfected the old Stalinist two stage theory by adding an extra stage! This is the "perspective for social progress in Japan: democratic coalition government, democratic revolution and socialist revolution."(?). This is even more puzzling since, as Japan is already the second industrial power on earth, one would imagine it could do without a "democratic revolution". It seems that any excuse will do to put the socialist revolution off the agenda.

For many decades the working class of the colonial and ex-colonial countries has demonstrated its colossal courage and revolutionary potential. Time and time again it has moved to carry out the revolutionary transformation of society. In Iraq, Sudan, Iran, Chile, Argentina, India, Pakistan and Indonesia, the workers have shown that they wished to be the masters of society. If they failed, it is not because they could not have succeeded, but because they lacked the indispensable prerequisite for taking power. In every case, they beat their heads against a brick wall because the parties and leaders that they trusted to lead them to the socialist transformation of society became transformed into gigantic obstacles.

In order to take power, it is not enough that the workers are prepared to fight. If that were the case, the working class could have taken power in all these countries long ago. It would have been easy, because they were in a far stronger position than the Russian workers in 1917. But they did not take power. Why not? Because the working class needs a party and a leadership. To deny this elementary fact of life is mere childish anarchism. Marx explained long ago that, without organisation, the working class is merely raw material for exploitation. Despite its numerical strength and its key role in production, the proletariat cannot transform society unless it becomes a class "in-and-for-itself" with the necessary consciousness, perspectives and understanding. To wait until the class as a whole possesses the necessary understanding of all that is required to take power and transform society is an utopian proposition which is tantamount to postponing the revolution indefinitely. It is necessary to organise the most advanced layers of the class, to educate the cadres, and imbue them with the perspective of revolution, not only on a national but on an international scale, to integrate them in the masses at every level, and to patiently prepare for the moment when the partial struggles of the masses become combined into a general revolutionary offensive.

Without a revolutionary party, the potential power of the proletariat will remain just that --a potential. The relationship between the class and the party is similar to that between steam and a piston box. But even the existence of the party is not enough to ensure success. The party must be led by men and women who are equipped with the necessary understanding of the tasks of the revolution, of tactics, strategy and perspectives, not only the national but also the international perspectives. The objective situation in Indonesia in 1964-65 could not have been more favourable. The masses had defeated Dutch Imperialism. The Communists had the support of the overwhelming majority of the working class and peasantry. But a false policy and perspective were sufficient to bring about the total ruin of the revolution. If the October revolution proves the correctness of the permanent revolution in a positive sense, the Indonesian catastrophe furnishes us with a negative proof in the most terrible way.

The peculiar distorted way in which the colonial revolution has unfolded since 1945 is not only the result of backwardness, or the delay of the socialist revolution in the advanced capitalist countries. It was not something inevitable and determined in advance by the laws of history. It was above all the result of the absence of the subjective factor, of a genuine revolutionary party and leadership which could have imparted an entirely different character and direction to the revolution. Objectively speaking, there was nothing to prevent the revolution in China, for example, from playing the same role as the Russian revolution of 1917, on condition that the Chinese Communist leaders had behaved like Lenin and Trotsky. But the Stalinist leaders feared the independent movement of the working class and did everything in their power to prevent it. The peculiar way in which the Chinese revolution came about in 1949, as a distorted revolution in the image of Stalin's Russia, meant that it had little appeal to the workers of the advanced countries, although it gave an important stimulus to the revolution in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The same was true of the other regimes of proletarian bonapartism that came into existence later. Although they undoubtedly represented a step forward, they were really an aberration and a departure from the norm of proletarian revolution established by Lenin and made reality in October 1917. This fact must be firmly borne in mind if we are to understand the real significance of the colonial revolution after 1945.

The Chinese revolution

From time to time it is necessary to draw a balance sheet of our ideas and theoretical positions. How did they work out in practice over the past fifty years? If there is a major contribution of our tendency to Marxism, this is our analysis of the colonial revolution and the development of proletarian bonapartism, beginning with our analysis of the Chinese revolution after 1945. It was precisely the impasse of capitalism in these countries and the pressing need of the masses for a way forward which gave rise to the phenomena of proletarian bonapartism. This was due to a number of different factors. In the first place, the complete impasse of society in the backward countries and the inability of the colonial bourgeoisie to show a way forward. Secondly, the inability of imperialism to maintain its control by the old means of direct military-bureaucratic rule. Thirdly, the delay of the proletarian revolution in the advanced capitalist countries and the weakness of the subjective factor. And lastly, the existence of a powerful regime of proletarian bonapartism in the Soviet Union.

The victory of the USSR in the Second World War, and the strengthening of Stalinism after the War with its extension to Eastern Europe and the victory of the Chinese revolution were all factors that combined to condition the development of proletarian bonapartism as a peculiar variant of the permanent revolution which was only understood by our tendency. This was an entirely unprecedented and unexpected phenomenon. Nowhere in the classics of Marxism was it even considered as a theoretical possibility that a peasant war could lead to the establishment of even a deformed workers' state. Yet this is precisely what occurred in China, and later in Cuba and Vietnam.

We characterised the Chinese revolution as the second greatest event in world history, after the Russian revolution of 1917. It had an enormous effect in the subsequent development of the colonial revolution. But this revolution did not take place on the classical lines of the Russian revolution in 1917 or the Chinese revolution of 1925-27. The working class played no important role. Mao came to power on the basis of a mighty peasant war, in the traditions of China. The only way Mao was able to win the civil war of 1944-49 was by offering a programme of social liberation to the peasant armies of Chiang Kai-shek, who was armed and backed by American imperialism. But the Stalinist leaders of the peasant Red Army had no perspective of leading the workers to power as did Lenin and Trotsky in 1917. When Mao's peasant armies arrived at the cities, and the workers spontaneously occupied the factories and greeted Mao's armies with red flags, Mao gave the order that these demonstrations should be suppressed and the workers were shot.

Initially, Mao did not intend to expropriate the Chinese capitalists. His perspectives for the Chinese revolution were outlined in a pamphlet called "New democracy" in which he wrote that the socialist revolution was not on the order of the day in China, and that the only development that could take place was a mixed economy, i.e. capitalism. This was the classical "two stage" Menshevik theory which had been adopted by the Stalinist bureaucracy and had led to the defeat of the Chinese revolution in 1925-27. But our tendency understood that under the concrete conditions that had developed that Mao would be forced to expropriate capitalism.

Not only that but we also predicted in advance the fact that Mao would be forced to break with Stalin. Already in early 1949 we wrote: "The fact that Mao has a genuine mass base independent of the Russian Red Army, will in all likelihood provide for the first time an independent base for Chinese Stalinism which will no longer rest directly on Moscow. As with Tito, so with Mao, despite the role of the Red Army in Manchuria, Chinese Stalinism is developing an independent base. Because of the national aspirations of the Chinese masses, the traditional struggle against foreign domination, the economic needs of the country and above all, the powerful base in an independent state apparatus, the danger of a new and really formidable Tito in China is a factor which is causing anxiety in Moscow (�)

"However, the subordination of the Chinese economy to the benefit of the Russian bureaucracy, with the attempts to place puppets in control who will be completely subordinate to Moscow--in other words, the national oppression of the Chinese--will create the basis for a clash with the Kremlin of great magnitude and significance. Mao, with an independent and powerful state apparatus, with the possibility of manoeuvring with the imperialists of the West (who will seek to negotiate with China for trade and try and drive a wedge between Peking and Moscow) and with the support of the Chinese masses as the victorious leader against the Kuomintang, will have powerful points of support against Moscow.

"Stalin's very efforts to try and forestall this development will tend to accelerate and intensify the resentment and the conflict." ("Reply to David James", reprinted in E. Grant, The Unbroken Thread, p. 304.)

These lines were written more than a decade before the outbreak of the Sino-Soviet conflict, when the Chinese and Russian bureaucracies seemed to be inseparable allies.

The victory of Mao's peasant armies in China was due to a number of factors: the complete and utter impasse of Chinese capitalism and landlordism, the inability of imperialism to intervene because of the war-weariness of the imperialist troops after the Second World War, and also because of the colossal power of attraction of the nationalised planned economy in Stalinist Russia which demonstrated its superiority during the war with Hitler's Germany.

