Marxist theory is our sharpest weapon in the class struggle. Here, you can find our most recent theoretical articles. For historical articles, click here
You can also visit our education hub to find a selection of articles, books, talks and reading guides.
On October 1, Boris Yefimov, Stalin’s loyal cartoonist, died. In his
works he followed all the twists and turns of the Stalinist regime. He
was particularly vicious in his portrayal of oppositionists and the
Trotskyists in particular.
For over a century Marxists have argued the need to take the banks and
other financial institutions into public ownership as part of the
socialist transformation of society. The founding document of
scientific socialism, the ‘Communist Manifesto’, in 1848 called for,
"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a
national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."
"Neoliberalism", sometimes called "market
fundamentalism", i.e. the policy of non-intervention by the state in
the economy, has been the dominant ideology of the bourgeoisie for close to
three decades, involving widespread privatisation and all the
other policies that go with it. The present economic meltdown,
however, is forcing governments to intervene, regulate, and even
nationalise firms because they have no choice. So is "neoliberalism"
dead?
This week we publish in 3 parts a history of British Trotskyism by Martin
Upham. This was a PhD thesis on the subject, and while we would not
agree with all the points raised in it, we believe it deserves a wider
audience, particularly for those interested in the history of our
movement. For a more in-depth study of the subject readers are urged to
consult Ted Grant’s book on the the History of British Trotskyism.
Together with the same author’s
‘Materialist conception of history’ this is a brilliant introduction to
historical materialism. Clearly there are limits to the ‘what if’ way of
looking at historical processes, but the reader will no doubt find Plekhanov’s
conclusion that even such over-arching figures as Napoleon or Robespierre did
not fundamentally change the broad course of historical development compelling.
After all Plekhanov is defending the basic materialist conception of history,
i.e. that progress is determined by material forces that manifest themselves in
the activities of millions of people. He explains it well. In doing so he is
illuminating the interplay of accident and necessity in history.
This week we publish in 3 parts a history of British Trotskyism by Martin
Upham. This was a PhD thesis on the subject, and while we would not
agree with all the points raised in it, we believe it deserves a wider
audience, particularly for those interested in the history of our
movement. For a more in-depth study of the subject readers are urged to
consult Ted Grant’s book on the the History of British Trotskyism.
Last month was the 68th anniversary of the brutal assassination of Leon
Trotsky by a Stalinist agent. We commemorate this event by publishing
the transcription of his address to the N.Y. Hippodrome Meeting. The
speech "I Stake My Life!" was delivered by telephone from Mexico City
for the opening event of the Dewey Commission on the Moscow Trials.
Today we publish in 3 parts a history of British Trotskyism by Martin Upham. This was a PhD thesis on the subject, and while we would not agree with all the points raised in it, we believe it deserves a wider audience, particularly for those interested in the history of our movement. For a more in-depth study of the subject readers are urged to consult Ted Grant’s book on the the History of British Trotskyism.
Production
is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those
able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an
“army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of
losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a
profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great
hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more
unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit
motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for
an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to
increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of
labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I
mentioned before.
Harry DeBoer wrote this pamphlet in 1987 to inspire
a new generation of trade union activists with the militant traditions of US
labour’s past. As a young man he worked in the Minneapolis coal yards and
became caught up and radicalised in the Minneapolis ‘teamster rebellion’ of
1934. As he makes clear, this was a model strike, and it was led by Marxists.
(See our review of ‘Teamster Rebellion’ by Farrell Dobbs, another Trotskyist
and strike leader.)
William Morris is probably known best today as a designer of wallpaper
and fabrics. This is a travesty. Morris was a revolutionary socialist,
a Marxist. Morris read Capital when it was only published in German,
and therefore unavailable to most British workers. Inspired, he joined the Democratic Federation, later called the
Social Democratic Federation, the first British Marxist organisation.
From that time on he was a tireless agitator for socialism till his
last days.
A reply to ‘Comrade Clifford’ is an under-rated pamphlet by Ted Grant, partly because it has been fairly inaccessible for much of the time since it was written in 1966. Another reason it may be under-appreciated is because Brendan Clifford and his little sect have long since disappeared from the political scene. But, as usual with Ted, the arguments of this Stalinist and Maoist are just the basis for a wide-ranging Marxist survey of the entire history of Stalinism and the resistance to it nationally and internationally from 1917 to the Second World War and beyond.