An answer to Oscar Parry’s most confused empricist vacillations between 3rd Campism and adaptation/concillation to Maoism! by Anthony Brain – Site Title ( https://atrotskyistblogwhichanalyseshistorytothecurrentworld.wordpress.com/2025/12/27/an-answer-to-oscar-parrys-most-confused-empricist-vacillations-between-3rd-campism-and-adaptation-concillation-to-maoism-by-anthony-brain/ )
Parry’s article which appears on the Socialist Party of England and Wales website notes that China is seen as an alternative to capitalism. The rest of the article largely fails to explains what I call the Chinese workers’ state despite the Stalinist bureaucracy which rules it has become a bigger phenomena since 2008 has grown in influence globally. In my analysis it represents in a distorted way the rise of Communism and even elements of implicit or explicit Trotskyism. In the last blog article I mentioned the resurgence of Communism and Trotskyism in Western Europe. This left shift could reflected in elections within France; Germany; Italy; and the British mainland state in the next year. Parry further deepens the SP’s break from the Marxist theory of the state. This goes back to many decades when they adapted to Social Democracy that they over-estimated their autumony of the capitalist classes and their states. In the historical materialist analysis developed by Marx and Engels it is the capitalist class has to finally clear which force comes to governmental and political power. This is why Trotsky explained the ruling class even pressures and housetrain the left Social Demorcrats to rule in their interests. In China and Russia are still degenerate and deformed workers’ states because Stalinism rule. In Eastern Europe; Russia; and China there is a sharing of power between the bureaucrats and different capitalist layers. In Russia and China the bureaucrats have less sharing of power with the capitalists. Parry’s major mistake in method is not to look at the role of the non-capitalist sectors/industries/and workplaces and the capital used by seperate capitalist layers. The bureaucrats in these countries determine whether some or all capitalists survive. The bureaucracy in China have control of the state apparatus to supress the capitalists. It is whose class interest the state defends which determines its’ class character. There is an adaptation to this empirical reality saying that 25% of capitalists have left China and a further 25% of thinking of doing so.. Parry does not not understand the method developed by Trotsky in the Revolution Betrayed about the contradictions of workers’ states as transitional societies between capitalism and socialism. One of the mistakes of Parry is to not to see the role of the role of the planned economy in developing the infrastructure and pubic works projects. As Trotsky argued that the rapid development of the Soviet economy during the 1930s proved the planned economy alternative to capitalism. Another major mistake of Parry is he dimisses the independent Stalinist- led socialist revolution of 1949-50 within China. Additionally Parry considerably downplays gains workers and layers of the peasantry gained and continue to benefit from this workers’ state established by a Socialist revolution. The Maoist leadership delayed this by making too many concessions to the capitalist KMT by violating class independence of workers in the mid-1920s led to the crushing of the Communist Party during 1927. The Maoist leadership then were ultra-left by not fighting for democratic demands for a constituent assembly. At least the PLA and Red Army ruled parts of China through the Soviet republic. The KMT routed them due to not making sufficient anti-capitalist measures. This led to the Long March. It was the resistance of the PLA and Red Army to Japanese Imperialism from 1937 to 1945 which transformed the Red Army from 50,000 to half a million fighters. Despite Soviet Stalinism opposing an independent socialist revolution of China their seizure of Manchuria strengthened the PLA. The Maoists hesitated in establishing the workers’ state. They did this because they needed to expropriate the capitalists in 1950 in order to stop American Imperialism invading China once they captured North Korea. Contemporary Trotskyists in this period argued the Chinese socialist revolution was the most important since the October 1917 Russian socialist revolution We saw it as one of the biggest vindications of Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution in practice. The Maoists carried this out in a distorted way because Chinese capitalism would not compromise and most of them sought their destruction. The growth of the Chinese economy since the mid-1990s show application of permanent revolution in practice. To complete the Chinese Permanent Revolution requires the overthrow of global capitalism and a political revolution which topples Stalinism. Parry never mentions Trotsky or Trotskyism once. Is he using 3rd campism as a cover to adapt or even being concillatory to Maoism. He never spells out whether if capitalists are purged what to do? There are implications that the left should do work within the Chinese Communist Party. The key task of Chinese Trotskyists is to build the forces for political revolution. There might be layers of workers which can be broken from Chinese Stalinism. It is dialectically ironic a 3rd camp force the SP, there are layers reflect extreme Pabloism to liquidate in Stalinist parties.. It was important that the pre-Jack Barnes American SWP and Mandel defeated Pablo. There is no mention of how the Great Leap Forward led to tens of millions of deaths. Finally there is no comment on the counter-revolutionary character of the so-called “Cultural Revolution” from 1966 to 1969. Xi Xinping who is current President of China and his father were purged for 10 to 12 years. It is dialectically ironic that Mao purged Xi’s father due to one of the worse inter-bureaucratic battles. Despite this history of conflict it is dialectically ironic that the biggest Bonapartist since Mao is Xi due to the bureaucracy’s fear of political revolution. As Trotsky analysed in the 1930s every Stalinist leader is a Bonapartist trying to salvage an unstable caste through manouving between the various sectional interests. It is true that the biggest capitalist inroads was in the late 1970s and early 1980s was in China before Russia. Parry has an undialectical and a-historical in overplaying the role of private capital within these workers’ states. At least Parry admits emperically that a lot of the bureaucrats have their wealth in nationalised industries/sectors of those economies.. This is another major indication that global capitalism can be replaced. Stalinism is a major barrier to stop this happening. It is due to this American Trotskyist Tom Kerry called them as the most contradictory force. When workers’ states are in severe crisis private capital can on top of Stalinist bureaucratic pillage can really threaten capitalist restoration. This was a danger in China from 1978 to 1989 within China. At least the bureaucracy within China controlled the capitalist forces. In Eastern Europe after the capitalist inroads following failed incipient political revolutions Stalinism imploded with the capitalist layers seriously threatening these workers’ states. The threat of incipient political revolution with the Tianman Square protests of 1989 led to the fall of the Deng wing during 1994. As a counter-revolutionary caste the Chinese bureaucracy closed ranks to crush that revolutionary threat. Over 5 years it played into the hands of those bureaucrats who wanted to develop the planned economy. I found some interesting biographical information about Putin. His grandfather was a cook for Lenin. Putin’s brother was killed in the German-Soviet war of 1941 and 1945. Several of his relatives were killed in that war. His grandfather also worked for Stalinist intelligence services. When Putin studied at Leningrad University the bureaucracy were even discussing during the early to mid-1970s if capitalist layers emerged how they could resist this. They also were also prepared to allow capitalist inroads. Parry has an idealist view that the bureaucrats defended the workers’ states because of education and upbringing. As Trotsky and Belguim Trotskyist Ernest Mandel argued Stalinism suppresses both the capitalists and workers. This is why Mandel developed the triangilar struggle between capitalists; Stalinist bureaucrats and workers. The strategy of what became BRICS was being developed. Both the Russian and Chinese bureucrats main strategy is to back those capitalists who are coming into conflict with Imperialism. Developing infrastructure in these semi-colonies by the workers’ states pose an alternative to capitalism to these masses, especially in the semi-colonies. Trotskyists correctly oppose the betrayals of Stalinism with their stages theory which justifies subordinating the masses struggles with their own domestic capitalists within the semi-colonies. To conclude this document Parry has written the most confused article on China in decades. Like the American revisionist James Burhham his method is empricism. Pressures bearing down on Burnham led him to join the Imperialist camp. The social pressures on Parry is between 3rd campism and Maoism. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#39907): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39907 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116973601/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