The fact that the peasantry was used to carry through a social revolution was a completely new development in the history of China. China was the classical country of peasant wars, which took place at regular intervals. But even when these wars were victorious this merely resulted in the fusion of the leading elements of the peasant armies with the elite in the towns, resulting in the formation of a new dynasty. It was a vicious circle which characterised Chinese history for over 2,000 years. But here we had a fundamental departure. The peasant army under Mao was able to smash capitalism and create a society on the image of Stalin's Moscow. Of course, there could be no question of a healthy workers' state as in Russia in November 1917 being established by such means. For that, the active participation and leadership of the working class would be required. But a peasant army, without the leadership of the working class, is the classical instrument of Bonapartism, not workers' power. The Chinese Revolution of 1949 began where the Russian Revolution had ended. There was no question of soviets or workers' democracy. From the very beginning it was a monstrously deformed workers' state. Our tendency underlined that on the world scale the only class which can bring about the triumph of socialism is the proletariat.

Once Mao had taken power and created a state apparatus on the basis of the hierarchy of the Red Army he did not have any need to ally himself with the bourgeoisie. In a typical bonapartist fashion, Mao balanced between the different classes. He leaned on the peasantry and to a certain extent on the working class to expropriate the capitalists, but once these had been defeated he then proceeded to eliminate any elements of workers democracy that might have existed. This phenomena was possible precisely because of the delay of the world revolution and the impasse of society. He had the powerful example of Stalinism in Russia, where a strong bureaucracy was parasiting the planned economy and benefiting from it, so he decided to follow the same model. Despite its monstrously deformed character, the Chinese Revolution nevertheless represented a gigantic step forward for hundreds of millions of people who had been the beasts of burden of imperialism.

Proletarian bonapartism

In working out the processes that occurred in the colonial revolution in the period after the Second World War, we took as our basic starting point Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution, which, as we have seen, has been brilliantly confirmed by history. But in practice theories do not necessarily work out in a pure, chemically distilled way. There can be all kinds of peculiar variants, distortions and departures from the norm. This can be seen in all sorts of ways.

The classical period of the bourgeois-democratic revolution commenced two or even three hundred years ago with the revolutions in Holland, England and France. Marx took the French revolution of 1789-93 as his model for the bourgeois-democratic revolution in the political sense (while England provided the economic model). But there were always exceptions to the classical norm, for example, Germany, where the basic tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution were carried out in a peculiar way, from the top, by the old feudal Junker state under Bismarck. Of course, there were many contradictions and elements left over from feudalism which were only cleared away by the revolution of November 1918--a defeated proletarian revolution, in which the workers overthrew the old state, and then the Social Democratic leaders handed power over to the bourgeoisie. Similarly in Japan, it was the old feudal state that began the process of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in the 1860s, under the pressure of external forces, and the process was only completed by the American occupying forces after 1945, in an attempt to prevent revolution in Japan.

The phenomenon of proletarian bonapartism bears a similar relation to the theory of permanent revolution as do the processes that took place in Germany and Japan to the classical norm of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that is as aberrations that arose from a specific historical concatenation of circumstances. This phenomenon can only be understood on the basis of the complete impasse of these societies and the delay of the revolution in the West. The masses in the colonial countries could not wait any longer. That is the fundamental explanation. But we must also take into consideration the specific peculiarities of the colonial and ex-colonial countries, which make them different from the advanced countries of capitalism, and therefore permit certain peculiar variants which were not foreseen by the classics of Marxism. We refer here specifically to the state.

Marxism would be a very simple affair if it were merely a question of learning by rote the elementary formulas derived from the classical texts and applying these in a thoughtless and mechanical fashion to each and every situation. The dialectical method demands that we proceed from an objective consideration of the given phenomena, taking each case in its concreteness and regarding it from all points of view. A serious analysis of the colonial and ex-colonial states reveals profound differences with the type of state that exists in the developed capitalist nations and which provided the basic model for the classical works of Engels and Lenin. These had been created and perfected by the bourgeoisie as a tool for its rule. At every level these states were staffed by loyal representatives formed and trained to serve its interests. Above all these advanced industrial countries could develop the productive forces. But the newly-formed states in these countries were completely different from the ones created and developed over generations by the bourgeoisie in the West. In places like Syria or Burma these societies were in an impasse, could not develop the productive forces and were in complete turmoil.

It is an elementary proposition of Marxism that the state is not an independent force, that it must reflect the interests of a group or class within society. In normal times they reflect the position of the ruling class. But in periods of crisis and social instability the state and the army are split and divided in numerous factions. The states which had been created on the basis of the withdrawal of imperialism, although bourgeois in character, were very weak. In these countries--Burma, Syria, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Somalia, Afghanistan and other states which moved to proletarian bonapartism--the state was subjected to continuous coups and crisis. With the complete impasse of the regime and the delay of the revolution in the West, the example of Stalinism, which at this stage was developing the productive forces, became an irresistible force of attraction for certain layers within the apparatus of the state.

The example of China reinforced the attraction of Stalinism as a way forward not only for the masses of poor peasants in former colonial countries, but also for sections of the state apparatus in these countries. A whole series of states which were in a situation of collapse and disintegration, moved in the direction of proletarian bonapartism. Sections of the officer caste rested on the working class and the peasants to carry through a revolution, to overthrow capitalism and landlordism. They saw Stalinism as a regime which was taking society forward but at the same time allowed for a bureaucratic caste to have privileges and run society. This was the process especially in the most backward of the colonial countries like Ethiopia, Angola, Afghanistan, etc., where the proletariat was (and still is) very weak or almost non-existent.

Another important factor in the movement towards proletarian bonapartism in all these countries was the world-wide tendency towards statisation. This phenomenon was already dealt with by Engels, who refers to the "invading socialist economy" and later by Lenin, who described it as state monopoly capitalism. The fact that private ownership of the means of production has reached its limits is expressed by the fact that in all capitalist countries large sections of the economy are in the hands of the state, although, of course, the key elements, the most profitable sectors remain in private hands. The state sector did not play an independent role, but merely served as the handmaiden of the private sector, providing the capitalists with cheap steel, cheap electricity, cheap coal, etc.

The same process affected the third world, not only in the regimes of proletarian bonapartism, but even in the relatively more developed bourgeois states like Argentina, Mexico, India, etc. Many of these bourgeois leaders described themselves as "socialists" (like Nasser in Egypt, Nyerere in Tanzania, Nehru in India and Nkrumah in Ghana) and nationalised large sections of the economy. In cases such as Syria, Ethiopia and others, a section of the officer caste actually carried the process to a conclusion, leaning on the working class to expropriate the bourgeoisie entirely. They established regimes in the image of Moscow and Beijing, in which capitalism was abolished but the workers were subjected to a new tyranny in the form of bureaucratic one-party totalitarian regimes. Of course, such regimes had nothing in common with socialism or even a healthy workers' state. In every case where the historical tasks of one class have been carried through in a distorted way by another class, there is always a price to be paid. We explained that, in order to advance in the direction of socialism, a new revolution would be necessary. Not a social revolution to establish new property relations (since this had already been done), but a political revolution against the ruling bureaucratic caste in order to establish a genuine regime of workers' democracy. Nevertheless, the abolition of landlordism and capitalism in these countries represented a step forward and a blow against imperialism and, as such, was welcomed by the Marxists.

In most if not all of these cases, Moscow and Beijing played no role. More often than not, they were opposed to the overthrow of capitalism, and did what they could to prevent it. The Cuban CP supported Batista against Castro. Later, the Russian and Cuban bureaucracies put pressure on the sandinistas not to carry through the expropriation of capitalism in Nicaragua. Of course, where the process took place anyway, they took advantage of it to improve their own position vis-a-vis US imperialism. This was also the case in Afghanistan, where the Stalinist army officers carried through the revolution from the top, without any reference to Moscow. The Russian bureaucracy had very good relations with the bourgeois regime of Doud in Kabul, and were even prepared to sacrifice the CP to the latter. But once the revolution was a fact, they had to accept it.

The imperialists responded to the revolution in Afghanistan by arming and financing groups of bandits and lumpens which waged war against the new regime. Had the latter pursued the same policies as the Bolsheviks, basing themselves on the masses in the struggle against imperialism and reaction, they might have won, although it must be admitted that in conditions of such terrible backwardness even a healthy workers' state would have faced enormous difficulties. It would have been necessary to proceed gradually and with great caution, especially on the question of religion. But the attempt to foist change on society from the top, in a heavy-handed bureaucratic character, reinforced by the Russian invasion and the monstrous purging and in-fighting that resulted, fatally weakened the revolution in the face of the concerted onslaught of the counterrevolutionary forces backed by America and Pakistan.

A similar process occurred in Africa, where the imperialists utilised the services of South Africa to overthrow the proletarian bonapartist regimes in Angola and Mozambique. As in Afghanistan, they armed and financed an army of mercenary cut-throats and bandits. This was not a political struggle, but merely the mobilisation of the "Dark Forces" to murder, burn, rape and pillage. Imperialism could not tolerate the existence of even deformed workers' states in the heart of Africa because of the example it would represent for South Africa. Rather than see this happen, they preferred to plunge Angola, Mozambique and Afghanistan into the dark ages.

Are new regimes of proletarian bonapartism possible?

Basing ourselves on this analysis, what are the possibilities for the formation of new regimes of proletarian bonapartism? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to proceed from general world perspectives. The world-wide tendency towards the intervention of the state in the economy was reversed after the 1974 slump and turned into its opposite, especially since the process of privatisations started by Thatcher in the 80s. This reflects the impasse of capitalism on a world scale and the bankruptcy of the old model of Keynesianism. The colonial countries have been largely forced through the dictates of the IMF and the World Bank to "open up" their markets and privatise the nationalised industries. This is really a looting of the state. It will have far-reaching consequences in the next period. Far from being an advance as they try to claim, it is an expression of the crisis of capitalism. They have created a whole new language ("downsizing", "liberalisation", "opening up of the markets", "freeing the economy", etc.) to cover up for what is really a massive destruction of productive forces and jobs. This reminds one of the "Newspeak" of George Orwell's 1984, where the Ministry of Plenty presides over shortages, the Ministry of Peace is the Ministry of War, and the Ministry of Love is the secret police.

The advocates of the "free market" conveniently forget that capitalism developed precisely on the basis of high tariff barriers and protectionism. In the early phase of capitalism British capitalism sheltered behind high trade barriers in order to defend its own national nascent industries. Only when its industry became strong did the British bourgeoisie become a fervent advocate of the "principle" of free trade. The same was true of France, Germany, America, Japan and all the others who now preach the virtues of free trade to the nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America. But this process creates new contradictions. Sections of the state apparatus and the national bourgeoisie see how this cuts their own share of the cake and also fear an explosion on the part of the masses. This leads some of them to oppose (at least in words) imperialism, for fear of losing their position--or even their own heads.

This is the case with the Nigerian junta, which is opposing some of the privatisation plans of the IMF. Sections of the ruling PRI in Mexico are starting to make noises against "neo-liberalism" because they see how it erodes their traditional base of bureaucratic control in society. Even Mobutu, Zaire's dictator, opposed privatisation in his last days in power-- a policy obviously not dictated by any desire to alleviate the burden of the population, but in order to defend his own vested interests. Already, as a result of the crisis in South East Asia we see the development of protectionist, anti-Western attitudes in some of these countries. This is the case in South Korea and even on the part of Suharto, who in his last days, like Mobutu, clashed with the IMF. The same is true of the "anti-imperialist" demagogy of Mohathir in Malaysia. This is no accident. Since the collapse in Asia, the imperialists have moved swiftly to buy up property at bargain prices and force the Asian economies to accept an even more humiliating dependence than before. These are just some indications of the fact that the ruthless exploitation of the former colonial countries through the IMF and the World Bank is preparing a massive backlash against the policies of privatisation, "globalisation" and so on. Even in the West we can see the beginnings of mass movements against the cuts in the Welfare state and privatisation. In the next period we will see a massive swing in the opposite direction, especially with the coming world economic slump.

It is necessary to have a dialectical understanding of the process, not merely accept the "accomplished fact" as something fixed for all time. It is precisely the empiricism of the bourgeois and its strategists which blinds them to the real processes and compels them to stagger on along the path leading inexorably to disaster. In pursuit of short-term gains, they are provoking the masses in Asia--and the ex-colonial world in general--to the limits of their endurance. At a certain point, the whole process we have seen in the last decade or so will be thrown into reverse. Therefore we can conclude that in the next period, given the impasse of capitalism in the colonial countries, the backlash against privatisation and the pressing needs of the masses in these countries, we will witness new movements in the direction of proletarian bonapartism. This will be the case especially in the weakest of these countries. The outcome of the process of capitalist restoration in Russia and China will, of course, have an enormous effect on these developments one way or another. But that is a separate question. Sufficient to say that, in the event of a deep slump on a world scale, the plans for capitalist restoration in these countries will inevitably be thrown back into the melting pot. It is entirely possible that the first candidate for a reversion to some form of proletarian bonapartism could be Russia itself. That perspective depends on the entire course of developments in Russia and on a world scale. We must be prepared for all eventualities, while fighting for the cause of workers' power, in order not to be taken by surprise by events.

The Cuban Revolution

The extension of proletarian bonapartism in the colonial world also raised another issue-- that of the role of the peasantry in the revolution. For a whole period it looked as if the classical analysis of Marxism concerning the leading role of the proletariat in the revolution had been falsified by history. Practically every other tendency with the exception of ourselves accepted the new-fangled theories of guerrilla warfare. We were the only ones to explain that no other class other than the proletariat can lead to the establishment of a healthy workers state.

As we have pointed out, no reference or hint at the possibility that the peasantry can bring about a socialist revolution can be found in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. The reason for that is the extreme heterogeneity of the peasantry as a class. It is divided into many layers, from the landless labourers (who are really rural proletarians) to the rich peasants who employ other peasants as wage labourers. They do not have a common interest and therefore cannot play an independent role in society. Historically they have supported different classes or groups in the cities. The only class able to lead a successful socialist revolution is the working class. This is not for sentimental reasons but because the place it occupies in society and the collective character of its role in production.

Marxists have always conceived the peasant war as an auxiliary of the workers in the struggle for power. That position was first developed by Marx during the German revolution of 1848, when he argued that the German revolution could only triumph as a second edition of the Peasants' War. That is to say, the movement of the workers in the towns would have to draw behind it the peasant masses. The Bolsheviks also explained that it was the workers in the cities who had to lead the peasants behind them. It is important to note that during the Russian revolution the industrial working class represented no more than 10 per cent of the population. Yet the proletariat played the leading role in the Russian revolution, drawing behind itself the multi-millioned mass of poor peasants--the natural ally of the proletariat.

This perspective seemed to be falsified after the Second World War when a number of guerrilla wars ended up in victory in Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, Mozambique, etc. The Cuban revolution was yet another peculiar case, though in its essentials it was similar to China. It is not generally realised that Castro started out as a bourgeois-democrat. His model was the American Revolution of 1776! But then Mao also originally had the perspective of a long period of capitalist development in China. In both cases the logic of the situation dictated the outcome which was different to that envisaged by the leadership.

Having smashed the old Batista state (against the advice of the Cuban CP who condemned Castro as a petty bourgeois adventurer), Castro found himself in an entirely unforeseen position. He attempted to introduce reforms and tax the US companies, who replied with a campaign of sabotage, although the taxes they were being asked to pay in Cuba were less than in the USA. Washington began a blockade of Cuba. In reply, Castro seized all the US assets in Cuba. Since nine-tenths of the economy was owned by US imperialism, this meant that practically the whole economy was nationalised, so they decided to finish the job and nationalised the remaining ten percent. With the model of Moscow before them, the Cuban leaders manoeuvred to set up a proletarian bonapartist regime.

The Cuban revolution acted as a beacon to the oppressed workers and peasants of Central and Latin America. In several countries, there were attempts to follow the Cuban road of guerrilla warfare, but, despite its initial attraction, especially to the student youth, it failed everywhere, with catastrophic results. Our tendency explained that many of these victories were achieved not by the guerrilla war itself but by the workers declaring general strikes in the cities as the decisive factor. That was the case in Cuba and also in Nicaragua. We also explained that a guerrilla war, even if victorious, could at most lead to a deformed (proletarian bonapartist) workers' state. The very nature of the organisation of a guerrilla army does not allow a democratic structure and the lack of participation of the workers in the overthrowing of the regime in an organised way meant that the hierarchy of the guerrilla army would form the new state bureaucracy.

Therefore, our tendency, while giving critical support to the different guerrilla movements, as an expression of the struggle of the peoples against oppression, insisted that the main factor was the conscious organisation of the working class to change society. The working class in almost all of the countries where guerrilla wars developed was at least as big as it was during the Russian revolution in 1917, and much bigger as a proportion to the total population. Under the leadership of a genuine Leninist party, the workers could carry out a classical proletarian revolution on the lines of the October revolution, in all but the most backward of countries. Moreover, in many, if not most, of these countries, the majority of the population now lives in urban areas. The working class is numerically far stronger than was the case in Russia in 1917. Only the lack of the subjective factor--a revolutionary party and leadership--has prevented this from coming about.

All the so-called "Trotskyist" groups at the time started to defend guerrilla war in the Third World as the only means for a socialist revolution. They even went so far as to declare guerrilla war as the main tactic even in countries where the peasantry did not represent a sizeable section of the population, developing the crazy idea of "urban guerrillaism" which lead to the destruction of a whole generation of revolutionary youth in countries like Argentina, Uruguay and others.

The organic opportunism of the CP leaders, their embracing of the bourgeoisie under the banner of the "two stages" theory, pushed a large section of the student youth in the direction of adventurism--individual terrorism and guerrillaism--in search of a short cut. This led to a catastrophe in Latin America, where these tactics led to the massacre of an entire generation of young revolutionary cadres and, ultimately, to the nightmare of military dictatorships in Argentina and Uruguay. Criminally, the so-called Trotskyists not only did not combat these tendencies, but actively encouraged them and even participated in them. This fact shows just how far the degeneration of these people had gone. Ideas that had already been discredited in the prehistory of the movement now re-emerged from the dust-bin of history, parading as something new and original. But Russian Marxism was born in struggle against all forms of individual terrorism and "guerrillaism". Such methods must lead to defeat, but even if they succeed, they cannot lead to the establishment of a healthy workers' state, but only a bureaucratic caricature.

Guerrilla war

The failure of the guerrillas in El Salvador and Guatemala showed the limitations of this tactic. Whereas the Cuban revolution took the imperialists by surprise, they were better prepared to deal with the problem elsewhere. Even so, with a correct policy and tactics, the revolution could have succeeded in El Salvador, where conditions existed at the outset for a mass movement in the towns. The petty bourgeois leadership was infatuated with the idea of guerrilla warfare and led the movement to a bloody defeat. In Nicaragua, the sandinistas had been waging guerrilla war for decades with no result. What decided the issue was not the guerrillas but the fact that there was a mass insurrection and a general strike in Managua.

Here again we see the counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism. The sandinistas could easily have gone to the end and carried through the socialist revolution. Of course, in a small country like Nicaragua, they could not have held out for long. But herein lies the central point of the permanent revolution. The Central American revolution is, in reality, a single whole. Having taken power in Nicaragua, the sandinistas should then have appealed to the workers and peasants of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Costa Rica to follow their example. Above all, it was necessary to spread the revolution to Mexico. The Nicaraguan revolution will conquer as part of the revolution in Central and South America or not at all. Probably the sandinista leaders would have been prepared to carry the revolution through to the end by abolishing capitalism in Nicaragua. But they were prevented from doing this by pressure from Moscow and Havana. The Russian and Cuban bureaucracies, motivated by narrow national considerations, did not want to provoke Washington and persuaded the sandinistas to halt the revolution half-way. This was a disaster for the revolution. The US imperialists organised and armed the counterrevolutionary Contras and slowly throttled the Nicaraguan revolution.

The imperialists have learned the lesson of guerrilla wars and seek to destroy them at an early stage. In the last period a number of different guerrilla groups have abandoned their tactics and reached agreements to participate in civilian politics. But this has been more as a result of the demoralisation of their Stalinist-leaning leaders rather than a genuine solution of the problems which gave rise to guerrilla war in the first place. We can see how in countries like El Salvador or Guatemala, the army-organised death squads still operate freely and the problem of the land is far from being resolved. Therefore the possibility of new outbreaks of guerrilla war is still present in the situation. In Nicaragua for example different groups have taken arms again when the promises for land and cheap credits to work in them were not fulfilled by the government.

The fact that the guerrillas have given up in a number of countries does not rule out the possibility of new guerrilla outbreaks. On the contrary. They are inevitable in the next period, and may even end in victory in some cases. The same factors that led to guerrilla wars in the past are still present. The desperate situation of the peasantry in most of the colonial countries, the need to liquidate the remains of the feudal system of land property which still exists in many places--all these factors make new guerrilla wars inevitable. A clear indication of this was given by the emergence of the zapatista army (EZLN) in Chiapas, Mexico in 1994. In the absence of a genuine revolutionary alternative, there is a danger that a layer of the youth will be inclined to resort to the methods of guerrillaism and terrorism. Yet the EZLN is a good example of the need for the peasant movement to link up with the labour movement in the cities. Every time the Mexican army has tried to go in and smash the zapatistas the mass demonstrations in the cities have stopped them. The programme of the EZLN is at best a bourgeois-democratic programme, but even their limited demands cannot be achieved within the limits of capitalism. This is a confirmation of the theory of the permanent revolution. The lack of alternatives on the part of the EZLN leaders has allowed the government to go on the offensive and try to dismantle the different "autonomous municipalities" under zapatista control one by one.

The leaders of the EZLN do not have a programme which could appeal to the workers and their efforts to go beyond their basis of support amongst the peasants have been oriented mainly to the petty-bourgeois intellectuals and middle classes in the cities. We must remember that in Mexico today, 70 per cent of the population live in urban areas. The key to the revolution in Mexico, and in the rest of Latin America lies, not in the peasantry, but in the multi-millioned ranks of the labour movement.

In Colombia, the guerrilla movement is not only still active but controls some 60 per cent of the country's territory and continues to advance. It is not ruled out that they could take power. US imperialism is so worried about this prospect that it is sending military advisers to the country. Let us remember that this is just how the US involvement in Vietnam started in the early 1960s. The analogy has already been made by bourgeois observers. Ever since the Vietnam war, US imperialism has tried to avoid committing ground troops in foreign conflicts, preferring to rely upon air bombardment. But wars cannot be won by bombing alone. It is possible that, if the Colombian guerrillas look like coming to power, the US involvement will escalate, as it did in Vietnam. Such a development would have incalculable results in the whole of Central and Latin America, and in the USA itself. That is just what Trotsky meant when he spoke of dynamite being incorporated into the foundations of US imperialism as a result of its role as world policeman in the epoch of imperialist decay.

Interimperialist contradictions

One important effect of the fall of Stalinism has been the intensification of interimperialist contradictions. In the past they were to some extent united against the common enemy of Stalinism, but now that this has disappeared--at least for the time being. The conflicting interests of the different imperialist powers have come to the fore. The division of the whole world into three giant blocs continues apace. The EU, dominated by Germany with France as a junior "partner" is busy carving out spheres of influence in Eastern and Central Europe, and also has a whole series of semi-colonies in North Africa, Africa and the Caribbean. The USA is attempting to increase its stranglehold on Central and South America, and at the same time is asserting its dominant influence on a world scale. This sometimes brings it into conflict with its European and Japanese "allies", as we have seen. For reasons we have already explained in other documents, under modern conditions, a world war between the major powers is ruled out. But "small" wars in the Third World involving surrogate armies from client states will take place continuously.

The bourgeois press invariably tries to present wars and conflicts in these countries as "racial" or "ethnically motivated". As a matter of fact, poverty, caused by the ruthless over-exploitation of these countries by imperialism, is one of the main factors sparking these conflicts and wars. Another one is the divide and rule policy of the old imperialist masters and the artificially drawn border of these countries. Eight of the 10 most indebted countries have suffered civil war or violent conflict since 1990. Of the 25 most indebted countries, 15 suffer from such conflicts. In some countries, notably, but not exclusively, in sub-Saharan Africa, we are witnessing the destruction of the very structures of society and the state and the reappearance of elements of barbarism. Countries devastated by decades of imperialist pillage and looting in which armed gangs of people rule in a permanent state of in-fighting and the bourgeois state has collapsed. These is the case mainly in those countries where the working class has always been extremely weak. As examples of this phenomena it is sufficient to recall Somalia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan.

The imperialists are fighting bitterly for every market and every strategic position in the world arena. This gives rise to enormous instability and produces a situation far more similar to that of the turn of the century than the long period of relative stability in international relations in the half century that followed the Second World War. This can be seen clearly in Africa where we are witnessing the struggle between a decaying imperialist power (France) and a rising power with few previous interests in the continent (the USA). This inter-imperialist conflict has been an important underlying factor in the wars in the Central Lakes region in Africa, in the former Zaire, in Congo-Brazzaville, in Sudan, etc. Thus, Uganda has become one of the important pawns of Washington in the region helping Washington to win positions in Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire which have, in effect, switched to the US sphere of influence. France was the loser in this conflict.

In Sudan we can see a combined campaign of US-backed countries (Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia) to oust the Islamic government in the North by supporting the guerrillas in the South. France, once again, finds itself on the wrong side of the equation. But the most startling example of the great imperialist powers fighting over natural resources over the dead bodies of thousands of ordinary people was, without doubt, the war in Congo-Brazzaville during the Summer of 1997. This was a war openly fought between French and US oil companies (with the backing of the governments of Paris and Washington and their allies in the area) for the control of the country's oil resources. A few months after, the country was almost completely destroyed, 10,000 people had died, and the French oil company Elf had regained its contracts over the Congo's resources. This same conflict of interests is repeated all over the world. France, Russia and the USA are fighting over the oil in the Middle East (especially in Iraq), and in Central Asia. Afghanistan is still being torn apart by rival factions, each of which is backed by one or another foreign power--Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the USA. The whole of Asia is the arena of a vast struggle for markets by all the main imperialist powers.

Imperialism forced to retreat

For the imperialist powers direct military domination in the colonial world had by 1945 become too expensive. Even before the Second World War, Trotsky explained that the cost of direct imperialist domination of the colonial world was greater than the tribute that they received in exploitation. However, many of the imperialist countries were reluctant to withdraw from these countries and therefore there were mass movements in South East Asia against French and US imperialism; in Africa (Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria) against British imperialism and against French imperialism in Algeria. But even where independence was granted, it did not solve the problems of the masses in these countries. This independence was only formal, as the imperialist domination continued through, more subtle, economic means.

This domination is mainly exercised through the mechanism of the world market and the unequal terms of trade, where commodities which represent more labour are exchanged for commodities which represent less labour. Imperialism forced many of these countries into monocrop economies, whether it consists of agricultural products, like coffee, cocoa, bananas, cotton, etc., or minerals like copper, diamonds, tin, etc. The prices of these products are heavily controlled by a few multinationals and the general tendency has been going down for decades. At the same time, the prices of manufactured products bought in exchange have been rising creating a vicious circle from which it is impossible to escape. It is not a coincidence that the Rwandan crisis was preceded by a steep fall in prices of coffee. This ruined thousands of mainly Hutu peasants who moved to the cities where they became fodder for the gangs who organised the genocide. Prices of raw materials and agricultural products are now lower in real terms than they were 70 years ago during the Great Depression.

The whole history of the world since 1945 only serves to confirm the theory of the permanent revolution, which was already demonstrated by the Russian Revolution itself. Let us not forget that, before 1917, tsarist Russia was an extremely backward, semi-feudal and semi-colonial country (its complete dependence on foreign imperialism was not altered by the fact that it was also itself a weak imperialist power.) As early as 1904, Trotsky explained the basic inability of the bourgeoisie to solve any of the problems facing Russian society. This is true of the national bourgeoisie of all the former colonial countries in the era of imperialist domination. For this reason, in the Second Congress of the Communist International, Lenin insisted in rejecting the phrase "bourgeois-democratic revolution", replacing it with the slogan of the national-democratic revolution. This was to underline the rottenness of the colonial bourgeoisie, its utter inability to play any progressive role in the modern epoch. This is most clearly shown by the case of India.

India

For over half a century, the Indian bourgeoisie has had plenty of time to show what it is capable of. And now it stands condemned before history. Fifty years after independence, despite the colossal productive capacity of India, the Indian bourgeoisie has not been able to solve any of the urgent problems of the country. Although there has been a certain development of industry (India now has more industry than Britain), India is today as dependent on imperialism as it was when it achieved formal independence, and the problems of the land, the national question and even the caste system remain unsolved.

The Indian bourgeoisie was only able to rule after independence because of the policies of the Communist Party which declared a truce during the struggle for independence. The same anti-Leninist policy of the "two stages" was pursued by all the CPs in the colonial world: support the "progressive national bourgeois" against imperialism, relegating the fight for socialism to the dim and distant future. In reality, India achieved formal independence as part of the process of the mass movements of the colonial people's which took place in the period after the Second World War. This was probably the biggest movement of the peoples in the whole of history. The multi-million masses of the colonial countries fought against imperialism and defeated it in most of the cases winning independence.

The Congress Party under Nehru proclaimed itself to be both secular and "socialist". Yet half a century later, we see the victory of Hindu fundamentalism in the form of the reactionary BJP. This is the price that India has paid for the rule of the bourgeoisie. The main responsibility lies with the leaders of the pro-Moscow CPI and pro-Beijing CPI (M) who had an agreement with Congress (the "two stages" again). Yet it was not Congress but the millions of Indian workers and peasants who freed India from British rule. For 300 years the British had ruled India with Indian troops. Once the Indian people stood up and said no, the British realised that the game was up. General Auckinlech telegraphed London to say that he could hold India for no more than four days. Moreover Congress betrayed India by accepting the bloody and reactionary partition in which anything between 10 and 20 million people were slaughtered. This was a crime of British imperialism which, under the pretext of "preventing bloodshed", cynically divided the living body of India, thus sowing the seeds of new wars and conflicts.

The fall of Stalinism meant important changes for the colonial world. In the past the colonial countries had the opportunity of balancing between the USA and the USSR and get some advantages out of it. This is no longer the case. This has decisively affected countries like India, which in the past, relying to a certain extent on their trade and political links with the Moscow bureaucracy, achieved a relative independence from Washington. Now that is no longer the case. Under the pressure of imperialism India is being ruthlessly forced to open up its markets, with catastrophic consequences for local industry. The same picture can be seen all over the ex-colonial world. The dreams of progress through independence have been exposed as a cruel fraud. Under the capitalist system, the winning of formal independence--though in itself a progressive development--can solve none of the most fundamental problems of society in backward countries.

At present, 70 per cent of India's budget goes on debt repayment, and now the BJP government has announced a big increase in arms expenditure. This will impose new and harsh burdens on the shoulders of the workers and peasants, who will soon see the BJP government for what it is. As The Economist sarcastically put it, the BJP's slogan of "self-reliance" really means: "You had better get used to being poor." As a result, already the BJP government is beginning to come apart at the seams. In the first of June budget announced shortly after the nuclear test, the government announced big cuts in fertiliser subsidies and raised fuel prices to market levels. But so weak is the coalition that when opposition parties protested, Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha immediately backed down, reducing the subsidy cut by one half and dropping the fuel price increases, saying that they were "mistakes."

Since then, the stock exchange has fallen by 30 percent, the rupee has fallen 7 percent against the dollar, and, in the first week of June alone, $130 million worth of foreign investments left India. And this is before sanctions have begun to take effect. According to some estimates, sanctions could cut India's growth to 4 percent, far too weak to create the jobs needed to combat unemployment. And inflation, which was only 4.5 percent, could rise to 10 percent. Thus, the BJP will preside over a rise in unemployment and prices and a further fall in living standards. Once the fog of chauvinism whipped up over the nuclear test has blown away--and this has already begun to happen--the stage will be set for big movements. If the CPI and CPI (M) had a genuine communist programme, the future of the Indian revolution would be assured. Unfortunately, both parties are pursuing a reformist line, based on pacts and alliances with different sections of the national bourgeoisie. On this road lies only the perspective of defeat and reaction. In the course of struggle, the Indian workers, beginning with the most conscious sections of the CPI and CPI (M), will have to find the road to a real Leninist policy which can alone guarantee success.

Pakistan

For 26 out of the last 51 years, Pakistan has been under army rule. It has staggered from unstable democratic regimes to dictatorship and back again, without solving any of the problems. On the contrary, the problems have got steadily worse. The majority of the budget goes on defence spending and debt repayment. The IMF is demanding a reduction in military spending--though not debt repayment! The imperialists do not want a coup and they certainly do not want a war between India and Pakistan. But the testing of a nuclear device by India immediately provoked the Pakistan regime to follow suit. This shows the limited ability of imperialism to control the situation. The ruling class in both India and Pakistan are undoubtedly using the nuclear question as a diversion, whipping up chauvinist sentiments in order to try to prevent the development of revolution. But this can only be a temporary phenomenon. Once the effects wear off, the attention of the masses will once more be focused on their most pressing needs, for work, land, bread and shelter.

Pakistan capitalism remains extremely weak and unstable. All the contradictions have been piling up for decades, producing an explosive situation. Under the remorseless pressure of imperialism, Pakistan reduced its tariffs. As a result, 3,462 medium and large companies closed. The country is, effectively, bankrupt. In the last quarter of 1996 alone, $550 million went on servicing the foreign debt. If it were not for the huge black economy (drugs, gun-running etc.) the economy would collapse altogether. But in any case, the present situation cannot be maintained for any length of time. There is constant pressure from the IMF to raise indirect taxes on kerosene, gas, electricity, and so cut the already miserable living standards of the masses. But they are playing with fire. As in India, the Pakistan ruling clique tried to divert the anger of the masses to the external enemy and whip up patriotic sentiment over the issue of the nuclear test explosion. Probably Nawar Sharif had no alternative but to follow the example of India. The military caste would have accepted nothing less. But the consequences for Pakistan will be far more serious than for India. The cutting-off of US aid will have far worse effects on the finances of a state that is already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. New Delhi has $26 billion in foreign-exchange reserves, while Pakistan has only $1.2 billion, barely enough for five weeks of imports. The merciless squeezing of the masses is preparing an explosion in both countries. The 1968 revolution was sparked off by a 10 per cent rise in the price of sugar. The same thing can happen again.

There are many parallels between Pakistan and Russian tsarism. Like Russia, Pakistan is a semi-feudal society upon which capitalism has been grafted in a few areas, mainly Karachi and parts of the Punjab. The national question is also similar, with the dominant Punjabis oppressing the Sindhis, Baluchis, Pushtoons etc. If the working class does not take power, it is quite possible that Pakistan could break up in the future. This possibility was already seen with the bloody breakaway of Bangladesh (the former East Bengal.) Given the mixing up of populations that has occurred (for example, Sindhis are in a minority in Karachi, and Baluchis are in a minority in the cities of Baluchistan), the break-up of Pakistan into its constituent parts would be an absolute nightmare. Only the united revolutionary struggle of the Pakistani working class can prevent this and solve the national question on the basis of a democratic socialist federation, which could be the starting-point for the Socialist Federation of the Indian Sub-continent. Only this can prevent the horrors of wars and communal violence which will inevitably result from the crisis of capitalism.

The PPP government of Benazir Bhutto was corrupt, but the present government of Nawar Sharif is even worse. It is a government of the most rotten sections of the compradore bourgeoisie, linked to the drug barons, which leans on open fundamentalist reaction. The present unstable situation cannot last for long. In the second half of 1997 500.000 jobs were destroyed as a result of the imposition of IMF policies. This has temporarily had a stunning effect on the working class with thousands of factories being closed. The population of Pakistan is growing at a rate of 3.3 per cent per annum. The growth of the economy cannot match this population growth. With the highest birth rate in the world the country has among the lowest literacy rates and one of the worst health care records in the world. The state spends on medicine about five pence per person per year. The infrastructure of the country is collapsing. In the last few years 7,500 kilometres of rail track have been closed. All state assets are being prepared for privatisation. But even if they sold all these assets (about £5 billion worth) it would not even be enough to pay one year's interest on the debt which amounts to £7 billion. It is in the midst of this social and economic crisis that the Pakistani ruling class is going ahead with its nuclear arms programme. It reflects the deep impasse facing the ruling class. In order to divert the attention of the masses away from the real problems they are building up the outside enemy, India. This will not save the Pakistani ruling class from the wrath of the masses once these begin to move.

All the signs indicate that the objective situation is beginning to change. The mood of the masses is turning against the Nawar Sharif government. The PPP called a demonstration in Karachi recently where Benazir Bhutto spoke. She was expecting a turn-out of 5,000, but she found herself addressing a gathering of 500,000. Just the kind of support that she doesn't want. The leadership of the PPP would prefer a situation where strikes are unsuccessful and demonstrations only attract a small number of people, so that they can discourage the masses by saying that the situation is difficult. To have half a million people on a demonstration can only serve as a boost to the workers and students of Pakistan. Apart from that demonstration there are many other indications that a changing mood is taking place even in Karachi.

Democracy or dictatorship?

Another important characteristic of the current situation in the colonial world is the shift of imperialism from supporting military rule to supporting "democratic rule" wherever that has been possible. We saw that in Haiti, in the Philippines and in a number of other countries, where Washington withdrew its support from puppets on whom Washington based itself in the past. The two main reasons for this change are on the one hand the fact that Stalinism is no longer a threat and therefore, under the pressure of the masses, they are able to concede formal democracy, as long as it does not threaten their economic and strategic interests. On the other hand dictatorial rule tends to acquire a dynamic of its own. Dictatorships create a massive and expensive bureaucratic apparatus, and the dictators themselves have a tendency to cronyism and to luxury which eats up part of the cake which the multinational companies are able to extract from these countries. Some of them even dare to challenge their masters and cause trouble for the Americans. This was the case with Noriega in Panama and with Sadam Hussein in Iraq, to name just a couple.

As long as the pressure of the mass movement does not threaten the very existence of the capitalist system, democracy is the most economical means of government from the capitalist point of view. In any case, the most important decisions will still be taken in Washington, Paris and London. The fact that, for the time being, imperialism prefers "democratic" rule does not mean that it is always able to achieve it. We should not forget that two of the countries which were supposed to have smooth transitions to bourgeois democracy as part of the New World Order scheme were Mobutu's Zaire and Nigeria. In both these countries the military rulers had other ideas and cancelled the processes, much to the chagrin of the imperialists.

This is also linked to the reluctance of US imperialism to get involved in direct military intervention abroad. Our tendency has explained that the defeat of the US in the Vietnam war was mainly due to mass opposition at home and the restless mood amongst the troops. One US general actually compared the situation amongst the soldiers in Vietnam to that of the Petrograd garrison in 1917. If the American Socialist Workers Party had had a genuine revolutionary programme, the US would have been on the verge of a revolutionary situation even at that time. That was the first time ever that the US had been defeated in a war. At the time our tendency explained that would prevent them from intervening with ground troops in a foreign country. The only exception that we made was that of the Middle East, where we explained that the key importance of oil for imperialism could force them to intervene in the case of a revolutionary situation in Saudi Arabia.

Since then we have seen the US, the most powerful imperialist power in history, withdraw its troops from Lebanon and Somalia. The only cases of actual intervention with ground troops have been in tiny countries like Grenada, Panama and Haiti where it was a question of a quick operation against small and weak countries with very little risk.

By contrast, the Gulf war against Iraq was mainly based on aerial bombing. Even when they smashed through the Iraqi lines and the road to Baghdad lay open, they failed to march on Baghdad. They feared getting bogged down into a protracted guerrilla war which would face mass opposition at home once the soldiers started to be sent back in body-bags. Thus, we have the contradictory situation of the most powerful imperialist power in history which at the same time is impotent to intervene militarily with ground troops even in a small weak country like Somalia. Nevertheless, this sudden "love affair" of imperialism and democracy will only last for as long as formal democracy is able to guarantee their economic domination. In any case, what sort of "democracy" is this? At most, we can consider it as a semi-democracy, a fraud and a fig-leaf to cover the domination of the banks, monopolies and imperialism. And as soon as the working class and the peasantry present any serious challenge to capitalist rule, they will resort again, without hesitation, to the same old methods of ruthless dictatorships.

In Latin America, most of the dictatorial regimes fell and we now have "normal" bourgeois democracy in almost the whole of the continent. But even here, as the class conflicts became more acute, sections of the state apparatus are already displaying their eagerness to go back to open repression against the labour movement and its organisations. Already in Peru we have a regime of parliamentary bonapartism in which increasingly the Army is being given a bigger role in running the state, the justice system, etc. In many Latin American countries the ruling class resorts to hired assassins to settle matters with trade union activists. In Honduras, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, to name just a few formally democratic countries, trade union and peasant activists have been killed in open daylight. From this to open dictatorships there is still a step, but one which the ruling class in these countries, with the full backing of US imperialism, will not hesitate to take when conditions demand it.

However, they will only resort to this when the movement of the workers fundamentally threatens the rule of capital. At the moment, in Latin America, the pendulum has already started to shift to the left. We have seen massive movements of the working class in the last period. Strikes, general strikes and virtual regional insurrections have taken place in most of these countries. In Ecuador the general strike, which had insurrectional features, overthrew the hated Buccaram government, but because of the lack of a political alternative, this was replaced by a more "normal" bourgeois government. Bolivia is the clearest example of the limitations of militant trade unionism without a political alternative and expression. In Bolivia we have seen the heroism of the workers organising all-out general strikes almost on a yearly basis. But without a revolutionary party, no way out is possible. Under conditions of capitalist crisis, even the stormiest strikes cannot solve the fundamental problems of the working class.

Mexico

On the surface it would seem that the Mexican economy has fully recovered from the currency collapse of 1994/95, and some international analysts are even saying that Mexico is the example the Asian economies should use to get out of their recession as quickly as possible. Reality, however is very different. After a horrific economic contraction in 1995 of 6.2 per cent, the economy grew again in 1996 and even reached an impressive (official) 7 per cent growth in 1997. If these figures are averaged out over this three year period we get a mere 1.8 growth rate a year which is lower than the annual 1.9 per cent increase in population. Real wages for workers, far from growing, have been falling, according to a university study, by 34.5 per cent in the last three years. This decline in wages is part of a more long term trend, for instance, the purchasing power of the legal minimum wage is now only 25 per cent of what it was in 1980.

One of the main reasons for this economic growth is precisely the increased competitiveness of Mexican exports as a result of the devaluation of the peso. This has mainly benefited the "maquiladora" sector, of assembly factories for US companies concentrated in the US-Mexican border with appalling working practices. This sector is facing increased competition from South East Asian exports, now much cheaper after the collapse of their currencies. (Incidentally, the maquiladora workers are starting to organise in a similar process to the one in SE Asian low wage economies). This is putting pressure on the Mexican currency, and another collapse of the peso is not ruled out, especially when one takes into account that bad debts represent 42 per cent of the total. The Mexican government is trying to prevent this with a policy of controlled devaluation.

The fall in the price of oil has also badly hurt the Mexican economy because, although oil exports represent only 9 per cent of GNP, they account for 40 per cent of state revenue. So far this year the government has introduced two packages of budgetary cuts directly as a result of the fall in oil prices. Taking all these factors into account, and in the context of a bleak perspective for the world economy, the official forecast for economic growth in 1998 of 5.2 per cent is quite clearly exaggerated (and in fact the government has already revised this figure down twice).

Given the weak economic situation it comes as no surprise that the process of decomposition of the regime (which started at the end of the 80s and accelerated after the zapatista uprising in 1994) has continued. Increasingly, sections of the PRI bureaucrats are leaving the party, like rats deserting the sinking ship, forming their own parties, or joining the left wing PRD or the right wing PAN. In 1997 even an important section of the official union bureaucracy split off from the official trade union federation (the CTM) and formed their own National Workers Union (UNT), which maintains their old anti-democratic internal practices but nevertheless opposes the government's economic policy, which is undermining their wealth and privileges as trade union leaders.

The developing crisis is shown by the splits in the ruling elite. There are sections of the state apparatus and the bosses who favour a "tough" policy against all opposition movements. Their main concern is the zapatista movement and they have taken a number of measures in order to force them to surrender or eliminate them. They passed an indigenous rights law in Parliament which is opposed by the PRD and breaks all previous agreements between the government and the EZLN. They have launched a campaign to expel foreigners working in different NGOs from Chiapas (200 of them so far have been expelled) in order to get rid of unwanted witnesses. Finally they have stepped up the army presence in Chiapas, setting up army check-points, with army helicopters and planes flying at low height over the zapatista communities, etc. The government is also financing, arming and training paramilitary organisations, not only in Chiapas but in other conflict-ridden areas of the country. A number of the zapatista-created "autonomous municipalities" in Chiapas have already been disbanded by the army and recently the army carried out a massacre in Guerrero, allegedly trying to disband a unit of the People's Revolutionary army (EPR).

The repression is not, of course, aimed only at the zapatistas. Trade union activists, debtors organisations, peasant leaders, etc. all have been harassed with illegal arrests (like in the case of trade union leader Aquiles Magaña), assassination attempts (like in the case of debtors organisation leader and Marxist Federico Valdez in Chiapas) and actual murders (more than 600 PRD members have been murdered in the last 10 years). This increase in repression, nevertheless, is not a sign of strength on the part of the PRI regime, but of weakness. Increasingly, people are losing their fear of repression. Although strike levels are low, mainly due to high unemployment and job insecurity, the process of formation of democratic currents within the official unions is accelerating. Workers and peasants are joining the PRD as the only channel where they can express their aspirations for change, despite the corrupt and careerist nature of many of its leaders. The working class is the main factor in the situation in Mexico (and most of the other countries in Latin America) and has proved this time and again. The participation of the workers in the political scene, especially in the million strong May Day demonstrations in 1994 and 1995 marked an important milestone in the decomposition of the PRI regime.

The rise of the PRD is illustrated by their election victory in the Federal District (DF) last summer, which everyone though it was going to be won by the PAN, and also by the fact that the PRI lost the overall majority in Congress for the first time. Now the PRI bureaucracy and national government are trying to undermine and sabotage Cardenas as mayor of Mexico City in order to weaken him in the run-up to the presidential elections in 2000. Nevertheless the masses still have considerable illusions in the PRD (especially in Cardenas who, together with Manuel L�pez Obrador, represents its "left" wing). Inside the PRD the divisions between the left and the right (represented by Muñoz Ledo) are on the increase. The recent PRD Congress declared that the party was a "left wing party", a move which obviously reflects the pressure from below. The DF organisation of the party is controlled by the so-called Democratic Left Current.

It is possible that the PRD will win the elections in the year 2000. But if the PRD comes to power and does not carry out a revolutionary programme, it will inevitably prepare the way for reaction and a worse situation than before. In the context of a world slump and a collapse of the Mexican economy, they would come under the enormous pressure of contradictory forces. On the one hand imperialism would try to use the PRD's authority amongst the masses to carry through a policy of even more cuts and privatisations. On the other hand the workers and peasants would expect a PRD government to solve their most urgent problems: wages, trade union democracy, corruption, the land, etc. The initial euphoria would rapidly dissipate under conditions of capitalist crisis and the masses would go on the offensive, not even waiting for the government to act. The pressure of the mass movement will be reflected in the PRD with the emergence of a more clearly defined left wing increasingly faced to those leaders more openly linked to the bourgeoisie.

Nigeria after Abacha

After South Africa, the key country in Africa is Nigeria. It is the biggest country in Black Africa with a population of over 100 million. One in five Africans live in Nigeria. Since its formal independence in the early 1960s, Nigeria has experienced continual political crisis, civil war, and lengthy periods of military rule. The civilian government of Shagari, which presided over widespread corruption, the doubling of foreign debt and the destruction of the country's manufacturing base, prepared the way for the military coup of General Babangida in 1985, who in turn was replaced by Abacha. Under the military the country slipped further into economic crisis. Today Nigeria has debts of £19 billion. Despite its exceptionally valuable resources--Nigeria is the world's fifth-largest oil producer--the country suffers from an acute energy crisis. The breakdown in infrastructure has led to a position where only one of its refineries is working and its power stations are operating at only 32 per cent of their normal capacity. The impasse of Nigerian society is revealed by the fact that 64 per cent lack access to clean water and sanitation, half of the population is illiterate, and life expectancy is only 51 years.

As with the rest of the ex-colonial world, aid was linked to arms deals. Between 1988 and 1992 arms poured in to Nigeria: Italy provided $143 million worth, Czechoslovakia $134 million, France $74 million and Britain $75 million. Even after the annulment of the 1993 elections, and the hanging of Ken Sara-Wiwa, finance and arms came in from abroad.

In August 1994 the military government disbanded the national executives of the Nigerian Labour Congress, and the oil and gas workers' unions. The regime has clamped down hard on opponents, attacking trade unionists, closing universities and arresting oppositionists. But the Nigerian working class is one of the most powerful in Africa and has a militant tradition. The death of Abacha opens up an entirely new and stormy situation in Nigeria. On the 12th March 1998, we wrote to the Nigerian Marxists: "The bourgeoisie will move to abandon the military government when they feel the ground trembling beneath their feet. They may go towards a popular front--where the representatives of the working class are brought into the government to do the dirty work."

Far sooner than we anticipated, this perspective has been confirmed by events. The sudden death of Abacha is unlikely to have been the result of natural causes. More likely the imperialists, who have big interests in Nigeria were terrified of an explosion, which was clearly being prepared, and decided to get rid of him, since all their pressure had no effect. But in the same way that the resignation of Suharto marks the beginning of the revolution in Indonesia, so the death of Abacha is the first episode in the revolution in the most important country in Black Africa. The masses spontaneously came out onto the streets to express their joy at the removal of the hated oppressor. But now the bourgeoisie and the imperialists will move quickly to try to head off the movement of the masses, by shifting from the right boot to the left.

Whatever bourgeois regime is established we do not give it any shred of support politically. However, we must use the limited democratic rights that may be granted to step up our propaganda for the overthrow of the bourgeois regime and the coming to power of the working class. Again, we will stress the working class has to rely on its own power, its own strength, its own organisation and its own independent strategy and tactics. In no way can the Marxists support the so-called "democrat" Abiola. An independent position must be maintained. Even when Lenin stood for bourgeois democracy in Russia, he always opposed the liberal bourgeoisie under tsarism and in other countries. He constantly hammered away at the main theme: no faith in the bourgeois liberals! Trust only in your own forces to find a solution to the problems of the working class! It was the Stalinists who poisoned the movement with their class collaborationist ideas and their support for the liberals. The same thing is true for Nigeria. Were he alive today, Lenin would say to the Nigerian masses: rely on your own forces, strength, organisation. Have no illusions whatsoever in the liberal bourgeoisie. Of course, after a long period of military dictatorship there will be illusions in bourgeois democracy. We must take this into account and fight for all serious democratic demands, especially the demand for a Constituent Assembly. But we must link democratic demands to the socialist demands in a transitional way.

We do not call for support for one bourgeois government as opposed to another. However, the overthrow of the Junta, even if it leads to a new bourgeois government, would be a step forward. New conditions would be created that would permit the proletariat to organise more freely and give us new platforms for our ideas. Every single democratic right that is gained by the working class is a step forward to be used to further the cause of the socialist revolution. At the same time, we have no trust in any new "democratic" bourgeois government. That was the position of Lenin and Trotsky in 1917, as opposed to the conciliationism of Stalin and Kamenev who wanted to support the Provisional Government "in so far" as it supported the revolution.

The whole history of Nigeria, which has swung between "democracy" and dictatorship, is indicative of the instability of society. Only the force of mass action and revolution can force the Junta out, and lay the basis for the conquest of all the democratic demands. That was the reason NOT to vote for Abiola in the elections of June 1993. We must not reinforce any illusions in him. It was entirely false to urge the workers to vote for Abiola as the "lesser evil". The two parties are both in reality government parties. The military allowed the election on the basis of two official government-approved parties alone. That was a farce and we could not support it. Either way the ruling clique would win! In the United States we would not support any of the bourgeois candidates for the presidential election. That would be a betrayal of our class position. We campaign for the US Labour Party to put up a candidate against the bourgeoisie. When in Nigeria the Junta annulled the election, the only way forward was mass action by the trade unions and the working class. We are obviously in favour of the overthrow of the Junta, but have no illusions in the type of bourgeois democrats that are now being pushed forward.

The Nigerian bourgeoisie is afraid of bourgeois democracy because it fears the masses. Only when there was the threat of revolution did imperialism intervene to support the bourgeois democrats, as in Latin America. Even Abiola had, in effect, supported the Junta, allowing himself to be selected as a "reliable" man for the election. For that very reason he is now being pushed forward again as a supposed "democratic alternative". He poses no threat to the ruling elite or imperialism. The leadership of the Nigerian Labour Congress, now staffed with government stooges, is not prepared to fight, as it would mean conducting a revolutionary struggle. We must base ourselves on the working class, particularly its more militant sections like the oil workers. The Nigerian Marxists correctly call for committees of action to co-ordinate mass action and advance transitional demands such as the confiscation of the property of the imperialists, nationalisation, Constituent Assembly--this is the only really revolutionary policy: one that links the democratic demands with an anti-capitalist programme.

For the mass, a solution to their problems would be in "elections" or an "assembly" of some kind. A military police dictatorship always reinforces illusions in bourgeois democracy amongst the mass. All eyes are centred on the fall of the dictatorship and the return to "democracy". The masses see "democracy" as a means to solve their problems. For the "democratic" bourgeois it is a means of heading off the revolutionary potential in the masses. The Marxists have to take this situation into account. Trotsky makes the same point in relation to the Chinese revolution and the need for the Trotskyists to take into consideration the desire for democratic rights after being under the heel of Bonapartist dictatorship. This is a natural feeling after the experience of the military junta. "We want our basic democratic rights" will be a widespread feeling. We must use this feeling to our advantage. Our task is to link the desire for democratic rights--the right to organise trade unions and political parties, the right to strike, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, etc.--to the question of and a programme for, the socialist revolution. We must give a class content to this expression for democratic rights. We must expose the bourgeoisie's claim to be the champions of "democracy". This approach will give us the ear of the masses and an opportunity to explain the Marxist case.

The position of "democracy" first, then socialism later is a variety of Stalinism. Of course, the Constituent Assembly remains a rallying point for the working class, but is no solution in and of itself. Only by a workers' government taking over the economy can the problems begin to be solved. Of course only by spreading the revolution to the rest of Africa and the West can there be a real solution.

In view of the radicalisation of the masses and the fear of an uprising, the bourgeois reformists and left reformists are clearly afraid of this development and wish to avoid it. We cannot support a class collaborationist policy. Instead of adapting to the pressure of the petty bourgeois, the Marxists need to put forward clear class ideas. Of course, under conditions of semi-legality or illegality, it is difficult to maintain a clear class position. The truth of this assertion is shown by the experience of the Bolsheviks in 1917 when Stalin, Kamenev and Zinoviev wavered and succumbed to the pressure of the bourgeois and petty bourgeois public opinion and took the line of least resistance. But it is necessary to fight against the stream. Without a clear and independent class position, no way out is possible.

South Africa

South Africa remains the key country in the whole of Africa. For decades, the magnificent black proletariat has given ample proof of its bravery and its marvellous revolutionary instinct. Only the lack of the subjective factor stood in the way of a classical proletarian revolution in South Africa. Although events have evolved differently to what we had originally envisaged, the fundamental perspectives remain the same. On a capitalist basis there is no future for South Africa, any more than any other country. The main reason was that the ANC leadership, especially Mandela, after the fall of Stalinism, where quite prepared to make a deal with the white ruling class so that they would become part of it. In exchange they assured them that nothing fundamental would change. The ANC leaders committed themselves to capitalist policies, to the acceptance of the continued rule of the white big business community, no actions to be taken against those responsible for past crimes against the people, and so on. In other words, they agreed to a complete sell-out.

US imperialism had for some time recognised that the situation could not be maintained as before. The pressure and militancy of the black working class had become too strong as to be put down simply by repression. As always, reforms are a by-product of revolution. Terrified of the danger of a revolution in South Africa, Washington put heavy pressure on De Klerk and the other representatives of the white ruling class to force them to accept some kind of "majority rule", with a number of conditions. For once, overruling his petty bourgeois Afrikaner followers, De Klerk reached a deal with the ANC--something that we had not expected. In the past, whenever it looked as if a deal would be done against their interests, they always split away and succeeded in turning the situation back again. The National Party was itself the result of such a split before the War. It seemed most likely that something of the sort would occur again. But the specific weight of the Afrikaners (mainly farmers) had declined over the past few decades, to the point where they could not exercise the kind of decisive influence as in the past. In the moment of truth, the Afrikaners were reduced to impotent gestures and terrorism. It was big business and imperialism that decided.

Incidentally, it was by no means a foregone conclusion that the deal would be struck. All the elements that we based our perspectives on were present in the process. There were many instances in which the process seemed to be breaking down. One of them was after the assassination of Chris Hani when the black youth rioted and demanded action on the part of the ANC leaders. The only reply they got was "maintain calm". The white Afrikaners also resorted to violence and the actions of the ABW and the extreme right wing elements within the state apparatus were directed to try and destabilise the situation. They also resorted to a campaign of terror, making use of the services of the reactionary "Zulu" Inkatha movement which nearly prevented the elections from taking place in some regions. But in the end the elements working in favour of the agreement were stronger than what we had thought and the elections went ahead.

The fact that things have turned out differently to what we expected does not at all invalidate our general perspectives for South Africa. Even now there is no majority rule in South Africa, in any meaningful sense. The agreement arrived at between de Klerk and the ANC was for a National Government to be formed with representatives from all parties. It will not be until after the 1999 general elections that a normal procedure for the formation of governments will be in place.

We should not underestimate the effect of the conceding of some democratic rights amongst the black population. Inevitably, at the beginning, there were some illusions. The concession of some things like electricity and clean water in the townships, in particular, will be seen by the blacks as a major advance. But the hopes placed in the ANC leaders by the masses far exceed such concessions. The black workers and especially the youth have grown increasingly angry at the conduct of the ANC leaders. After generations of what amounted to slavery, the mass of black South Africans aspire to real equality and civilised conditions of existence. For the masses the question of democracy is always a concrete question, linked to jobs, wages and housing. The ANC-led government introduced through the misnamed Growth, Employment and Redistribution plan (GEAR) a number of attacks on trade union rights, privatisation of the utilities, etc. This forced the COSATU leaders (which described GEAR as a "programme of finance capital") to call a number of important strikes and movements. They did so mainly to let-off steam and maintain their prestige within the movement, but the clashes between an ANC coalition government and COSATU reflect a deeper trend.

As we said in 1992: "the 'reform' will not prevent social upheaval, especially in the event of a downturn in the world economy, which would be a catastrophe for the black population. It would also threaten the jobs and privilege of the whites, who would begin to desert de Klerk and move towards reaction. In the same way, as the mass of blacks realise that they have been deceived, the ANC's base will begin to decline. Crises and splits will open up within the ANC itself. Despite everything, it is not certain that agreement will be reached. But even if a deal is signed, that would solve none of the fundamental contradictions in South African society. It would usher in a new period of social uph